Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 31

< December 30	January 1 >

Purge server cache

December 31[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 no consensus, leaning to merge/redirect. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lindsay Lohan Remixes[edit]

An article on one of Lohan's songs is good enough. An individual article documenting the remixes of her songs is completely pointless. Remove it. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect to Lindsay Lohan and don't waste our time with another needless AFD. --Rob 19:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another needless AfD? Laughable. If this one is needless, then every single other AfD is needless. If I believe that there is an article that is not required on Wikipedia, I will nominate it for deletion. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't appreciate why I said it was needless. I didn't vote a simple keep, I voted merge/redirect. You can place a redirect without an AFD. If this was List of Jo Blough Remixes, an AFD would be warranted. You could put in a redirect by youself, in under a minute. Instead, you'll waste 5-days, and several peoples time. Also, next time you do an AFD, be sure to put the text "AFD" in the edit summary, so watchers of the article are aware of what you've done. Also, as deletion is not "minor" please don't mark the addition of the AFD tag as a "minor edit", as you did. --Rob 20:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would rather list it here then start a possible edit war with several other users. A poll is better-suited than an argument. By the way, I will click the "minor edit" if I want to. Please don't start a silly argument with me here. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're welcome to use minor edit when you want, and not put in an edit description if you don't want. However, you'll find that others will assume all your edits to be major, and in need of review if you follow such a practice. --Rob 20:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- Rob 20:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge is certainly reasonable. This is not, and doesn't look like it even could be, an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure I agree that the Afd is pointless tho. It gives us the chance to come to the conclusion that this list should not be an entire article by itself. I've no prejudice against some of the content being merged elsewhere, as appropriate. Friday (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. BTW, depending how the Afd goes, it might make it harder to merge. There seems to be a growing feeling that a prior Afd prevents merging after it's over. I don't agree with this even a little bit, but many other editors apparently think that way. Also, I'm not sure this is useful as a redirect, so even if merging is the main goal, the deletion question probably still needs to be resolved. Friday (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge/redirect I agree with Friday. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 20:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I though generally merge+delete (combined) is not an option, due to GFDL, which requies retention of edit history of old article, if its content are used in another article, in order to ensure attribution requirements are met. --Rob 20:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, I'm far from an expert on licensing issues. At any rate, there's no actual content here, so maybe it's not an issue in this case? If the names of notable remixes get used elsewhere, who's to say that it came from this article and not from a CD jacket or somewhere else? Friday (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- True, there isn't much content. So delete/redirect (no merge) would be legit. --Rob 21:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no merge or redirect. Article fails to establish the notability of any of these remixes or if they were officially commissioned by Lohan's record label, and there's currently no way to verify that these remixes exist at all. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remixography of Mariah Carey. Extraordinary Machine 22:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extraordinary Machine nailed my opinion: Unless a remix is demonstrably known as well as (or better than) the original, its worthiness of any mention at all is dubious at best. I say, lose it completely. Radio Kirk ^{(talk to me)} 23:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the Mariah Carey precedent. -- Mikeblas 17:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. I don't believe this belongs in the main article. I would also remind Mr. Kirk that vote tallies are frowned upon. -- JJay 21:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see... Radio Kirk talk to me 21:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...because like in this case they are prone to error, POV based and designed to influence voting trends. They often lead to bold predictions or statements of fact not grounded in reality. They can mislead or intimidate. In short, they are disruptive and do not facilitate reaching consensus. -- JJay 21:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be honest, I find that something of an overreaction. There was no running tally; rather, I intentionally waited until there was a significant period of inactivity before noting the tally. If you wish to see that as "disruptive", well, that's your prerogative; I happen to disagree. Radio Kirk talk to me 22:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was this unexplained edit, which was diruptive. The closing admin can count, and won't need your tally assistance. --Rob 22:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Radio Kirk talk to me 22:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

After nearly two days of nonactivity, the vote (including multiple options) stands at 6 for deletion, 3 for merging, 2 for redirection. Radio Kirk talk to me 17:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect to Lindsay Lohan. I agree. having this separate list is confusing. Atrian 03:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Information is verifiable, and would only crowd the main Lindsay Lohan. This is exactly the sort of thing that usually warrants a page of its own when the main page gets too big. Lists of things in particular are good candidates from splitting off from other pages. Turnstep 17:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't feel that a list of this type is an indiscriminate collection of information? It sure doesn't look like an encyclopedia article to me. Friday (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, this is not a random collection of data, this is a tightly focused list. It certainly does not fall into any of the eight examples on the aforementioned page. Turnstep 18:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Lindsay Lohan article. --Terence Ong ^Talk 13:14, 5 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. Mind matrix 01:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Narwee High School[edit]

A now-closed school whose only claim to fame is that a politician once attended there is not sufficient for inclusion in WP -- (aeropagitica) 23:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 02:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per nom -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree. Catherine breillat 00:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We normally Keep High Schools, but I see no use for a closed high school --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a difficult question because Wikipedia is not a news source; if we keep high schools that are open now, we should, in principle, keep high schools that are currently closed. Abstain CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 00:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCH, because the history of this school is imporant to coverage of education in Narwee, and because wikipedia is not a news service. ~~Closed high schools might be more of a merge candidate than open ones.~~ Kappa 01:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is no longer a school, so is not covered by the Wikischools project. Only claim to fame is as ex-school of PM - should be noted in that article. Does not need article of its own. Batmanand 01:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that will come as news to the wikischools project. Kappa 01:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with city or district per WP:SCH or barring that delete it. No longer needed since closed.Gateman1997 01:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you really think of wikipedia as a directory? Kappa 01:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, but I also don't think of it as a dump for a blurb on every school on Earth, especially stubs on closed schools.Gateman1997 01:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Obviously WP:SCH is failing to make any progress. Kappa 02:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - How do you figure? If someone expands this article it will meet the keep criteron. But as is it does not.Gateman1997 05:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Deletionists are still trying to get schools deleted, and not showing any respect for the views of the other side. Kappa 05:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Where are you seeing disrespect by deletionists? I see nothing but merge and keep suggestions here by anyone involved in the SCH debate.Gateman1997 05:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Funny thing, Kappa - it looks the same from this side. I also think any concerns you have about WP:SCH have to be examined in the light that you have not participated in discussion there. Had you shown the least interest in showing some respect yourself, I might be more sympathetic to your viewpoint. D e nni ☯ 01:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete quid auctor inquit CaveatLector 02:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. The school existed and has a history. It remains important for 1,000s of people and therefore lives on. Do we delete a bio when the subject dies? Maybe we should also delete World Trade Center, Philadelphia Civic Center or the 29 articles in Category:Defunct football (soccer) venues. -- JJay 03:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- and the Roman Empire for that matter... Kappa 03:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...or Oropom language and the 72 other articles in Category:Extinct languages. -- JJay 04:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's absurd. Are you really comparing a closed high school to the World Trade Center? Neutrality^talk 04:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course, it's absurd. I'm saying the fact that the high school closed should have no impact on keeping the article. What is your reason for voting delete?-- JJay 05:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I actually prefer working on articles on closed high schools because you don't get the same steady stream of vandalism from current students. - SimonP 04:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neutrality^talk 04:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my opinion, schools are inherently notable even after they close. This school even makes a claim of notability as it is the alma matter of a PM. Movementarian 05:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally PM means Prime Minister, not premier. --Rob 05:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know, I realised he was a premier as opposed to a prime minister after rereading the article. I didn't feel it was important enough to correct. Thanks anyway. Movementarian 07:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. This article potentially could be useful, if relatively obscure. But it will never be exanded if it is deleted. --Hansnesse 07:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- where will all the information go? My own school has closed, and there's nothing about my school recorded anywhere online. Is Wikipedia the site to come to for information when all others fail? It can be. Let it happen. - Longhair 07:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As this is an encyclopedia rather than a newspaper, closure isn't relevant. CalJW 08:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a school which is now closed has no value in WP - it barely registers as notable anyway, but now that it doesn't exist it has no saving grace. Delete as non-notable. doktorb | words 10:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per high schools policy. Or do you intend deleting articles about Eton or Oxbridge if/when they finally close? Jcuk 10:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not the point. This school doesn't have much reason to be notable in the first place, so now that it has closed, it loses all real notablitiy. My former schools have no reason to be listed here and I have no rush to add them just to prove a point doktorb | words 11:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its entirely the point. Elvis Presley is no longer a singer, should we delete him too? What about Elizabeth I? Or the World Trade Centre? 80.177.152.156 14:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because the school is closed does not mean it is insignificant. Even if a politician did not attend that school, keeping an article on it (and expanding it) would be a valuable tool to historians who do not live in the immediate area of the school and do not have access to town records. Is that not one of the purposes of Wikipedia? To provide information that might otherwise be hard to access? Being a former public school, it is certainly significant enough to include in the ranks of Wikipedia. firenexx 15:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the information about a closed school remains germane. Should we delete the article on Hurricane Katrina? It's over! Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep. As far as I am concerned, the point of concern here is that the school is non-notable, not that it has closed. The fact that it has closed merely guarrantees that it will not become more notable in the future. The comparison to Elvis is absurd- Elvis is gone, but he became notable before he went. This school did not. Im not terribly familiar with WP:SCH, but it seems to me that it considers high schools to be relevant, and I dont consider the dead/alive aspect to be of particular relevance. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 19:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, even if this school is now closed. Carioca 19:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it looks like valid (granted, somewhat minor) historical info to me. --Bookandcoffee 19:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply not notable. --Thorri 22:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether it is closed or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia should record the past as well as the present. --Zero 03:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High schools are notable (as has been established a hundred gajillion times), especially if important politicians are alumni. Open/closed status is irrelevant. - Randwicked 03:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one, not least because the current Premier of New South Wales attended the school. --Daveb 15:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Closed or not, this school is notable. Evil Eye 00:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with city or district per WP:SCH D e nni ☯ 01:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current Premier of the state went there, for chrissakes. Ambi 01:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We don't delete articles on people just because they're dead. School seems to have a notable history. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per precedent; notability is not an issue here. -Rebelguys2 22:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:SCH, closed or not. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 23:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Terence Ong ^Talk 13:52, 5 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 speedy delete under CSD G4 (recreation of deleted material) --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Day[edit]

Unferifiable as per WP:V; I googled as best I could and I can't come up with anything referencing a day of commemoration for a prizefight that never happened. Delete. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 00:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am also unable to verify that the day is commemorated via various searches. Should be deleted unless sources can be provided. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same as above - also the user who has provided the information refuses to provide any sources of his own. -localzuk 00:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable unless good verifiable sources are provided prior to expiration of AfD discussion. As it says at the bottom of every editing box, "Content... must be verifiable," and the policy is clear: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit. Editors should therefore provide references. Any edit lacking a source may be removed." In this case, that would be the entire article. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC) P. S. Rocky Marciano was a native of Brockton, MA. I just did an online search of four Massachusetts newspapers—the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Springfield Union-News, and Worcester Telegram—for articles containing both "Rocky Marciano" and "Valdes," covering the last decade or so. There were three hits, all articles about boxing; none of them mentions any "Rocky Day." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 00:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. If unverifiable, it has to go. Batmanand 01:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

**Not Delete' Hmmm, some people waste their time to put important things here, but others say delete it, Rocky day is not a hoax and if you read it its a day of good intentions. Talk about War in Iraq, majority of people believed it was good in usa, now they do not. Now, if something is not popuplar or not known today, that does not mean it will not be tomorrow, simple as it sounds, so if you idiots want to delete it, fine, but when the day becomes popular I will make sure Wikipedia has no right to have these articles, because you people run the way you like it and think the way you like it and in your small minds you think you are rights based on the lousy standards you created.

It would also be good to grow up and realize that google does not carry everything in the world, then again, we may agree with you, you do have a little point, but in that case, instaed of deleting you can always put an asterix to the side that claims that neutrality of this article could be disputed... BUt of course, people with little minds can not think of that...

Closing comment: This article has been deleted 9 times now. If it pops up next time it should be protected against recreation. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrazor[edit]

Note: The author of the article, Neoseeker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has also vandalized this AfD.
Does not exist, other than in a user profile on neoseeker J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    00:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks meaningless to me. Catherine breillat 00:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 00:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. --NaconKantari 00:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as complete bollocks. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is rubbish. Plain and simple. Batmanand 01:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as above --Petros471 14:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is not for stuff made up in school one day. --Pboyd04 16:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Herostratus 16:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NeoJustin 18:29, December 31, 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. Mind matrix 00:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of sexual abuse as a social problem[edit]

This subject may well be a worthwhile addition to an encyclopædia but the page should not be created and left to hang without including factual information and citation of sources -- (aeropagitica) 00:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may be poorly written, but the main idea of the topic is there. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on the title I had thought I was probably going to vote for a merge into an existing article. Then I read the article and realized that it has no information to merge. It just has unsourced declarations, which Wikipedia will never be in short supply of. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the moment. Tag as a stub, see if in a month or so it has improved then reconsider. Topic is of potential significance. Batmanand 01:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's been there since sept 21, and is still content-free. Whoever wrote it seems to have lost interest. --Squiddy 10:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Squiddy. Batmanand, I would agree with you on many topics, but this one is too big, and potentially troublesome, to leave hanging as it is. If someone with something useful to write comes along they can recreate the article (some different name probably better anyway). Herostratus 16:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm point taken. On reflection, I think I agree with it. Article can be remade if necessary. Original vote gotten rid of, new vote: Delete. Batmanand 18:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this should be covered in sexual abuse until it grows too big and gets split out; right now this is a stub. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the comments above. NeoJustin 18:30, December 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per above. --Muchness 18:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it feels more like a ghost town than a stub. Let it be recreated later if someoen wants to write it. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 19:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Come on people, we should have an article about the history of sexual abuse as a social problem, it's an interesting subject. I'd write it myself but I have other things to worry about, like high school. People can always expand it, I'm sure there are people who'd do it. --Thorri 22:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my reply to that would be: We should definitely have information about the history of sexual abuse as a social problem. But only once we actually have that information should we have an article on it. As JZGYK says, it's much better to develop the subject at the existing article, and spin off into a sub-article if and when we have enough for such an article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see your point. Oh, well, the article would've prolly been deleted anyway. --Thorri 14:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above and almost empty. Pavel Vozenilek 23:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't know that this is the best title anyway. Wouldn't "History of sexual abuse" suffice. Do we really need to include "as a social problem"??? What for? To differentiate it from say the "History of sexual abuse as a recreational activity" Blackcats 03:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until such a time as the relevant section of the Sexual abuse article gets so big as to warrent an independant article. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 21:32, 5 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clash of the Sky Galleons[edit]

Gets 6 google hits which might be mirrors. Looks like something somebody made up. [1]. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Craw's Revenge (talk • contribs)

Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 00:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Batmanand 01:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Airumel 06:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is verifiable on Amazon.com [2], but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Movementarian 09:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete crystal ball. --Pboyd04 16:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Shanel 06:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deepdene methodist church[edit]

Non notable church, Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 02:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. To me Churches are by definition notable. (Oh and I am not aBible-basher or anything ike that) Batmanand 01:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sorry, but no. Churches are no more notable for being churches than post offices are for being post offices or junkyards are for being junkyards. This article (this church) needs to be in some way notable to be included in Wikipedia. Unless the church has a famous pastor or participated in a famous event, I say delete as vanity. CaveatLector 02:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 02:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the assertions of notability are essentially self-promotion of Lindsay Falvey, the author. Gazpacho 02:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Batmanand. -- JJay 04:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is just silly. There are tens of 1000s of churches. Denominations are notable. Religions are notable. Churches are just instances or (even less) buildings. If every church is notable, then so is every Scout troop, Jaycees chapter, and Union local. Airumel 06:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are also tens of thousands of schools, and yet they are all classed as notable - even when closed (see VfD about three above this one) Batmanand 12:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Will churches be to 2006 what schools were to 2005? I hope not. pfctdayelise 03:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per CaveatLector and Airumel, religions and denominations are notable, but individual churches are generally non-notable and generally should not have encyclopedia articles of their own. This article appears to be one of a series of articles created by User:Lindsay.falvey about himself and things associated with his life and career; per WP:AUTO such autobiographical articles should be discouraged. --Metropolitan90 07:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 07:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Churches may be notable for their architecture or for their history. This article asserts nothing beyond the routine functions of a house of worship: important to the congregation yet of no broader significance that might merit encyclopedic interest. Durova 08:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Durova-- Couldnt have put it better myself. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable.--cj | talk 11:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Rob 10:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note should be Deepdene Uniting Church, Rev Dr A. Harold Wood OBE is notable but association here not. Paul foord 12:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ambi 13:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NeoJustin 18:26, December 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. It sounds like a nice place, but not something that deserves an encyclopedia article.Benami 03:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If kept this should be moved to Deepdene Methodist Church per WP:NC. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
Just as noteable as any of the 1000's of other wikipedia articles on schools (example list)/churches/shopping centres/etc all around the world. (see next point)

From Wikipedia:Schools regarding which school articles should be kept:
It has 3 or more full and complete sentences of verifiable, factual information that is not published solely by the school itself, or already included/better located on a district or city wiki article (ie: phone book information does not count toward the sentence total, that includes city, address, district, or phone number(s)). Such information can be included in the article but will not count toward the sentence total.

Linked to from A. Harold Wood, who was an advocate and player in starting the Uniting Church of Australia. He was a minister at Deepdene Methodist Church upon retirement (according to the biography). (this is also a reason under Wikipedia:Schools to keep an article relating to schools)

If deleting, merge into the A. Harold Wood article instead, to add more information on what A. Harold Wood did with his life?

--Phanton 03:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. —Felix the Cassowary 07:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delte, nn church. --Terence Ong ^Talk 13:58, 5 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 --Ichiro 05:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Invasion of Cyprus[edit]

Nominated once before.
Completing nomination started byt another user. Claimed to be fork. Abstain for now. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Brnneman nominated on my behalf, thank you. I nominated it because this article is a mish mash of information which already exists in better form in other articles. The history and politics of the invasion is covered in Cyprus dispute, the physical aspects of the invasion are covered in Operation Atilla, the casualties to both communities are covered in Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict. The only reason this article exists is because it was a POV fork of Cyprus dispute from a subsequently banned user. If someone can suggest what unique purpose this article can serve in light of the other articles, then I will take note, but at the moment i cannot see a use for it. --A.Garnet 01:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Undoubtedly notable, POV disputes should be cleared up but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Batmanand 01:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Merge and redirect Operation Atilla with this article. If is far more likely for someone to search for this title than the operation name. Movementarian 05:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tottaly agree with the above. Merge and redirect with Operation Atilla, also merge with Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict. Michalis Famelis 18:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup Real notable event, --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/cleanup per above. -- MicahMN | μ 08:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with changes per Movementarian. Durova 08:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Movementarian. Operation Atilla is a much shorter article under a less obvious name. --Squiddy 10:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletions. --Rob 11:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep substantial article on important historical event, still relevant now. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously notable event. Carioca 19:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is the best title for the main article. Blackcats 03:50, 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. Mind matrix 00:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Cat Dillion[edit]

Delete Vanity band stub, google test 57. BACbKA 00:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable musical group, in addition only 20 of those 57 hits not ommitted, and most of them from Wikipedia mirrors. —Quarl ^(talk) 2005-12-31 00:47Z

Delete the band is non-notable. -- (aeropagitica) 01:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above. Nn, maybe vanity. Batmanand 01:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no known albums. nn. --Pboyd04 16:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 19:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete My Cat Dillon has 55 google results (including the Wikipedia one), but they were all relevant results. User:Alvinrune

Keep Google is not the answer to everything, I hate Google with a passion its not very helpfull, so why would that matter? Do you people go out of your way to delete other people's pages?, what is wrong with you.... User:CleverScreenName

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC - Super Sam 11:05, 5 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. Mind matrix 00:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Barton[edit]

Unverified possible hoax. Have searched on muliple terms associated with this article and can find nothing relevant. JLaTondre 00:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless biographical details can be verified. Rumour is not sufficient reason for inclusion on WP. -- (aeropagitica) 01:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails the Google test and is based on rumour. Unverifiable. Batmanand 01:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2005-12-31 02:36Z

Delete per above. --Pboyd04 16:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NeoJustin 18:26, December 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Alan Barton was a singer from the UK [3] he lived in Heckmondwike, Yorkshire and his son went to the Grammar School and was in the sixth form when I joined. [4]--Designerspark 21:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Quarl and Batmanand. -- Super Sam 11:05, 5 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 speedied and protected from recreation. This is content frequently posted by the North Carolina vandal and is a hoax. android 79 01:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mean Croboys[edit]

This article looks to be hoax, has only 85 hits from a google search [5]. Delete as nonsense. KnowledgeOf Self | talk 00:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. For a TV series spanning 8 years, 85 hits is too little. If "Fox" is added to the searchstring, only 8 results are found. Bjelleklang - talk 01:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Verify The name is not recognised at IMDb nor is it associated with Mike Judge, named in the production boxout. If there is no verification Delete -- (aeropagitica) 01:17, 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 keep --Ichiro 05:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobst Boy[edit]

This person is not notable. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep verifiable and covered by major media (NY Times). -- MisterHand 02:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MisterHand. Another great story I missed despite the major media coverage. Part of the whole phenomena of living in public spaces exemplified by Merhan_Karimi_Nasseri. -- JJay 04:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable. The story was very widely reported, and he even appeared on Good Morning America.--Fallout boy 05:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Nelson Ricardo 23:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable KBi 19:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Terence Ong ^Talk 14:02, 5 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. Mind matrix 00:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnarok Wrestling[edit]

Note: This nomination was first made on Dec. 30 but an error kept it from being transcluded onto the page. It has been transcluded to Dec. 31 instead.
This nomination also includes Mitch Brown (wrestler).
This is an independent circuit for wrestling; it was started in 2004 by "the Brown family and friends". Mention is made of the fact that it has "virtually no money" and "an entire roster of wrestlers under the age of eighteen" -- which, personally, makes me wonder how "the winner [of the annual Hardcore Battle Royal, I think] will become number one contender for the United States Championship." In short, I think these guys are working hard, and having a good time doing what they're doing, and they might just end up famous someday -- but that day isn't today, and until that day, there's not enough notability here for Wikipedia. Sorry, guys. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per own nom. In the My Money Is Not Only Where My Mouth Is, It Got There First department, I have a friend who wrestles for an independent fed which, to be honest, sounds larger and more notable than this one. I haven't tried to make pages for him or even for the fed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Backyard wrestling is too fringe for any such "federation" to qualify as notable. Haikupoet 05:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable as above -max rspct leave a message 21:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Completely NN. - Liontamer 22:15, 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. --Shanel 06:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assmunch[edit]

Continuing AFD for Assclown. —Quarl ^(talk) 2005-12-31 01:18Z

Delete as non-notable recent neologism. —Quarl ^(talk) 2005-12-31 01:20Z

Move to Wiktionary. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn. mikka (t) 03:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since Wiktionary does not need this crap. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I might be revealing a little POV here, but just because Beevis & Butthead used it doesn't mean it belongs here. I second the above notion, which is that I don't even see why Wiktionary needs this entry. I don't know what the standards are for Wiktionary, whether slang and vulgar terms are accepted, but I cannot see the value in this. GestaltG 18:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Most dictionaries include slang words, and Wiktionary is no exception. To know what the standards are, please read the Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. Uncle G 19:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Granting that, I wonder if Wiktionary needs to include vulgar slang? Vulgar slang would be different than mere slang; there is a big difference between say, "yinz" (Pittsburgh slang) and the entry in question, Assmunch. I would also challenge the Attestation angle for inclusion in Wiktionary; mention of the term in Friends and Beevis & Butthead wouldn't seem to meet any of the four criteria for Attestation. If it were sent over to Wiktionary, it would be likely challenged there by people who know much more than I do; in that event, it would be like "passing the buck" to Wiktionary GestaltG 20:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The term under consideration fails the Wiktionary criteria: (1) it is not clearly in widespread use, (2) it is not used in a well-known work, (3) it doesn't appear in a refereed academic journal, and (4) it is not used in permanently-recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year (as far as i know). —Quarl ^(talk) 2005-12-31 20:36Z

Whether a word is a slang word, vulgar or otherwise, is irrelevant as far as the Wiktionary inclusion criteria are concerned. You are conflating two different things, by the way. Whether this word satisfies the Wiktionary criteria for inclusion is not the same as whether this specific article should be transwikified to Wiktionary. Sometimes words will satisfy the criteria for inclusion, but Wiktionary already has articles, or simply could do better (than the dictionary articles mis-placed in Wikipedia) from a standing start. Uncle G 05:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Pogoman 21:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism/worthless. Incognito 05:16, 5 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. howch e ng {chat} 18:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Crips[edit]

This was tagged for speedy, but seems notable if verified. From the talk page, (posted by User:Check two you): "As a gang expert, "Asian Crips" can refer to anybody of Asian descent who are affiliated with the Crips. It's not entirely Hmong. And using Google, none of this info are shown when refering to "Asian Crips." Kappa 01:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried to disambiguate a bit with the normal crips gang. Still unverified though. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 07:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kappa. Essentially unverifiable. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 00:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinionated Voice[edit]

Tagged as a speedy with the justification "just describing a personal blog has no encyclopedic value". WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 01:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable website (Alexa rank of 1,983,048). —Quarl ^(talk) 2005-12-31 02:33Z

Delete no blog started in August 2005 isd likely to have achieved notability by now, and this one is no exception. In fact, it looks a lot like vanispamcruftvertisement. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is of notable encylopedic value. This blog should be considered of value, even if just to provide an alternate opinion, perspective and information to the blogs listed here that are islamophobic/anti-Islam and the articles that equate Muslims and those that value the Shariah as Islamists. Jamalx 18:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jamalx (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the page(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD —Quarl ^(talk) 2005-12-31 22:03Z

Delete - It might serve a useful purpose, but WP is WP:NOT a webdirectory. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. -- Super Sam 11:08, 5 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. Author has requested deletion on the article page. Mind matrix 15:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DeltaWolf Military[edit]

"The DeltaWolf military was founded in the year of 2003 on Neoseeker.com." That's probably all you need to know. I hate to clutter AFD with this, but the author removed my speedy-delete tag, and then added a copyright message (!) and the helpful hint, "If the following viewers think this is nonsence, its not really." Delete. bikeable (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is something made up and it also asserts its own copyright, thereby violating the conditions by which it was uploaded. User:Simomatic please take it somewhere else. Kappa 01:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertising & author vanity page. -- (aeropagitica) 01:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous comments. —Quarl ^(talk) 2005-12-31 02:32Z

Delete per above. VegaDark 03:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fan-fiction group, author vanity, and advertising for a potential sprite comic that doesn;t exist yet (crystal balling). -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 04:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The correct answer is E. All of the above. Movementarian 09:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 00:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team Gizka[edit]

nn Lbbzman 01:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable (and I'm bored just reading and searching for info on this eek.)Obina 02:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable online gaming group. —Quarl ^(talk) 2005-12-31 02:32Z

Online gaming group. Forum possesses just short of 700 users, of which a maximum of 18 have ever been on simultaneously. Alexa of 1.7 million and falling. Google has 125 hits, of which 52 are unique. No evidence of high-end media notability evident in my brief search of the Google results. Therefore, fails WP:WEB. ~~I'd like a Speedy Delete (Expanded A-7) for non-notable groups (failing the notability guidelines at WP:WEB), but don't like my odds.~~ Delete -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 05:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Speedy per Saberwyn's research. --Pboyd04 16:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notable in the KOTOR community (a notable modmaking group developing a notable KOTOR II mod, made sticky on the Obsidian Entertainment forums), but not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. If Cut Ending to Knights of the Old Republic II and M4-78 were deleted, then this one probably should be. - Sikon 15:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough for encyclopedia. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:10, 5 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. Mind matrix 00:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Book Rumbles[edit]

Totally nonnotable messageboard on a website not notable enough for its own article. Vanity fancruft, self-promotional from extended number of links. Board doesn't do anything that hundreds of other boards not listed here also do. DreamGuy 01:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. DreamGuy 01:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant vanispamcruftvertisement. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

p.s.: althought the site's 100-odd links in from Wikipedia articles lights up the spam radar, Wikipedia is not the top referrer and its Alexa rank is 8621, so although the forum is obviously not independently notable, and this article is vile, the comicbookresources.com site would almost certainly qualify under WP:WEB (whether it would continue to qualify if the 100+ links were removed is, of course, a different matter). - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We can use Cruft-tanite. There are billions and billions of boards like this. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Perfecto 03:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not quite (by a longshot) notable enough for WP. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entry erased by snob jerks.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Another administrator has already speedied the article, so no further action is required. Mind matrix 00:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fillie[edit]

No biographical info or details of notable works. 78 hits in Google, most of those to Wiki mirrors or Barnes & Noble. More detail required to justify this article. -- (aeropagitica) 01:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Obina 02:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No Guru 22:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as db-empty. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:14, 5 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. --Shanel 06:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hair cut fetishism[edit]

del nonnotable. Eg "hair cut fetish" has only 182 unique gogle hits, none of them reputable. Surely, each part of human body may become a fetish, but they are hardly notable. mikka (t) 01:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable or original research. —Quarl ^(talk) 2005-12-31 02:40Z

This is a topic that has broad range of appeal and should not be deleted. — User:207.81.137.130

Keep. Interesting, thus notable. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 05:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge/Redirect where can get more context here... WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 07:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Daveb 15:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe when I see a magazine promoting it... D

Should be kept for personal interest, some what interersting but not neccessarilly important

e nni ☯ 01:20, 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 blanked by creator/sole contributor of content, so speedily deleted. android 79 23:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benin Dakar[edit]

Procedural nomination. This was tagged as a {{nn-bio}}, but it makes a few clear assertions of notability. Bringing it here as a disputed speedy. No vote from me as yet, although it should be noted that this article was created by User:Benindakar. android 79 01:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete. One article that ends up in 8 newspapers is still one article. Obina 02:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable vanity biography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2005-12-31 02:29Z

Delete Not a speedy though. Strong Delete Dlyons493 Talk 05:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. --Squiddy 10:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This writer is growing in popularity and should be kept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wedaconnection (talk • contribs) 17:49 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete The writer may grow in popularity but right now she is not popular. - NeoJustin 18:53, December 31, 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. Mind matrix 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Winslow[edit]

This article is on non-notable subject, with only 449 results on Google, most of which actually refer to a poet. King of Hearts | (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNN or No reference or both. Obina 02:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable vanity biography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2005-12-31 02:29Z

Delete per all above. PJM 03:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity/nonsense --Revolución (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NeoJustin 18:25, December 31, 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 No consensus. --Shanel 06:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maiko Joeong-shun Lee, Viscountess Rothermere[edit]

Delete Subject is not notable. Article lacks sources. The links posted contain only photos or name of subject without biographical info. Second wife of a British peer. This entry is first reference I've heard to her. Thesaunterer 02:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found a reference: [6]. Not sure about notability. —Quarl ^(talk) 2005-12-31 02:43Z

Thanks, but reference is from obituary of subject's husband. I could argue that there are many people mentioned in thousands of online obits who are not noteworthy.Thesaunterer 03:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable. mikka (t) 03:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Nonnotable" isn't a word. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 05:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 05:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep are aristocracy not inherently notable? Jcuk 11:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As per what guidline please? Dont wish to be awkward, just trying to learn as I go along Jcuk 18:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall any guideline that says they are, or are not. I suppose WP:BIO could be used to argue that they're not notable. However, go with common sense: many aristocrats are notable (a lot of people get titles because they're notable), but there are just as many who are not, who sit around looking like horses and flipping through Burke's Peerage. This sort of thing needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis, not as a simple, blanket "aristocrats are/are not notable" thing. I'd say being an aristocrat makes them much more likely to be worth knowing about, but doesn't quite seal the bargain. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge She's not really notable outside of her husband's life, so merge the info about her into a section in Vere Harmsworth, 3rd Viscount Rothermere Night Gyr 15:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Vere Harmsworth, 3rd Viscount Rothermere. No sense in losing the information. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is not notable, not even as aristocracy. She's not received in the best homes in England and was only Rothermere's second wife. 4.239.255.232 15:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable.Cyberevil 15:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vere Harmsworth, 3rd Viscount Rothermere. —Quarl ^(talk) 2005-12-31 22:23Z

Delete Not notable. No sources. Not so much as a proper date of birth. Hellokitty3 17:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources aren't there? It is difficult to find info on her, but I'm still trying...

Keep She is notable in particular for her work in the arts, especially the Philharmonia Orchestra (she is chairman of the patron's circle – the patron being the Prince of Wales!). I tried to look her up in Wikipedia last year after seeing her picture in a programme, but was disappointed to find nothing. So I thought an article was in order. --JRawle 16:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge). Subject not worthy of own entry. Lack of sources, lack of notability.NorthShoreNancy 21:04, 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 delete. Mind matrix 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Davison[edit]

Hoax. Could find no relevant information via google. However, the giveway is that while a PhD student he "quickly created a name for himself, proving that any 3 points joined in a nearest neighbour manner, whose angles sum to 180 degrees is a triangle." JLaTondre 02:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2005-12-31 02:46Z

Delete, per reasons above. PJM 03:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possible speedy as attack page? Dlyons493 Talk 05:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to meet criteria in WP:BIO and is not verified. Movementarian 09:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a hoax, possibly a weak personal attack. -- (aeropagitica) 11:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hoax. If someone can leave a message on my talk page explaining why this is an attack page, I'll consider speedying it as one. But, it doesn't look like one to me. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 14:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - NeoJustin 18:46, December 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Nom should have speedy deleted this, as it is clearly a nn-bio and/or ~~nonsense~~ a hoax. --C S (Talk) 12:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet the speedy criteria as it's not patent nonsense and it makes a claim of notability. -- JLaTondre 13:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry I confused hoaxing and nonsense, although there's enough absurdity to make me label it nonsense. Anyway, even if the article claims subject is important, it still qualifies as a speedy nn-bio. The only reason nn-bio would not be a good reason is if some indication or evidence of notability was presented in article. None is in this case. For example, initiating a reading group is not support for notability, and neither is receiving A levels (not to mention his alleged result). In other words, if you see an article that looks like an nn-bio but it starts out by saying the subject is very famous or important, it's still a speedy under nn-bio. That's my understanding. --C S (Talk) 14:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The speedy criteria disagrees with that. An assertion of notability is all that is required; not evidence. To quote: "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead". -- JLaTondre 18:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, it doesn't. Please take a closer look at Wikipedia:Deletion_of_vanity_articles. It notes that it is important to consider only significant assertions and the plausibility of an assertion. Assertions of notability should be at least "remotely plausible". Note that the more complete policy (not the snippet you quoted) says "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance - people such as college professors or actors may be individually important in society; people such as students and bakers are not, or at least not for the reason of being a student or baker. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead." It should at least be clear from this that what is meant by "assertion" is quite different than what you mean. Here assertion means a statement of some fact that would indicate notability, not an outright statement such as "he is important". If we couldn't speedy articles that started with "X is notable", simply because it asserted notability in this way, a lot of vanity articles would not get speedied the way they do now. --C S (Talk) 01:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Wikipedia:Deletion_of_vanity_articles: "Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion." Rejected speedies show up on Afd all the time because notability was claimed. But we're going astray of the main purpose of this page. If you want to talk further, why don't we move this to my talk page. -- JLaTondre 01:46, 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. Yikes, this article was almost three years old! howch e ng {chat} 06:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of anti-heroes[edit]

This list is highly questionable. The criteria for classifying a character as an "anti-hero" are far more subjective than even "normal" heroes. Such a list allows people to add characters willy-nilly. A few readily recognizeable and fairly undisputed anti-heroes could be listed as exmaples in the entry for the anti-hero and serve the purpose much better. This list is unecessary, highly POV, and completely beyond any manner of being proven. CaveatLector 02:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written nomination, CaveatLector. You made your argument succinctly, refrained from voting, and even offered alternatives. Well done. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete. POV and unmaintainable. Any "normal" person may fit the definition of "anti-hero", since we all sometimes do something not very good. mikka (t) 03:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. Delete per above...inherently POV. PJM 03:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With no clear definition of an anti-hero provided, this list will remain in a useless, POVvish state. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 05:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- anything that classes Rincewind and Thomas Covenant as the same sort of person is too vague. Reyk 10:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the nomination. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly redirect to either anti-hero or to list of heroes. -Sean Curtin 03:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As Mikka said above, nearly any person could fit on this list. -Rjo 21:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Proliferating list cruft is not encyclopediac. Well stated reasons above. Hu 22:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list is extremely useful for high school language arts classes and AP Literature classes. If you have problems with items on the list, remove them or discuss in it TALK. This article is useful! Kingturtle 18:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Delete, because it doesn't make sense. First of all there are no anti-heroes and they should be named humans/normal people and on top of that it can't inform you well and you can better visit another wikipedia page.Cj rules2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.205.201.230 (talk • contribs)

Keep. Personally, I've found this article fairly useful, and I believe that it helps to provide people with an idea of the range of characters who are anti-heroes. Sqrrl101 21:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be a decent list to me. Maybe it should be renamed List of fictional anti-heroes though, just to emphasise what it contains. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 21:05, 5 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. KnowledgeOf Self | talk 20:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia about The Simpsons[edit]

Just a collection of trivia about the show. I don't think it can possibly be reformated to resemble an encyclopedia article. Please do not suggest merging into The Simpsons as this page had originally been created by splitting off a section from that same article, which had gotten too unwieldy. Andrew Levine 02:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete this article, salvaging some of its lists into articles with more proper titles. mikka (t) 03:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as collection of Simpsonscruft. In particular, delete without mercy any tidbit that begins with the episode production code! -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove long, pointless "References to TV series within The Simpsons" section. Agree with Saberwyn; not everyone knows the production codes off by heart! smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 10:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not encyclopedic. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 14:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A Trivia article? On Wikipedia? Absurd. It should be gotten rid of. firenexx 23:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivia. Pavel Vozenilek 23:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Wikipedia was created to provide knowledge to anyone. Sure it's trivia, but so are many other articles. Infact, many are very trivial. I read this and learned a lot about The Simpsons. The references to TV series could be deleted, however. Don't care for it.
Note: This unsigned vote is by Cammyboy who has no previous edits. Andrew Levine 04:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As much as I love the Simpsons I don't believe that trivia constitutes a proper encyclopedia article. Pogoman 08:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge If possible, merge this article with the main Simpsons one. --★Ukdragon37★^talk 12:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-encyclopaedic. --Daveb 15:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm a big fan of trivia, so my first inclination was to say keep it, but looking through the list, most of it is too trivial even for me. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 09:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article provided me with knowledge and information that I was searching for. It is very useful and is not doing any harm by being here. DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE! Swollibgah 00:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well written, verifiable, and valuable. Owen× ☎ 00:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Andrew Levine 06:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless it could be found/placed somewhere else on Wikipedia. -- Super Sam 11:13, 5 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. howch e ng {chat} 18:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Cherbi[edit]

Note: I am relisting this AfD. The page and this AfD were both blanked by the original author, and was brought to my attention when the blank page was tagged for a speedy delete. No vote. --D e ath phoenix 02:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Scottish advocate who doesn't seem to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. A Google search for "Peter Cherbi" yields less than one page of results. I'm vaguely suspicious that WP:VAIN might also be in play. Tom Lillis 16:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing there now, but the erased page was almost certainly WP:VAIN. Eusebeus 17:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently, I am now part of some nature of conspiracy. Goody. Tom Lillis 18:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My response to this :
I am not the person you name but I did the articles based on extensive coverage he receives in the Scottish printed press & television, not just "on a bit of protest coverage by the BBC". Winning Parliamentary debates which turn into successful legislation & changes in regulatory rules, helping users of a required service - that of a solicitor is on the whole, more than 'a bit of a protest'.
You can delete the articles if you like. It is your privilege to do so.
For the avoidance of doubt, in the short statement left in the blanked article, there was no one identified by name who "demanded " that the article be removed.
i note the matter & issues arising. Based on this, I am no longer interested in wikipedia.
As far as Google searches go, Life in Scotland doesn't yet hang on their every reference. I note the reference to WP:VAIN. There's plenty of that around anyway so it will do no good to add to it then. Please therefore delete the articles forthwith.
So, Tomlillis, two days on, the article has not been deleted, contrary to my request to do so, but one of my articles certainly has. What gives ? Since I am happy for the articles to be deleted, along with my userid, quoting Wikipedia's policy on such matters as expressed in the terms of deletion, I don't see why the article should be kept around longer, unless it's just to get some more knives stuck into it.

—the preceding unsigned comment is by Lawscottie (talk • contribs)
Lawscottie, as a matter of proceedure, articles nominated for deletion and appearing here must remain for a minimum of five days to promote discussion. After five days, an administrator will consider the discussion and decide to either delete or retain the article. There's nothing that can be done to speed it up. Saberwyn - 05:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- Rob 10:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Okay, I believe I've managed to sort this out... this is an individual Scottish activist who runs a website. He doesn't seem to have influence on anything notable. Ashibaka tock 19:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Daveb 15:26, 1 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

Chris Flux[edit]

This was tagged for speedy delete but I don't feel that it's a A7 nn-bio, since it claims he is a published writer. I am listing it here, with no vote from me. W.marsh 03:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mr Flux exists [7], but I can't confirm his claims to being published. -- JJay 04:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A serach for Chris Flux Rock Evangelism (supposedly his most famous book) produces 0 hits. Fails WP:BIO. -- JLaTondre 14:31, 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 SPEEDY DELETE as attack page. Harro5 04:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freak show complex[edit]

article appears to be a gag KarlBunker 03:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax or OR. I find nothing on it. PJM 03:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete attack page. Gazpacho 04:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinful Retribution[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Delete Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Maybe after post, marketing, distribution and box office, but right now it is non-notable.--Bookandcoffee 03:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PJM 03:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No entry on IMDb. *drew 04:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 07:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Manor[edit]

A very small residential housing development in a Chicago suburb, no different from the thousands of others. Non-notable. HollyAm 03:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claim to notability. VegaDark 04:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per VegaDark. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. --Rob 10:39, 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 merged and redirected. Johnleemk | Talk 14:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Fish Called Raven[edit]

Individual episode of "That's So Raven." Not encyclopedic. Klaw ¡digame! 04:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:EditingAllison has been steadily adding these one-line episode lists this evening; see [8] (and see more AfDs below). I suggested on her Talk page that a better spot for one-line summaries might be That's So Raven episode list, but no response. I fear for her sanity if she makes all 96 article and then they are deleted, but I'm not sure what else to suggest. I would vote to merge into That's So Raven episode list, and not to redirect since we will end up with 96 very unclear page titles like Party Animal. bikeable (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I wasn't helped a lot by skimming through Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Television_episodes, but I did get a sense that there is some agreement, if not consensus, that individual episodes are not generally notable, but may be in some cases. bikeable (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is fine with me too, with no redirect. | Klaw ¡digame! 05:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep TV episodes aired on major networks. There isn't likely to be anything else with the same name. Kappa 05:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Episode page, or rename with Episode name(That's so Raven)--Adam ^(talk) 05:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because individual television episodes are generally not sufficiently notable to warrant encyclopedia articles. As a second choice, merge to That's So Raven episode list. --Metropolitan90 07:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment However, see Category:Simpsons_episodes. --Austrian 11:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to episode list. This is in no way a keep vote. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into episode list. If Lost doesn't get its own episode pages, TSR shouldn't either. Sceptr e ^(Talk) 12:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into episode list. Sliggy 18:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. If it won't agree with the series' article, create an episode guide with one article per season. - MB (Talk) 11:21, 8 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 User requested speedy delete (G7) WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 08:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reductio ad googlism[edit]

Oh the irony... I'm going to "appeal to Google" on this one... 0 Google results [9] suggests that this is original research (see WP:NOR, and/or a neologism. Could certainly be a real phrase at some point... if it's formally defined somewhere and used in some media. Currently it doesn't seem to be used off of IRC, allegedly. W.marsh 04:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing ironical, colleague. Your google search is not for definition, but for notability test. These are "two big differences", as russian jokers say. mikka (t) 04:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

del. The criticism itself is notable though, see if it is somewhere in Google. mikka (t) 04:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this article under the wrong heading anyways. Sorry, I'm an annoying newbie. It can now be found under Argumentum ad googlism user:Thomash
Um, Argumentum ad googlism was deleted with the justification "vanity, promoting own theory" which is probably not a CSD. I wish it were though! WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 07:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:Thomash, the original author and only contributor other than the AfD nominator, has blanked this article, it looks like a speedy delete under WP:CSD G7. --Metropolitan90 07:51, 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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smell of Victory[edit]

Individual episode of "That's So Raven." Not encyclopedic. Klaw ¡digame! 04:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable at all. Dralwik 04:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, TV episode seen by wide audience. Kappa 05:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A merge has been suggested for this set of articles (all by the same new editor), which is fine with me as well. | Klaw ¡digame!

Delete because individual television episodes are generally not sufficiently notable to warrant encyclopedia articles. As a second choice, merge to That's So Raven episode list. --Metropolitan90 08:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to episode list. This is in no way a keep vote. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge see A Fish Called Wanda Sceptr e ^(Talk) 12:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into episode list. Sliggy 19:00, 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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign in the Neck[edit]

An non-notable episode of That's So Raven, see Smell of Victory just above. Dralwik 04:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, episode of notable TV show. Kappa 05:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because individual television episodes are generally not sufficiently notable to warrant encyclopedia articles. As a second choice, merge to That's So Raven episode list. --Metropolitan90 08:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to episode list. This is in no way a keep vote. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable episode doktorb | words 10:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with episode list. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 10:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Sceptr e ^(Talk) 12:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Kappa. I don't think every episode would make the That's So Raven easier to read. Expand later. --Hansnesse 18:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why we put them in an article titled "That's So Raven episode list". -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 04:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into episode list. Sliggy 19:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. However, I'm going to wait seven days for the relevant editors to move the pictures to Wikimedia Commons and determine which ones will go back into the main article before deleting. We'll revisit this on January 13, 2006. howch e ng {chat} 07:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maine Coon/Gallery[edit]

Per WP:NOT: "Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons." I have tried several times to explain to the two editors on Talk:Maine Coon#Pictures about this policy, and the other flaws with this page; apparently my interpretation is wrong and once "consensus" has been reached on an issue, you can't touch anything. I even spent time creating a gallery on Commons, commons:Maine Coon and linked to it, as is the norm, but my efforts were swiftly reverted (and my other edits unrelated to the issue keep getting reverted in the process, so this may be a case of article ownership instead of objective reasoning). I would like some outside editors to weigh in on the issue. —jiy (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not MySpace, and this sort of thing is exactly what Wikimedia Commons is for. -- MisterHand 04:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The pohotos are relevant and can help with research. Also see history below. Pschemp 04:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User has since voted 'delete'. --Last Malthusian 14:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about this the more I realize that the real issue you (jiy) have is that you A. - didn't do the polite thing and then B. - got pissed when the rest of us didn't do the polite thing back. Quite hypocritical and also quite unnesessary. Pschemp 05:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The proper way to handle this - for whatever "research value" someone's home snapshots of their pets may truly have - is to create a website at myspace.com or some similar site and link to it from the Maine coon article. I think cats are adorable, maine coons especially, but this really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Durova 05:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Here's the whole history. Obviously this afd tag is a ploy to force action by user jiy. I noticed you left out a few things about the issue. Nothing like making a whole new page to hash out what has already been decided by consensus because you think you know better. Your know your edits were reverted because they violated a previous consensus, were made without ANY previous discussion or warning on the talk page, and constitute a narrow and incorrect interpretation of policy. Stop crying "poor me!" and acting like you've been wronged. You blatantly ignored the history of the article and when no one agreed with you you started this. If you had used tact and correct ettiquite, maybe people would be more willing to listen. Pschemp 04:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holy flurking schnit. I edited out 10k of background material cut-n-pasted in here from Talk:Maine_Coon#Pictures. Anyone who cares can go read it there. Since Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, I think this is a clear delete, and the precise number of pictures on Maine Coon should be worked out in some other civilized fashion. bikeable (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The precise numebr of pictures has already been worked out. The issue here is whetehr the gallery page should be kept or ir should be moved tot he Commons. I vote commons.Gator (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The dispute should have gone to RfC in my opinion. Since it wound up here I vote delete as there are already enough pictures in the article to illustrate the point. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Movementarian 09:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Commons is for galleries. Make a link to the commons from the article and put the pictures there. We're not losing anything by deleting this. Night Gyr 15:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lot of drama here, all of which could have been avoided by everyone reading WP:NOT and WP:OWN, but in the end there's nothing to discuss. Wikipedia is not a gallery. Wikicommons is. --Last Malthusian 18:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete* Ok i see that the page doesn't belong. The lesson here for JIY is that some warning on the talk page and not going into a snit when your edits were reverted probably would have made this a non-issue. Pschemp 22:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOT. Galleries are evil. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or create a Maine coon article and link/include these pictures within it. Wikimedia Commons is the proper place for collections of images. Wikipedia is not. Jessamyn 01:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge merge this into the Maine Coon page like it was before in order to avoid any future confusion, but the commons is a fine place for the images per a compromise to the previously hashed out consensus.Gator (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All those voting on the basis of WP:NOT should be aware of the ongoing discussion on modifying this restriction at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries. However, that said, since the Maine Coon article indicates that this breed of cat comes in almost every coloration, a gallery of random cats adds little information beyond that made available by having a few well choosen images in the article. Delete. Dsmdgold 22:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't pass the encyclopedic value test proposed in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries --- Charles Stewart 00:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge + delete as per Gator (put some into main article after discussion on talk page as to which images to use, move rest into commons with a link from main article to the commons gallery, and thereafter gallery page can be deleted) -- All the best, Nickj (t) 03:49, 6 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 Speedy Keep

List of common misnomers[edit]

Existing article Misnomer is already essentially a collection of misnomers. Suggest any non-duplicated content be moved there. Vary | Talk 04:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this needed to be listed on AfD, merge/redirect.—jiy (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect as per jiy. --Nintendude 04:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP Needless AfD; merges do not require deletions. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Duh. Don't know why that didn't occur to me, jiy. Let's see if I can get this closing thing right... -- Vary | Talk 04:54, 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 article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howch e ng {chat} 18:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Business Continuity and Sarbanes Oxley[edit]

orphaned afd request, listing it now (no vote) --MisterHand 05:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged and listed as copyvio. -- JJay 06:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 06:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separation Anxiety (TSR episode)[edit]

non-significant tv episode Adam ^(talk) 05:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, episode of That's So Raven. Kappa 05:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because individual television episodes are generally not sufficiently notable to warrant encyclopedia articles. As a second choice, merge to That's So Raven episode list. --Metropolitan90 08:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have indivdual episodes of lots of other shows. I don't have a problem with this. --Pboyd04 16:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Until the episode descriptions are more than stubs, there's no point in short separate episode guides for every TV show. Samw 04:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Metropolitan90. --Daveb 15:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Metropolitan90 as well. - Liontamer 22:20, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shayna Richardson[edit]

Was in the media breifly in 2005, no encyclopedic value, delete--nixie 05:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep She is a minor celebrity and it is notable. Ouch! -- MicahMN | μ 07:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We went through this already with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shayna Robertson, at which time it was pointed out that the subject's name was actually Shayna Richardson, but the consensus was to delete rather than move the article. Google News now finds only 184 references to her, and only two since Dec. 16 [10] which suggests that her story is not a subject of ongoing interest, just a transitory human interest story. Delete per WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 08:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find 330 hits for her on google..... Anyhow I think her story is notable, so Keep Jcuk 11:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crufty to the extreme, but varafiable by fox news and other sources - plus it is fairly decent and much improved over last time - so Keep WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 11:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vote was unanimous the last time. Still non-notable. Durova 18:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This story may develop more depending on the health of her child, or if sanctions are brought against her or her boyfriend for improper conduct (he was her instructor). This situation isn't dead yet. Jaileer 20:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For media coverage and medical significance. Trilemma 21:46, 7 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. Mind matrix 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian 'jazza' pony[edit]

Likely hoax and / or total nonsense. -- Longhair 05:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 02:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Delete -- Longhair 05:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aaargh, you're repeating yourself!

Delete. Ambi 05:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax, nonsense --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --King of All the Franks 07:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, utter bollocks. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NeoJustin 18:30, December 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Roisterer 09:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Falsehood. Adriantame 06:04, 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 delete. howch e ng {chat} 18:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities and Differences Between DeVito's and Knapp's Model of Relational Development[edit]

Odd essay, possibly original research- delete--nixie 05:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR. By the way, that's a lot of authors for a few paragraphs. -- MisterHand 05:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CrewCuts[edit]

Non-notable. Vanity. Article created by creator of show. Drat (Talk) 05:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Gosh, how would it be if we had an article for every short made using The Movies? -- MisterHand 05:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Drat. -- MicahMN | μ 07:51, 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 A7 Speedy Delete WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 07:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skeena Reece[edit]

Found it thru "random article." Vanity, right? jengod 06:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Article begins with "my"; that's enough for me. --King of All the Franks 06:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. Clear nn-bio. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete nn-bio (and tagged as such) -- MisterHand 07:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 01:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trash on A Platter[edit]

Non-notable radio show. -- Longhair 06:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 02:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Delete -- Longhair 06:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the Google test. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete trash on a platter? J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    23:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Roisterer 09:33, 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. Mind matrix 01:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dorkfair[edit]

This website shows an Alexa ranking of below 4,000,000. This is an obvious web-vanity article. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete vanity. Pogoman 06:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, advertisement. -- MisterHand 07:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, blatant advertisement. It'd be nice if this sort of thing were a speedy, but it's not. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete vanity -- MicahMN | μ 07:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NeoJustin 18:25, December 31, 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. Mind matrix 01:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counterterror Intelligence Failures[edit]

Delete. These items are all covered on their own pages already. There is no reason to duplicate this information (and double the task of changing things when new developments appear - these are all current issues) on a separate page. Perhaps this should be a category that links to the relevant pages? csloat 07:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't even understand what "Counterterror intelligence" is supposed to be. Anything in here would redundant and unnecessary. Merge if you must with intelligence failures after 9/11 or with counterterrorism. -- MicahMN | μ 08:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question - is there a way to get other people to vote on here? I doubt that 2 is enough to delete this; since it is not linked anywhere I don't know how many will even see it here.--csloat 22:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, people will find it via AfDSethie 22:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge if any additional info provided here that is not on the other pagesSethie 22:40, 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. Concerns regarding that this term is made up have not been sufficiently answered. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Quinn Syndrome[edit]

This is an elaborate little article, but it's author seems to have invented the term. For starters, the "syndrome" at hand is most commonly related to a much older incident - the switching of Darrins in 'Bewitched' - but also, Google returns no results for "Jonas Quinn Syndrome", so I'm guessing the term started right here with an enthusiastic Stargate SG-1 fan. relaxathon 07:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename...if anything this should be called "Coy and Vance Syndrome" since Dukes of Hazzard did this long before SG-1. -- MisterHand 07:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is clearly made up. -- MicahMN | μ 07:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This "syndrome" is not sufficiently defined (does it apply to replacement of characters only, or also to actors playing the same character successively?), nor is the term in common use per Relaxathon. --Metropolitan90 08:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree the term may be made up (though there are other mentions on the web), but this is a list rather than original material. This is very similar to Chuck Cunningham syndrome page. It may need a clean up and perhaps a new name, but this material does not seem to meet delete criteria. At a push, perhaps a merge with Chuck Cunningham page - though characters swaping is different to characters vanishing, or to new actors playing the same characters (the Darrin thing)Obina 10:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As worthy of an article as Cousin Oliver and Chuck Cunningham syndrome - TV Tropes website uses JQS - http://www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JonasQuinn 58.164.216.77 11:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this reasoning - Chuck Cunhingham Syndrome is an age-old TV term at garners many, many search results outside of Wikipedia. The link you provide for JQS is from another open-edit Wiki site article that was created around the same time as this one. Should we really open up the floodgates to people inventing any new term that pops into their head and creating a Wikipedia article for it?
The phenomenom is legitimate even if the name isn't. PMA 18:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This illustrates what I mean by the syndrome being insufficiently defined. This Wikipedia article says that Jonas Quinn Syndrome occurs when the original actor/character returns to the role after quitting the show, while the tvtropes.org article uses examples where the original actor/character never returned to the role, including some where the original actor never could have returned because he had died (8 Simple Rules, NewsRadio, Cheers). The term does not have a standard definition yet, nor does that definition have a standard name yet. --Metropolitan90 01:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point - both the "actor leaves and comes back later" and the "character is replaced with a carbon copy character when an actor leaves or dies" are worthy of discussion because they have happened a lot in TV but without a term like Chuck Cunningham or Cousin Oliver they can't at the moment. PMA 01:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has four Google hits for "Jonas Quinn Syndrome", two of which are Wikipedia. Nezu Chiza 17:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.--Daveb 15:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ok it seems the name is a neologism. What if we re name the page something boring like "TV show character swaps" for now? It seems a shame to delete the material.Obina 11:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, much of the material is repeated from (and the rest could be allocated to) the Stargate SG-1 article. The huge paragraph at the end is actually cut and pasted directly from a longstanding entry in the Roseanne article, so no loss there either. Isn't that a violation of the guidelines, in fact?

Speedy Keep True, Valid, Needed Mike 06:55, 6 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 (5d/2k). Mind matrix 01:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sithlore[edit]

Non-notable under WP:WEB, as it has approx 1000 users. --Hansnesse 07:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:WEB is crap. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 07:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it's a solid guideline that has the support of a decent proportion of the Wikipedia user community. There is nothing in the article or on the website that indicates (at least to my mind) that Sithlore is in any way above and beyond the standard of the 'average' fan roleplaying website. On that, and for not meeting the notability requirements at the WP:WEB notability guideline, delete. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 07:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Obina 09:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. Catherine breillat 11:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ' 11:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB --Pboyd04 16:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 24.177.68.145 23:51, 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gronholm[edit]

Nn-bio, only 16 results on Google. Written so unclearly that it is hard to understand. King of Hearts | (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nn-bio. -- MicahMN | μ 07:47, 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 since nobody has cared to comment, I presume I can ignore all rules and be bold to delete this. Johnleemk | Talk 11:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hubster[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion under A7, but it's a dicdef, not a person or a group of persons. Bringing it to AfD instead. No vote. howch e ng {chat} 07:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is clearly not notable and possibly vanity. -- MicahMN | μ 07:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism that doesn't even appear in the Google top 10 and applies only to members of a particular club/pub. Johnleemk | Talk 15:28, 8 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff aquilon[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion by StoatBringer but importance is claimed. However, although there are four movies called "Chop Suey," IMDB has never heard of anyone named Jeff Aquilon, so it looks hoax-y to me. howch e ng {chat} 07:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, apparent hoax. Kappa 08:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could have sworn ive seen this deleted before. Cobra 08:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 01:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yipple[edit]

Neoligism. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 07:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I loathe neoligisms. -- MicahMN | μ 07:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delte per nomination Robdurbar 13:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence the word has gained any foothold. Nothing significant on google. I'm not suggesting a redirect, but the term is apparently used in the Zork video games, and is mentioned in Zork timeline ×Meegs 22:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. neoligism. Incognito 05:29, 5 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 No Consensus. I will Transwiki to MTG Salvation Wiki. In addition to the votes, I play this game: demons are not highly notable, and even if they where, the game is not notable enough to have such subarticles. I am also an admin at the MTGS wiki, so I will move it there.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 20:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demons (Magic: the Gathering)[edit]

It's just a list of intervidual cards, and description of the monsters you can get in a deck of Magic cards. Not encyclopedic Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable creature type in notable game. Best to split into individual articles for each card/species. Kappa 08:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, Kappa, please don't split. Beyond copying the actual text and stats from the cards, this is the best we're going to get on any of these. At the mo, I'm very weak keep and support an expansion of the list to indicate which set each card is from, but only because this format is aeons better than having an individual article for each card. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hell no, these need to be deleted forthwith on pain of death. --Agamemnon2 15:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ' 10:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks trivial. Catherine breillat 11:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't be expanded much more without just putting the card stats, and Kappa's suggestion of splitting into individual cards is basically giving them more importance than the Power Nine, and not one card on this list is more important. -- Grev 03:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this long page need to be expanded? Kappa 23:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Transwiki: One would think there was a Magic: The Gathering wiki this info could be moved to? Maybe as a subsection of http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering ? If unfeasible, otherwise, I'd say Delete. - Liontamer 21:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but lose card descriptions, and add the history of that creature type. AFAIK there was a large gap after printing first Demons, because Fundamental Christians didn't like that or something. Unglued even includes a card with type Demon striked out and type Beast written instead. Then, when Torment came out Wizards thought that Demons are okay and released some. There were also some design changes to Demons throughout history. Grue 15:27, 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. Mo0[talk] 06:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matopia[edit]

Hoax. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 07:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Vanity/Hoax. -- MicahMN | μ 08:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per nom.Obina 09:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and BJAODN. It's rather amusing. Soothing R 10:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just plain, old-fashioned delete. Could those arguing for speedy please explain why they believe it is a candidate for speedy deletion? Note that "vanity" and "hoax" are most definitely not criteria. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is not a speedy that I can see either, although it was tagged as one, that's why I brought it here like the others. I think it is more of "I wish it were speedy-able" then anything else :) WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 21:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albany Cup, Juan Guillermo Nevon[edit]

Complete bollocks. No such competition according to Google, nor can I find any hits for Universidad de Corinthians in Wexford (in fact, their article was deleted per this AfD) as well as "Capital City Harriers Dublin." You'd think that there would be at least some news coverage or blog entries, or something else, but you'd be wrong. The second article is a player on one of the teams who collects Playboy magazines, where "each edition is like a new chapter in my life". howch e ng {chat} 07:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some assertion of notability, but it's highly probable that that assertion is nonsense. And even if it isn't, it's either unverifiable, unencyclopedic and patent vanity. Delete. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo} ^risin' 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --JorgeBeach 21:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truegrid[edit]

Advertising a not notable web service. No meaningful content, just a list of links to the company web page. ParkerHiggins ( talk contribs ) 07:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per what I said right above this. ParkerHiggins ( talk contribs ) 07:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete spam. -- MicahMN | μ 08:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 01:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Home-Based Bookstore[edit]

Tagged as a speedy more than once. Looks like spam to me and obvious vanity given the username... No opinion WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 08:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Spamvanity (That's a new word). -- MicahMN | μ 08:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spamcruft. DreamGuy 08:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not a speedy. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam, spam, spam, spam... Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 09:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Vanity is not a WP:CSD, and the speedy tags were inappropriate. That aside, this doesn't appear to meet notability. Or do we need WP:BOOK now? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 09:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Worl, it was self-published ("Weber books"? C'mon), which helps. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertisement. -- MisterHand 16:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NeoJustin 18:23, December 31, 2005 (UTC)

delete good old fashioned vanispamcruftisement J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    23:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aibyouka-kun[edit]

Character in an upcoming manga published on Geocities by an amateur author. No existing audience seems likely. Kappa 08:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is likely vanity & totally nn.-- MicahMN | μ 08:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete slowly since it is not about a real person. Punkmorten 11:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator. This is not a speedy candidate. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Agree that it's not speedyable. -- Vary | Talk 15:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber-chan. -- Vary | Talk 15:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete yet, I know DarthSonicJK and he has been writing the storyline and revising it constantly since Sept. 5th 2005. Also, he has a few good pictures done and is currently finishing his drawing lessons on how to draw anime. As for an existing audience, myself, some of his friends on DeviantArt such as AndrewReturned, and his girlfriend with which is helping him with the manga, are all anxious for even the cover page to be released. --63.23.153.50 05:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you don't understand. Wikipedia is for things with some measurable degree of popularity - see WP:WEB. This thing is certain to be deleted when the AFD is closed, if the author want to keep the content he should copy it his user page until he can find another home for it, like geocities. Kappa 06:30, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debate Glossary[edit]

WP:NOT a glossary Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 08:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, encylopedic glossary, like the rest of Category:Glossaries. Some items should be split into separate articles. Kappa 08:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Think it could be merged into the main debate page, or to Wiktionary? 68.39.174.238 08:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Daveb 15:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --JorgeBeach 21:29, 7 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. howch e ng {chat} 18:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas BBQ[edit]

One Line POV on a non-notable restarant. Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 08:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First Post!: Delete nn -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't really make a claim to notability, but it may be possible to write a better version. Delete for now, but I am willing to reconsider my vote if the article is significantly improved during the AfD period. (In any event, the article if kept would have to be moved to Dallas BBQ.) --Metropolitan90 08:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. As a former New Yorker I can affirm that this chain has been popular for decades. It's among the few truly affordable full service restaurants in the city. "Dallas BBQ" plus "New York" turns a respectable several thousand Google hits. The most prominent ones are blogs and restaurant user reviews. Has this attained encyclopedic cultural value? I kind of doubt it, although Tom's Restaurant has achieved cultural significance with worse food and worse service. Durova 09:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable.Obina 09:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nelson Ricardo 23:39, 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 I withdraw. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cubby Bear[edit]

One line stub on a non-notable restarant Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 08:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain semi notable, if i can rewrite ill try to salvage it. Cobra 08:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If people think it is now notable. Cobra 22:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Substub, no claim to notability. ~MDD 46 96 08:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least semi-notable. Especially with the recent rewrite. Garfield226 09:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Garfield226. -- JJay 20:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given new details from Naja Haje about the restaurant's recognition in major magazines. ×Meegs 22:15, 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 no consensus --Ichiro 06:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apatodon[edit]

Only 76 unique Google hits for this dubious species of dinosaur. Most sources consider this a probable misnomer for an allosaurus. There doesn't seem to be enough information to merge and I have doubts about a redirect because the original bone sample has been lost. Hence, we can't say with any real certainty that this is a misnomer for an allosaurus. Is this sub-encyclopedic? You decide. Durova 08:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. These particular 76 hits means this is not a Hoax (at least not one invented on Wikipedia). Unlike e.g. supposed famous bloggers, the number of google hits is not a helpful measure of notablitlity. This article does need to be expanded.Obina 09:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with allosaurus. -- Megamix^? 10:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. ' 11:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 01:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark final fantasy characters[edit]

In addition to duplicating a bunch of info here it's probably a copyvio of multiple url's. Delete WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 08:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 08:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's also original research, and a list based on rather arbitary criteria - looks like every character who (1) wears black, or (2) has a name/job that implies darkness could be considered "dark" by this article's standards. -- Megamix^? 10:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio from [11], [12], [13], and [14]. Speedy delete. ' 10:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NeoJustin 18:22, December 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - The Characters each have extensive pages and I agree with Megamix's assessment of the list's criteria. ×Meegs 22:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. - Bobet 13:03, 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 both. Mind matrix 01:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark legion, Dark legion medals[edit]

Tagged as speedies, probably a non-notable online gaming group. No opinion WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 09:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable.Obina 09:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unencyclopedic CLW 09:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Non notable group per A7. Cobra 22:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOT a free web host for random groups of people. - Bobet 13:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable group. --Hurricane111 15:00, 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 since all recent votes are deletes and it's time to be done with 2005, I'm closing this as a delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Janzen[edit]

A Google search for "Scott Janzen" and Green Party produces 37 hits. Future candidate for a small district. Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He can get his article if and when he is elected. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 15:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Green Party candidates, 39th Canadian federal election in accordance with existing practice. -- Mwalcoff 00:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add profile. In reference to Dalbury's comment, there are currently 0 elected Green Party members of Parliament. Unfair to remove a Green Party candidate just because he is not elected.
Comment Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People still alive, which is a guideline, states that biographies on political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature and major local political figures who receive significant press coverage are approrpiate for Wikipedia. My interpretation of that is that candidates who have not been elected to at least statewide/provincewide office, and have not received significant press coverage (i.e., more than the usual campaign coverage) should be covered in the articles for their parties, instead of in their own articles. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 22:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The policy of excluding candidates for political office that have not previously held an elected position is biased only to the incumbent in any particular election race. The intent of wikipedia is not to influence an election outcome, one way or the other, but to provide information on all candidates running in an election. Irrespective of their past or current fame, all candidates should have the opportunity provide their information to the web audience through wikipedia in addition to their politcal parties website. 22:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.214.195 (talk • contribs)
Comment Please point me to where it says that the intent of wikipedia is not to influence an election outcome, one way or the other, but to provide information on all candidates running in an election. Wikipedia is not a news organization, it is an encyclopedia. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 00:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is as yet no Wikipedia policy on the inclusion of nonincumbent candidates for office. A proposal is under discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates. I think it would be best to move all discussion there. -- Mwalcoff 04:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is wrong. For a long time, consensus has been that candidates for office must already satisfy the WP:BIO criteria in some way. Uncle G 19:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The discussions regarding this issue have been going on for a month now, and no one has mentioned that there was a preexisting policy on the matter. If you believe there should be a policy on candidates for office, please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates.
The discussion was started in an attempt to change the consensus, which has existed for a long time now. Uncle G 04:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen such a policy, and as I said, no one has mentioned one in the month or so the discussion has been going on. -- Mwalcoff 12:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then not only have you not read Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates (Hint: Read what you wrote above and then actually read the talk page.) you have not even read Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates, where it is clearly explained that the discussion is an attempt to change the consensus. Uncle G 17:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but I wrote Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates. There was no policy on candidates before I proposed one on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). WP:BIO does not claim to be a list of all the types of articles who are eligible for articles ("This list is not all-inclusive"). After AFD battles over some people, I felt it would be a good idea to propose a policy on what candidates should be included. After some disagreement on the WP:BIO talk page, we agreed to create a centralized discussion, which is where this exchange should be taking place. -- Mwalcoff 18:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is not a free wiki host for the posting of candidates' summaries. The "bias" (which is non-political in nature) is towards candidates that have already satisfied the criteria for inclusion, no more and no less. It is not a bias "towards the incumbent", as our articles on Screaming Lord Sutch and Ross Perot (who were never incumbents, but who satisfy the WP:BIO criteria nonetheless) attest. Uncle G 19:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisting 31 December 2005. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability cited beyond being a (not yet elected) candidate in an election. (As a comment: The article reads like a campaign promo and not a bio.) --GrantNeufeld

To help out other admins closing AFDs, delete. Being a mere candidate for public office, unless major publicity is attracted, just doesn't make the cut for notability, IMO. Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there's a damn good reason not to. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:51, Jan. 9, 2006

Note: I've redacted it and formatted it so it should be a (more) neutral articel. 68.39.174.238 10:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous delete arguments. Rd232 ^talk 10:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. More tag than actual article.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 00:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ProLink Information Network[edit]

Unverifiable BBS. 13 results in Google; no incoming wikilinks; neglected article submitted by anon editor in October 2005.-- Perfecto 07:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Perfecto 07:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --nixie 13:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisting 31 December 2005. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Homey 03:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedoblog[edit]

Neologism - nine Google hits. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 09:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 10:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable neologism. -Willmcw 18:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This may be accepted in to Wiktionary instead, but doesn't deserve a place in WP. -- (aeropagitica) 19:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- or merge and redirect to List of blogging terms - Longhair 02:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. You could list every type of blog in existance this way. --DanielCD 16:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Benami 05:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge: not encyclopedic on its own-- Marvin147 10:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Land 13:21, 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 SPEEDY DELETE Mo0[talk] 11:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dolinshek[edit]

fixing orphan afd (no vote) MisterHand 16:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 18:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Day Lucifer Won[edit]

Original research at best. Google's never heard of the term. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 10:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a spiteful attack on Christianity made up by a Myspace dork. Delete. ' 11:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, little known neologism coined by a non-notable person. Punkmorten 11:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn --Pboyd04 16:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. NeoJustin 19:03, December 31, 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 as nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 03:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Robinson[edit]

~~A player in the "second-highest [football] division in England." That's like being a minor-league baseball player right? Sounds non-notable. Andrew Levine 10:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)~~ Nomination withdraw, as it seems I know nothing about English football. Andrew Levine 06:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completed the afd by putting the template on the page and cleaned up and wikified it a bit. Still sounds non-notable to me. ~~No opinion~~ WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 10:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- Rob 10:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he is a professional footballer in the Football League Championship which has a total attendance of 9.6 million. Of course move to Jake Robinson. Punkmorten 11:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per above. Jcuk 11:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep above info is persuasive WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 11:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course. Championship players are notable. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page could do with being templated. Is there a template for footballers? A quick scan through several premiership teams suggests not. A project for someone on the football/soccer portal, perhaps? -- (aeropagitica) 19:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as professional football players are notable. Carioca 00:28, 1 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 no consensus --Ichiro 06:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonated beverage[edit]

At best a short dicdef, this page has no real future... Usrnme h8er 10:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Carbonated_water as that's what it was before the silly substub. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 10:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to avoid future recreation of the article. -- (aeropagitica) 11:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Sceptr e ^(Talk) 12:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turning it back to the redirect makes the most sense. The changes could simply have been reverted, without getting AfD involved. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Soft drink or Carbonated_water. --LesleyW 22:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Turn into a disambig for Soft drink and Carbonated water, both of which are distinctly different. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 20:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above. Redirect to carbonation. BD2412 T 23:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

merge/redirect --Marvin147 03:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gahtan Law Office[edit]

Completing badly formed AfD. No opinion GraemeL ^(talk) 13:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Boutique firm, non-notable. Dlyons493 Talk 13:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability cited. Reads like an ad. --GrantNeufeld 21:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 18:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R.C Cosmos[edit]

From the previous speedy tag - advert for nn company. ~~No opinion~~ Delete fails google test, looks non-notable to me WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 10:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non notable. --Squiddy 10:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion Looks like an advert for a non-notable company. The article doesn't say that they've actually done anything notable. Without that claim, there is no way we can test their notability. GestaltG 18:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Deletion I think it is a company that is trying to do something new. J0e 18:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But not a company that has actually done anything new, i.e. non notable. Wikipedia is not engaged in speculation on what a person or company listed in an article might or might not do, or whether they will someday do anything notable. I cannot even tell from the article what it is new that they are trying to do (assuming that even mattered for this discussion, which it doesn't because they haven't done it yet) Delete. GestaltG 05:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Deletion But you see its an open source art project. Not something that "they may or may not do". And the independent film company that is doing this project I think deserves to be on wiki. For the average person to find out about them and support the out, by contacting them and explaing their ideas or something eles. J0e 06:40; 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, you are a registered user, so you are an editor too. Feel free to rewrite the article into something worthwhile if you don't think it should be deleted. It's not a well written article which is part of the problem. Take the time to rewrite the article, clarify what they are doing, supposed to have done, and why they are notable. You obviously have some firsthand knowledge, and I suspect you of being either a puppet or the original author, but take all of this in stride and just fix the article if you can. Convince the Wiki community by actions why this is an article on a notable subject and not just and advertizement stuck into Wikipedia. If you can't do that, then you have no argument. GestaltG 07:04, 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 speedy deleted. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 14:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mafia unleashed[edit]

Article about a website that has not yet been finished [15], and of questionable notability even if it were. I can't seem to find anything relevant on Google [16]. Megamix^? 10:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity. Delete. ' 11:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of turbulent years[edit]

Turbulent is too vague a term, and pretty much every year has been turbulent somewhere. There isn't any useful content to keep, either. Squiddy 10:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no value. As nominator said the criteria for this list, if any, are arbitrary and vague. Punkmorten 11:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no objective criteria for inclusion can be obtained; any year in recorded history can be turbulent if you ask the right person.—jiy (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page has a subjective title - turbulent for whom and from whose perspective? Trouble exists for people at all points in space and time, so what is the criteria for 'turbulent'? World war, civil war, taxes going up? -- (aeropagitica) 11:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...bumpy rides on airplanes? Delete. Tverbeek 15:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NeoJustin 18:22, December 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. List that may contain anything. Pavel Vozenilek 23:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goblin Slayer[edit]

Looks like a hoax to me. Makes assertion of notability ("the single I Kill Warlocks With My Bone Spear became popular throughout Scandinavia"), but zero Google hits for the name of this single suggests this isn't true. Delete CLW 10:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, likely hoax. Punkmorten 11:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax or band vanity. ' 11:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax. - NeoJustin 18:40, December 31, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of films and television shows not available on DVD[edit]

Unencyclopedic collection of truly unrelated shows and movies ' 10:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this could encompass countless of old films. Arbitrary criteria. Punkmorten 11:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a list with no chance of completeness or accuracy. --Squiddy 11:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just impossible. -- Mikeblas 12:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page has no research value. How would it ever be up-to-date or comprehensive? -- (aeropagitica) 12:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete -- while useful, it has no place here. At the very least films and tv shows should be spun off into their own articles. -- MisterHand 16:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NeoJustin 18:21, December 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete'. To my chagrin, I see Branagh's Hamlet is on that list. As Polonius said it: tis true 'tis pity; / And pity 'tis 'tis true. --Agamemnon2 15:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As others have stated above, there is no way this can be kept remotely up-to-date. --bd_ 04:53, 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 speedy delete. Clearly a bad-faith re-creation, as its first edit (summary was "keep this page") is well after the original article was deleted. —Cryptic (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gang Stalk Stress[edit]

Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gang_stalking. Austrian 11:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, with all its kin and its little dog too. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 18:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apnakarachi[edit]

It's a page to announce a dating website. Mikeblas 11:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising a web site. No intrinsic merit. Anville 23:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination --jackohare 13:35, 6 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 all. howch e ng {chat} 18:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 Second Orgasm and related articles[edit]

They don't seem to meet WP:music. This also applies to Ace Stroker, Max Reno and Let's Start a Riot. Flower party■ 11:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to be a notable band. -- (aeropagitica) 12:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete It doesn't matter if you know it, other people are fans, give them a chance CSN

Keep Isn't the point of an encyclopedia being able to research the unknown. Just because it bears no relevance to you, it may help others. 16:59, 5 Jan 2006 thispersonis

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 18:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal violence laws[edit]

This article doesn't discuss the laws in general and hasn't been added to since its creation. -- (aeropagitica) 12:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Also implicitly assumes USA law. Dlyons493 Talk 13:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect. should be part of another article--Marvin147 02:55, 5 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. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wehatetech[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

nn podcast (I know, that's pretty much redundant). A grand total of seven Google hits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

no no no, theres nothing wrong with it, leave it be, go deal with more important things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anticitizen 1 (talk • contribs) (only contributed to Wehatetech and AFD)

""NON DELETE"" Who is to say what is a "notable" cast and "non-notable" cast? NOT YOU. Don't like it, listen to TWIT or something else. - Kmac1036 (talk · contribs)

Strong delete - Original research, non-referenced. - Szvest 00:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Delete quickly as non-notable per above --Quarl 01:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, but if /. and iTunes claims can be verified make that Keep. That's contingent on someone less lazy than I doing their homework though. Haikupoet 04:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete random podcruft. Influenced by a large proportion of apparent sockpuppets, unsigned votes, etc. Stifle 00:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE wehatetech.com has been spamming digg.com to get better google ranking.

wehatetech has a Google PageRank of 5 (Digg has a 6). 3000 listeners, actually shows up on alexia. Listed on Itunes as perferred technology podcast, most popular anti-technology podcast. It is quite notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerves (talk • contribs)
Metacomment: User's first edit. --Quarl 04:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

www.wehatetech.com has Google.com rank of 0, and Alexa rank of 323,934 (see WP:WEB for criteria for inclusion) --Quarl 04:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per website rank I could see this. Our primary function is a podcast though. Please take into consideration the podcast instead of the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerves (talk • contribs)

You delete this, then you delete ALL the podcast Wiki articles. There are far more inappropiate pages on here than this one. Gee, so much for free speech. - Kmac1036 (talk · contribs)
Metacomment: User's first edit. --Quarl 04:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC) comment deleted by KMac1036, restored by Dvyost[reply]

Agree with you, we'll delete all the non-notable podcast articles. --Quarl 04:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Other podcasts like This Week in Tech are allowed a Wikipedia article because they are notable due to the fact the hosts are well known. --Peter McGinley 12:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.wehatetech.com/whtnutshell.htm. Includes some pictures/links to backup some statements. More will be coming soon. If the site doesn't meet requirements to stay on the wikipedia based on that then well at least we know. Xerves 23:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete. "We Hate Tech" has as much right to a wiki as "This Week In Tech". If "We Hate Tech is deleted ALL podcasts, not only the "non notable" podcasts MUST be deleted.Anticitizen_1 00:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.163.50 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Undelete Evidence presented on the Wehatetech "wiki" shows a parody site with emphasis on narration and commentary. The websight in question involves more than simple "hate" but, for simplicity sakes "hate" was used to offer a generalization of the stories. The site also contains technical support hints, parody audio (public domain) and various other elements that make this a necessary entry into wikipedia. Please reconsider deleting this or if it's already deleleted please restore Wehatetech. Wiki is in imporant fixture in the internest and Wehatetech would offer value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.101.86 (talk • contribs)

Just give us a chance to straighten things up a bit... At least listen to one of the podcasts before you decide to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.212.158 (talk • contribs)

WeHateTech is more legitmet that TWIT anyday. We are the real tech workers and censoring us and keeping TWIT shows Wikipedia has no backbone and does not appreciate the common man's views. Prepackged, witless shows like TWIT are spreading like fungus and are threatening to turn the web into the pile of programming garbage that is Cable and Network TV. The web thrives because it is where you can go for true dissenting opinions, it is the common mans printing press and as such should not be subject to ANY censorship. Wikipedia have some cajones! You know deleting this post is wrong and you will do th right thing because you have not sold out to TWITS and such, have you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.124.18 (talk • contribs)

Delete not notable. The sockpuppet spam just seals the deal for me. -- MisterHand

Delete. NeoJustin 18:14, December 31, 2005 (UTC)

Strong delete Way too much trashtalk & too many references to their homepage:a Flamer & Spammer. Go away. --Motorbikematt 19:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet scam? If that statement along doesn't warrant this article staying around I don't know what will.

Delete as per nom (note I voted to delete this previously but my voted was deleted by an anonymous edit, maybe because I didn't sign) TheRingess 03:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and amazingly bad behavior by site proponents. --Dvyost 04:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My talk page experienced some moments of Wehatethech from Anticitizen 1 (I asked him to change his username/refused violently (taken care of by an admin) and Kmac1036 (talk · contribs) (taken care of by another admin) . Cheers -- ^{Wiki me up}

You pitiful beings. You just don't get it. This is not about free speech, democracy or making a statement. This is about amassing encyclopedic information. If you do not qualify for encyclopedic importance, no amount of sniveling, threats or irate outbursts will change that. --Agamemnon2 15:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains, no matter how much people hate us or what horrible things we did (there are plenty of articles in wikipedia of people who did horrible things) this is all that matters: http://www.wehatetech.com/whtnutshell.htm. Are there guidelines for podcasts yet, I have yet to see one? Anything there can be backed up upon request. Anything else you have to say can be taken to the article about the podcast. Just because I might be a Bush hater doesn't give me the right to delete him off the face of the planet. Xerves 22:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to reach consensus when most posters are literally blowing this article away:

Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda. However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing.
We all have agendas, just play this one by the numbers Xerves 23:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. --Daveb 15:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. rodii 21:51, 1 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 also moved the article's talk page to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Galambosianism (2nd nomination) howch e ng {chat} 18:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galambosianism[edit]

As someone who's actually read the works of Galambos has pointed out, Galambosianism as we describe it doesn't actually exist. The previous deletion discussion ended up as a keep under the assumption that the few sources we had were accurate about the subject (the actual arguments for deletion centered around notability); as it turns out, they're probably not. Please read the talk page of the article for a discussion on why Galambosianism as a concept is likely someone's interpretation of Galambos' ideas rather than any actual part of his work. As such, whether it's amusing to read or not, it should be deleted as being original research and not verifiable by credible sources, unless someone can show otherwise. Galambos' actual ideas may yet deserve an article, but Galambosianism probably isn't it. JRM · Talk 14:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it's inaccurate then fix it, don't delete it. You can merge to the Galambos article if you want. Gazpacho 00:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't. Dollars to doughnuts almost nobody can, since the topic is so obscure. I dragged this to AfD to see if people agree with the comments left on the talk page. The only "merge" I could perform is replacing the whole thing with a redirect. I don't like that sort of "sneaky" delete. JRM · Talk 10:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. My reasoning is on the discussion page of the article. In sum: "Galambosianism" is a non-concept, unrecognizable term to anyone that is even remotely familiar with his work, and who doesn't want to mock it. It is similar to calling Einstein's work "Einsteinianism" instead of Special Theory of Relativity, etc. The article itself cannot be saved or merged because it makes no sense, is not true, is poorly referenced and researched, and would not apply to either Galambos' biography or to his Theory of Volition. I must say again that it is not the oft-referenced, so-called "obscurity" of the works of Galambos that make this article unable to be fixed. Unless of course by "obscurity" you mean that you can't learn about it yourself on the Internet in 60 minutes or less. Additionally, I concur that a "re-direct", along with maintaining this current article, would be absurdity squared. The article on "Galambos" is also almost complete dross too. I would be willing to go into more depth in support of my opinions if anyone would like me too. There are also thousands of normal, moderately intelligent people out there who have read and studied the works of Galambos, i.e. "Volitional Science". Unfortunately for my case, they just don't seem to read or care about Wikipedia. AK 18:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google again gives little reason to suppose that "galambosianism" exists. Delete. As for "volitional science", the term does seem to exist -- though this page gives me no reason to think that it's more substantial than any of numerous other self-described (fringe) "sciences". -- Hoary 13:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todd McGee[edit]

Vanity page, apparently written by its subject or a close friend. The sole claim to notability is founding the "Creation Science Institute", an organization with no identifiable internet presence, and no Google hits combining its name with the subject's.[17] Tverbeek 14:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete -- tagged as nn-bio. -- MisterHand 16:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a speedy candidate (claims importance), but clearly not yet notable. I don't see a 20-year-old kid having a great influence on the creationist movement. howch e ng {chat} 06:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity of a not notable student Internet kook (maybe userfy to the author's page). — — Dunc|☺ 22:31, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smithers Productions, Dennis Smithers, Jr., Dennis Smithers, Sr., A Bothered Conscience[edit]

These articles are all being nominated as a group, as they all relate to the same thing and were added by the same contributor. Google searching for "Dennis Smithers, Sr." produces two unique hits (one of which is the homepage for "Smithers Productions"). Same thing applies for "Dennis Smithers, Sr." Googling on "A Bothered Conscience" turns up many hits...of which four hits in the first ten pages of hits from the Google search are unique hits relevant to the movie. The rest of the hits have nothing whatsoever to do with a movie of any kind, be it this one or any other. Finally, Googling on "Smithers Productions" turns up a raft of directory pages (which are trivially easy to get listed on) and their mirrors. This is, in short, Vanispamcruftisement. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 14:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, non-notable. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They don't even have an IMDB entry for their movie. howch e ng {chat} 19:06, 6 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 since nobody has cared to comment (except chime in with another delete vote), I presume I can ignore all rules and be bold to delete this. Johnleemk | Talk 11:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming Revamped[edit]

NN, ad. Probably made by creators. Drat (Talk) 14:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. -- TKD 11:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Johnleemk | Talk 15:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rd232 ^talk 11:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frejia[edit]

Only two links to nonexistant articles and zero non-wiki google hits Natebw 14:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails google test. Punkmorten 17:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't appear to be notable. -- (aeropagitica) 19:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 19:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EXERCISE1[edit]

It's an advertisement which doesn't assert notability. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sceptr e ^(Talk) 17:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. spam. Incognito 06:12, 5 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 redirected; album article appears to cover single sufficiently. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get Away[edit]

Songs are not notable - list in album's page Lbbzman 15:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not the place to go if you want to discuss merging. Go to the article's talkpage, or be bold and merge it yourself. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Christina Milian (album), which is also a stub. Article fails to establish any other notability apart from "It was a hit". To quote user:FuriousFreddy: if a song article is nothing but a recounting of how the song was made, and how well it did, without explaining that it was, in some way, important and influential to the music industry, there's really no reason for it. Just write good album articles, and selected articles on the important singles and album tracks, and let's keep the encyclopedia balanced. Encyclopedias aren't supposed to be "complete"; they are supposed to provide overviews and guide users to further information on a subject if they want to go beyond the standard level. Something like a Christina Milian fan wiki would be a fine place to have an article on every Milian song, but a general-purpose encyclopedia is not. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs. Why write dozens of short articles on singles, with no chances of actual expansion short of padding and marketing-report material (chart positions), when they can be combined into one album article? Extraordinary Machine 04:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Christina Milian (album). The single infobox is confusing and at first I made a seperate entries as well, but I like the idea of putting it at the album. Looks better as well and there is no big deal if you don't have a cover or tracklist for one single but you do have information for two others. KittenKlub 21:20, 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 no consensus --Ichiro 07:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Manticore[edit]

Unencyclopedic fancruft. Delete or at most merge and redirect. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no encyclopædic or research value. -- (aeropagitica) 16:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not being an Honorverse guy I can't say if this is actually notable but its unencyclopeic as it stands right now. --Pboyd04 16:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fictional battle stub. It definetly has encyclopedic or research value for anybody interested in this fictional universe.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major event in the Honorverse series. I'll try to expand it tomorrow...need to get some sleep now. --*Kat* 09:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fictional battles are an accepted category, with dozens of entries. In this specific case, it's a pivitol event in a NY Times bestselling series.
now expanded to a respectable sized stub. *Kat* 09:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'keep. as above--Marvin147 04:50, 5 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 Merge to Christina Milian (album). Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AM To PM[edit]

Songs are not notable - include in album's page Lbbzman 15:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not the place to go if you want to discuss merging. Go to the article's talkpage, or be bold and merge it yourself. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charting songs are notable. Punkmorten 17:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, top ten song. Gazpacho 00:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Christina Milian (album), which is also a stub. Article fails to establish any other notability apart from "It was a hit". To quote user:FuriousFreddy: if a song article is nothing but a recounting of how the song was made, and how well it did, without explaining that it was, in some way, important and influential to the music industry, there's really no reason for it. Just write good album articles, and selected articles on the important singles and album tracks, and let's keep the encyclopedia balanced. Encyclopedias aren't supposed to be "complete"; they are supposed to provide overviews and guide users to further information on a subject if they want to go beyond the standard level. Something like a Christina Milian fan wiki would be a fine place to have an article on every Milian song, but a general-purpose encyclopedia is not. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs. Why write dozens of short articles on singles, with no chances of actual expansion short of padding and marketing-report material (chart positions), when they can be combined into one album article? Extraordinary Machine 04:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Since the first statement here was be bold, I already added the single info to the album. You might want to play with it, but I think that the third single which was never released commercially looks better that way as well. KittenKlub 21:39, 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 Merge to Christina Milian (album). Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When You Look At Me[edit]

Songs are not notable - include in album's page Lbbzman 15:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not the place to go if you want to discuss merging. Go to the article's talkpage, or be bold and merge it yourself. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My apologies. The album pages already exist and mention the songs themselves, so I guess I am suggesting that the song pages should thus be removed. I may be mistaken in my belief, though. Lbbzman 15:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A redirect is perfectly fine, so there is no need to delete a page. We can have millions of redirects. KittenKlub 21:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Christina Milian (album), which is also a stub. Article fails to establish any other notability apart from "It was a hit". To quote user:FuriousFreddy: if a song article is nothing but a recounting of how the song was made, and how well it did, without explaining that it was, in some way, important and influential to the music industry, there's really no reason for it. Just write good album articles, and selected articles on the important singles and album tracks, and let's keep the encyclopedia balanced. Encyclopedias aren't supposed to be "complete"; they are supposed to provide overviews and guide users to further information on a subject if they want to go beyond the standard level. Something like a Christina Milian fan wiki would be a fine place to have an article on every Milian song, but a general-purpose encyclopedia is not. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs. Why write dozens of short articles on singles, with no chances of actual expansion short of padding and marketing-report material (chart positions), when they can be combined into one album article? Extraordinary Machine 04:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. See other single. KittenKlub 21:23, 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 no consensus; editorial decision taken to redirect to Combatives, which already covers the same topic. Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military Martial Arts[edit]

Subject essentially covered in combatives, seems a vanity site for a single individual Prof._Dr._Deepak_Rao_&_Dr._Seema_Rao and product Advanced_Commando_Combat_System. Three articles for one off-site link seems inappropriate. Rorybowman 06:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The term "Military Martial Arts" seems at first glance to be nonsense, since "martial" = "military." The article is about a notable subject (assuming "military martial arts" is a subject separate from "martial arts"), and mentions many subjects upon which there already exist Wiki articles, but the article itself is poorly written and of little value as it stands. I note that there is a cleanup tag on the page already but if nobody cleans it up soon (i.e. if the original author doesn't care enough to clean it up), it should be deleted. GestaltG 17:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete This articale has great potential, a collection of martial arts and military history, give them a chance CSN

Keep--Dangerous-Boy 10:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete unless original author returns and does major revamping. Topic is covered elsewhere as noted in the nom. Das Nerd 10:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom hern[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a young actor of some note. Article needs to be cleaned up but has potential. No Guru 22:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've cleaned up the article. No Guru 18:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both The Tribe and Power Rangers shows are of not and a young actor who has had major parts in both is surely notable too. Actually, wouldn't redirect to Tom Hern be a better option? Evil Eye 00:10, 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 speedy keep. Sorry for rolling this one forward; I was a bit distracted. —Cryptic (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Umbrella Tree (1986)[edit]

Article is of an unsourceable television show in Canada, where there are obviously not much televisions nor television stations able to air any programs. Obviously this show is either nonexistant or American. Vote to remove. Darwiner111 10:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. While it's not the thing I wish Wikipedians would spend their time on, I think it is a legitimate article and show. -- Mikeblas 10:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (strong). As the individual that has recently edited the UtUT article from its poor state to the updated, information and picture-packed state it is now in, I vote for a keep. Also, how is this "unsourceable"? Search anywhere on the internet and you'll see it did exist. There are televisions in Canada by the way, considering there are 33,000,000 Canadians, that would come to about 132,000,000 televisions in the country. (We don't all live in igloos) PatrickA 11:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Seems to be a bad faith nomination or maybe it's making a WP:POINT which I don't quite understand. Pburka 15:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, a well known Canadian children's programme. - SimonP 16:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be a legitimate television programme. -- (aeropagitica) 16:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as has been done with other national TV shows nominated without any reason. Note, since nominator has so few edits and vote doesn't count, there's not a single valid delete vote. So we might as well close this early. Comments about Canada indicate this is a bad faith nomination (aka a prank). --Rob 16:58, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weapon of Choice (music video)[edit]

This page is copied and pasted nearly verbatim from the Christopher Walken article. Being such a narrow subject, with no references whatsoever, I don't think it really needs it's own article, much less one with so little substance to it.

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rather than having this at Christopher Walken. This is one of (and probably the) most famous music videos so far this decade. It deserves expansion. - Randwicked 05:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable video. Who knew Walken could dance? Jtmichcock 18:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Randwicked; the video features an Oscar-winning actor and was directed by an Oscar-nominated director, which places it above the run-of-the-mill video. However, I recommend that the article be moved to Weapon of Choice to allow coverage of the Fatboy Slim song as well; Wikipedia doesn't generally have articles for music videos separate from their songs. --Metropolitan90 21:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, Won 6 MTV Video Music Awards including Breakthrough Video; deserves distinct recognition. -The lorax 19:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the vid is notable without the song. Youngamerican 04:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This video kicks so much ass that it merits its own article on Wikipedia. Bobberton 17:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypertrophia[edit]

Cannot find any verification of this term on Google. Lbbzman 15:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't appear to be a recognised sexual fetish term. The word Hypertrophy appears as a medical term but not related to sexuality. -- (aeropagitica) 16:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per (aeropagitica) Dlyons493 Talk 17:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NeoJustin 17:49, December 31, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thordis Bjornsdottir[edit]

Non-notable Icelandic writer. Has one self-published book — the importance of which is exaggerated in the article — and one relevant English language Google hit. I've met her, she's a nice person and I wish her the best. Hopefully we'll have an article on her in the future. - Haukur

As a side note her fiancé survived his AfD. - Haukur 15:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Poet has three poems in legitimate literary magazine Tin House.

Delete - Haukur 15:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A notable female Icelandic poet. Or to put it another way, very marginal, but here's a chance to counter systemic bias. Dlyons493 Talk 17:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we really have a systemic bias against Icelanders. In Category:Icelandic poets there are currently 19 poets (from a nation of about 300,000 people). Admittedly none of them is a woman so I suppose you could say that's one kind of systemic bias. - Haukur 17:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom and I don't believe there is a bias against Icelanders either. - NeoJustin 18:36, December 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Absolutely non-notable (in fact, I'd never heard of her until my attention was directed to the article), and the article's history suggests anonymous self-promotion or promotion by a friend. Cheers Io 22:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if someone wants to include poetesses, it isn't as if there aren't any. Suggestions would include Hulda, Látra-Björg, Skáld-Rósa, Herdís Andrésdóttir, Ólína Andrésdóttir, Theódóra Thoroddsen, Guðný Jónsdóttir frá Klömbrum and Júlíana Jónsdóttir as well as others who escape my mind right now, just to name the some of the older ones. (The young generation doesn't appeal to me, but others would surely be happy to fill in.) Cheers Io 22:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for Haukur's side note above, I can't shake the suspicion, that Jesse Ball and Þórdís Björnsdóttir wrote each other's articles. But maybe that's just my character raising its ugly head. Cheers Io 23:00, 6 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. Mo0[talk] 06:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M C Puri[edit]

Bio article for someone who is notably only for being killed, and only from the article pointing out his death. Maury 15:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article title should at least contain his full name instead of initials. Much too unnotable. He scores seven times less than Brian Peppers on Google hits. --★Ukdragon37★^talk 18:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia naming conventions, the article title should be the name he is best known by, whether this is "M C Puri" or "Munish Chandra Puri". For instance, Alan Alexander Milne is simply a redirect to the much better known A. A. Milne. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable for being in the news, and potentially for academic work yet to be added. Probably redirect to full name unless this is his usual byline. --Hansnesse 19:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Describes a current event. In news [18]. deeptrivia (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Maybe if this Rfa was presented before his death I'd have voted Speedy. I've never heard about this Professor (maybe only a couple of thousands around the world have had) and it's a pleasure that I got to know about him via Wikipedia! This Afd led me to know that "Manmohan Singh (PM of India) has written a letter to the wife of Puri who was killed in a suspected terrorist attack. Worthy! Cheers -- Szvest 01:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}[reply]

Keep, it's verifiable, and notability is not a prerequisite for Wikipedia articles, despite common belief Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 07:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If not much can be added about his academic work, it could be merged and redirected to 2005 Indian Institute of Science shooting. --Pamri • Talk 14:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A Professor of mathematics, current or retired, at any Indian Institute of Technology would be generally a notable person, and killing of Puri has certainly made him certainly notable. He is more notable than several computer-game characters. --Bhadani 14:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are hundreds of thousands of professors in the world, and to claim that they are all notable is presumptuous. I cannot find a paper of his that is newer than 1995 (and only two at that), he does not seem to have won any significant awards, and therefore he is not notable. All the Google hits are news articles based on his death. Notability is indeed a factor (WP:Notability IIRC), and since his funeral is over and done with, it is really no longer a current event. There also appears to be no more info available than what's already here, even from news outlets. MSJapan 22:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Indian Institute of Technology are no ordinary universities. The IIS is one of the most famous institutes in India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to 2005 Indian Institute of Science shooting. He was not notable enough before he was killed. utcursch | talk 08:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Retired professor; retired before 2000 AD; not surprising that his last paper is in 1995. Also, he pre-dates internet era, hence, hits would be limited. Given the fact that he was professor emeritus at IIT Delhi, a notable position at a notable institution, I'd vote keep for now. It can be merged with the IISc page even later. --Gurubrahma 14:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In general, "emeritus" is a term applied to almost any former titled professor (as it's based on more than a PhD) who has retired and is still alive. That in and of itself is not notable. That is like saying a professor emeritus at a community college is notable - emeritus does not make notability. He doesn't really predate the Internet, and there should be a list of publications available someplace or some citations if his work was really that groundbreaking - that's the nature of scholarly research - and there isn't. I mean, Hawking oredated the Net, and he is heavily cited everywhere. MSJapan 03:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it was a current event.--Kevin Hanse (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – IIT prof on visit to an IIS seminar. I'm sure he must have published something given this background. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - There is nothing here information-wise that isn't already covered in the shootings article already mentioned, and if there's no more biographical info than what is currently available, this will never be more than a non-notable stub. Academic position is not notable; there are plenty of professors (emeritus or otherwise) in plenty of fields who have published seminal works any many papers on their topics in their countries, and almost none have Wikipedia articles on them, nor are they deserving of such, as those pages amount to nothing but vanity pages. I can think of three presidents of the Association for Asian Studies who do not have articles on them, for example, and this is really the same type of situation. MSJapan 07:41, 5 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 copyvio. Johnleemk | Talk 15:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix Holdings Ltd[edit]

apears to be spam/vanity Happyhaydn 16:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since its only content seems to be a copy and past from a webpage. Cedars 15:15, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smoal[edit]

This word doesn't need a page on WP; a dictdef at most on Wiktionary. Not notable in its own right. -- (aeropagitica) 16:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

smoal is not the stupidest or even the most useless word on wikipedia. in addition, nobody has been harmed in any way by smoal having been put onto this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.247.177 (talk • contribs)

I feel that smoal is fast becoming part of the internet vernacular. It deserve to be here just as much as "blog" or "WTF" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.84.192 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-01 00:03:45 UTC
You "feel"? Do us all a favor and go play chicken with a freight train to rid us of such inanity. Delete. --Agamemnon2 15:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was no call whatsoever for that. Uncle G 17:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Daveb 15:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Being familiar with the Red vs Blue series and the very, very narrow context in which it's used, I'd say that the corresponding dialogue now over at Wikiquote suffices. The only way that smoal would possibly fit anywhere in WP would be if it were eventually covered in a guide for the special one-off episodes of RvB that exist outside the main storyline. But I don't see such a guide as being necessary, and especially not to the level of detail where smoal is explicitly mentioned. -- TKD 11:18, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pass Out of Existence[edit]

No context. Nonsense. Mostly likely a cd with a list of unknown songs __earth 16:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and delete. In fact, I support speedy deletion __earth 16:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy DeleteThis is an obvious case for speedy delete. If reasons are needed, first it's not even an article, it's just a list of song titles or whatever. Second, as mentioned previously, there is no indication to what it relates. This page should quickly "pass out of existence." GestaltG 17:50, 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 as recreation of Rajeev Jain. howch e ng {chat} 07:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Jain (cinematographer)[edit]

Its looks like an advertisement for job recruitment. scope_creep 16:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is a resumé combined with spam to promote search engine hits. Not appropriate for WP. -- (aeropagitica) 16:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above. le petit vagabond 01:08, 1 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 article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howch e ng {chat} 19:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frown Land[edit]

Non-notable band. -- (aeropagitica) 16:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as Copyvio from All Music Guide. Punkmorten 17:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 19:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life 2 DeathMatch Pro[edit]

nn HL2 mod? Sceptr e ^(Talk) 16:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone seems to have vandalized this page by removing the header link and Sceptre's originial nomination. I have restored it by copying from the original edit. Don't try it again, don't be a juvenile, even if you are. Be mature enough to have an intelligent debate about this, rather than trying to sabotage the deletion process.GestaltG 14:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at this entry fairly, I don't see why this is an "article" or why it's necessarily encyclopedic. I note the following in support. First, it's written in jargon which is about half incomprehensible to me. Wikipedia is a general audience encyclopedia, so articles should not be written in jargon, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia for professionals. That at least merits a strong cleanup tag. Second, it seems to be a promotional article for a video game and should be deleted on that issue alone, having no other value. Finally, other than the first nearly incomprehensible paragraph, the rest of the "article" is mostly screen shots from the game and lists of features, programmers, and play testers. All of this adds up to a delete vote GestaltG 18:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be deleted at all. Millions of people all over the world play Half Life 2 (HL2) and this is one of many wikipedia entries describing in detail the various modifications (mods) to the game and where they can be found. This mod, along with all the other HL2 mods, is free. Therefore, this is not an advert by any means. It is an informational page for HL2 enthusiasts and is entirely useful as an information source. The jargon you refer to is necessary technical detail and would be understood by anyone looking for information on HL2 mods.

An unsigned endorsement for keeping the page. The game is basically a commercial product, at some point along the line, each of the owners of this game paid money. That makes it an advert, even if you classify it as a free modification to an existing program. I wouldn't write an article about the latest free upgrade to my shareware floating desktop clock program, and if I did, I'd expect a speedy delete. If you want to make an "informational page" of this sort, for "HL2 enthusiast" that belongs on a fan site or a game promotion site. Wikipedia is neither. Further, Wikipedia is a general free public encyclopedia, so saying that the "technical detail" is necessary and "would be understood by anyone looking for information on HL2 mods" is not an argument for keeping an article that consists of one paragraph of technical jargon and a bunch of lists and screenshots. GestaltG 19:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gorob Gorob Gorob! 19:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This should be kept. It is a valid mod of HL2, and has as much right to exist here as any other listed mod.

Keep it barbouze 13:58, 01 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an evidence it should be kept. How can we imagine to delete it ? It is a full valid mod of HL2 which is free and which is a very good mod. Hey GestaltG, did you read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-Life_2_mods ? If you think this mod does not deserve to be listed in the HL2 mods list then why don't you react for Dystopia, Hidden Source, Plan of Attack, or SourceForts?

First of all, I didn't put this page up for deletion. I saw it on the Afd list, looked at the page, and voted for deletion. I know nothing about the pages you listed, but if they exist and they are as you represent, then they should be deleted as well. I am advancing as a princple here that individual articles should not exist for modifications to video games. All of the reasons I stated here--they are advertizments, they are not really articles, they are not notable enough to deserve an encyclopedic article, and that they all belong on fansites and game promotion pages, which Wikipedia is not, would apply equally to all of the pages you mentioned. I am not here arguing whether they are "valid mods" or not, since I have no idea what you mean by that, I am talking in terms of encyclopedia content. If these pages are as you say, then I will seek to take this discussion to a higher level and have it endorsed as a principle by Wikipedia that pages about individual video game modifications are not encyclopedic content. GestaltG 14:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Patently non-encyclopaedic. --Daveb 15:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm obviously for deleting this page, and quite a few people are. Barbouze's votes should be discounted, he registered at 12:34 today, and has only edited the Sandbox and this page. Sceptr e ^(Talk) 17:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This may be true, but don't cross out his vote. howch e ng {chat} 19:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek and pedophilia (second nomination)[edit]

Unencyclopedic. This is an incredibly weak premise for a wikipedia article since it is based on a throw away paragraph in a newspaper article. Yes, it got some attention from a few bloggers but it remains pure speculation based, it seems, on a joke by a few police officers in Toronto. This should not be an article until and unless there is evidence that it's a credible theory ie it's being discussed seriously in academic circles, there are published articles on it in the media (rather than a passing, half-joking reference) etc. Homey 17:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here is the original afd discussion (result: no consensus): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek and pedophilia -- MisterHand 17:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no statistical link between the two, so it's conjecture, not fact. scope_creep 17:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 17:15, 31 December 2005 (GMT)[reply]

Delete this ridiculous piece of garbage. --Fang Aili 17:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sceptr e ^(Talk) 17:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NeoJustin 18:31, December 31, 2005 (UTC)

Keep According to an article in Mclean's (May 30, 2005), there is forthcoming research on the subject: "Seto and Eke are continuing their research, and will soon start combing through the police files of close to 400 child-porn offenders across Ontario, searching for commonalities and patterns of behaviour. One of the things they will be looking for is reports of suspects with sci-fi collections, especially Star Trek." I think it should, at present, be rewritten to emphasize the uncertain nature of the research, but a definite keep. Note the McLean's article was 4 pages and dedicated to this topic as well. It may well be conjecture (or better put, a hypothesis), but notable conjecture as it is the subject of current academic research. --Hansnesse 18:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When and if the "forthcoming research" is published there will be a basis for an article. Until then it remains purely speculative without any non-anecdotal evidence to back it up.Homey 19:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia is not infinite, as this article basically says 'Star Trek and paedophilia are not really correlated'. --Last Malthusian 18:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the McLean's artilce is correct, and there is new research forthcoming on this topic, then we can re-create this article, or add the findings to an existing article. But for the time being, this material is too speculative. -Willmcw 18:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is based on opinion rather than peer-reviewed studies in to the backgrounds of this particular type of sexual offender. Until such peer-reviewed literature is published, this article shouldn't exist. -- (aeropagitica) 18:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --NeoJustin 19:01, December 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. If and when actual research demonstrates a link the article can be rewritten. Per WP:Not, not a crystal ball. Unpublished, non-peer reviewed, unwritten research does not merit an encyclopedia article. Durova 19:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unproven claims permeate areas like Alternative Medicine on Wikipedia. They are just notable unproven claims. Specifically by pointing out where the research stands I think this would be useful to a Wikipedia user. Truth should not be the criteria for inclusion, since it would eliminate important but false scientific hypotheses (Phlogiston theory for example) or yet poorly supported hypotheses (String theory for example). The question should be one of notability of the hypothesis, not its truth.--Hansnesse 19:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, that is true. However there is no assertion of notability for this theory. -Willmcw 19:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just an opinion, original research. Unencyclopedic.--Dakota ~ ε 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was a single blurb in a few newspapers, since nothing further has come of it I think it's just a coincidence and it's time to delete now. Ashibaka tock 19:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ridiculous nonsense. Existence of article based upon a throwaway line taken out of context is clear attempt at POV-pushing, with no way to fix without deletion. DreamGuy 21:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not worthy of its own article. --LesleyW 22:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This kind of misuse of information is unscientific, unencyclopedic, and extremely ridiculous. --DanielCD 16:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is absolutely no science here. Just an urban legend, and one that could be harmful at that. There is not even a statistical correlation, only a speculation of relation!! Passing off entertaining rumors as if they have any credibility at all is something that can hurt Wikipedia as a whole. If it were really notable, it could be mentioned somewhere perhaps, but with the strong caveat added that it's just a rumor. --DanielCD 16:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Benami 05:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I mean, come on. The Land 13:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without any basis apart from anecdotal evidence a topic like this doesn't deserve an article. Cedars 15:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as per The Land. Qarnos 22:33, 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 delete. howch e ng {chat} 19:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nyk[edit]

nonsense, neologism, Wikipedia is not for something you made up one day at school etc. Kuzaar 17:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete n Sceptr e ^(Talk) 17:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonsense, neologism. __earth 18:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, unsalvageable nonsense --Muchness 18:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. This is not patent nonsense. Uncle G 20:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn made-up neologism, with apologies. --Muchness 20:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the article condemns itself to speedy deletion. And if the first listed reason isn't enough, then I add that it's pure vanity; someone wanted to get their names in Wikipedia. GestaltG 19:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. Uncle G 20:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, I was using the term in an unprofessional way. I have looked at the speedy deletion page. GestaltG 20:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article tells us that two schoolchildren have made up a word, and that no-one uses it apart from a few of their friends and their mother. It also gives us a detailed historical account of the activities of some schoolchildren that is obviously from firsthand knowledge. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. This article is both unverifiable and original research. Delete. Uncle G 20:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as noted--Bookandcoffee 20:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Uncle G. --Metropolitan90 00:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No delete. I bellieve this could eventually get around and become a big thing. Yeah, its foolish, but werent all the other 4 letter "bad" words in the dictionary?
I think that the word Nyk should be kept on Wikipedia. I happen to know these kids who put this here and there just trying to do the same thing Paris Hilton is doing with "That's hot." They come from a very small town and have no other way to get it out there.

I would note that the previous comments were posted by user Jake Lykins, one of the kids mentioned in the article. Jake, Wikipedia is not a medium for you to try to make a word that you or your friends invented catch on and become a national phenomenon. Wikipedia is in no way comparable to the media outlets available to Paris Hilton, and you certainly are not in the same celeberty class as Paris Hilton. I am sure that you are not nearly as cute, and you probably have a lot more brains. If you want to make a phrase "cool" become famous, but don't try to use Wikipedia to promote words that you made up at school one day. I suggest you read the previous link to understand why this is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about compiling the "sum of all human knowledge" to which your entry does not contribute in any significant way. GestaltG 02:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you GestaltG! I am smarter than Paris Hilton! If you have any idea on how to get Nyk to be a big phrase, other than getting famous, please tell me, because I beleive that it could be a big thing one day. I really don't know any other way to do that. I don't think I could get famous. I'm just an odd kid from Wheatcroft, Ky. I understand that it's not good to try to market Nyk by putting it on Wikipedia after I read all of that stuff. But I have hope in Nyk, and you, yes YOU, will hear Nyk one day or see it wrote on a shirt, and you will remember this. I may not become famous, but Nyk will!

In my own personal opinion, there are some things on wikipedia other than "Nyk" that do not contribute to human Knowledge. If you look up "The Game" you will find a useless rule setting for a game that is so simplistic that it must have been made up by someone. Now... If wikipedia is truly the sum of ALL human Knowledge... then even the simple words made up by people were contributed to human Knowledge. "The game" is much more idiotic than "Nyk." So, do not delete.
If there is such an entry, then move it for deletion. But don't drag Wikipedia down by trying to twist this argument into something it is not. It may work at home to say, "See, what I didn't wasn't bad because he did something worse!," but that does not apply to this particlar debate here (which is what you are trying to do) because we are not talking about morals or right and wrong in that sense, but rather, what is encyclopedic and what is not. GestaltG 05:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you like me? HUH!? What did I do? I bet you are going to start using Nyk! You know why? BECAUSE IT IS GOOD!

Ah yes, we could see this coming; the petty self-centered juvenile outburst. GestaltG 07:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

um, not to be too contradictingg to what you are sayingg, but if this is not about morales, then take out all the religious articles. They are all about morales, and in my opinion they are not required to be in the encyclopedia. Now, jake is having outbursts, but i am trying to show you that wikipedia does have entries not relevant to human knowledge.
I am not going to spend days arguing about this, I am busy editing. But if you think "morals" not part of the sum of human knowledge, whether in the form of religion or philosophies, then you should go back to school and learn something. What I said was that Jake could not use the argument that "you can't delete my article because there are more worthless articles" (similar to "I didn't do anything bad because he did something worse" type arguments you use at home) here because the standard here is what is encyclopedic. If you don't understand what is encyclopedic, do some research on Wikipedia's standards. This argument is not going to go on and on, because, first, this is the last time I am going to respond to your kids arguments, and second, an admin (and I am not an admin, so you are arguing with the wrong person) will eventually make a decision to delete your silly article, and that will be the end of it. GestaltG 21:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im gonna laugh, when they dont delete it. Cause then you look stupid lol.

Delete Shouldn't this be a speedy? Kevin 22:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I am starting to see why Speed Deletes were invented. However, UncleG pointed out earlier in this discussion that this article doesn't qualify for speedy delete. So, here we are, having a pointless argument with the juveniles who created the article. Hopefully, they learn something from this. GestaltG 23:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, if it gets deleted... Im jus gonna put it up again. lol, yall wont win... Im too damn stubborn... and uhh... DND AND WAR GAMING SUCKS!!! PARALEGALS HOT CARL THEIR MOMS!!!
If this article is recreated, after being deleted according to the deletion standards, it will be eligible for speedy deletion under the 'reposting deleted material' provision of the Wikipedia CSD. If you want to bring a word into common use, do it on your own, Wikipedia is not here to help you start a trend. Kuzaar 13:40, 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. howch e ng {chat} 19:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Lonely Winds"[edit]

Looks like self-promotion for a non-notable book. Amazon's page for the book on December 31 shows a sales rank of 915,382 and 7 reviews, all favorable, but all by users who have reviewed this book and no others. Published by InfinityPublishing.com, a pay-to-publish service. Rholton 17:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - French Tourist 18:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as self-promotion of a nn book. The article was created by a user called BIFlight, incidentally the same name as the author of the book. Have also notified the user. Bjelleklang - talk 12:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self-published books unless otherwise notable. Chick Bowen 23:01, 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 Merge into Grindcore. Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norsecore[edit]

This article was proposed for merging, into an article it repeats. After some time, the articles creator has then made several personal attacks using the articles talk page. After several warnings to the user about Wikipedia's policies, he has continued to make attacks. Minor edits have also been made to the page, which have been reverted with claim of ownership of the user. This article seems nothing more than a made up genre by one person, that is used as a term to seperate out favourite bands from Grindcore and Black Metal. This article is in need of serious attentnion, and then deleting. If there is any truth to this genre, it needs merging into the Grindcore article, where it so belongs. Leyasu 09:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though the article could use some cleaning up. This is a valid and widely-used term, as a google search shows. «LordViD» 10:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the author invited, I searched for "Norsecore" with Google, and it does indeed seem that the term is rather more widely used than "a made up genre by one person". e.g. see this interview with someone named Hartmuth of Barbarian Wrath Records who claims to have invented the term. btw according to the Wayback Machine this interviews dates back at least to February 28, 2003. --Stormie 10:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Main problem is the content and what is written. As i said, if there is any truth to this genre, someone needs to provide it, and seriously edit the article in question, lest it should be deleted. Leyasu 10:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are content problems with this article. I'll attempt to do something if I can find some time. --Stormie 09:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Scandinavian death metal, leave a redirect. Proto t c 12:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Serious issues seem to have been raised on the talk page about the factual accuracy of this article. Also if the original creator is trying to claim ownership of the article he should be banned for failing to comply with Wikipedia GFDL requirements. —gorgan_almighty 14:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Proto. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 17:14, Dec. 31, 2005

I am relisting this to generate more discussion. --Angr (t·c) 17:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 06:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Reliable Source?[edit]

Description of, and link to, non-notable website. Delete Tom Harrison ^(talk) 17:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sceptr e ^(Talk) 17:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tedernst | talk 02:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 19:25, 5 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 --Ichiro 05:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuerden[edit]

nn? My village Rastrick gets a small entry because of its brass band, but I've never heard of Cuerdon, and all I know is that Leyland is near Blackpool Sceptr e ^(Talk) 17:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Verifiable place Lancashire - a strong Wiki traditionis to keep places/settlements. Expand. Dlyons493 Talk 17:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep real place Jcuk 18:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, however I think this article's title is misspelt. In the List of civil parishes in Lancashire "Cuerden" is listed as being in Chorley, in Lancashire. Similarly, searching streetmap.co.uk for the GB Place "Cuerdon" turns up nothing, but "Cuerden" turns up possibilities (is Cuerden the same as Cuerden Green?). Rename? Sliggy 19:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename and tidy. Accvording to the best maps I've got, Cuerden Green is just outside Leyland, but in the direction of Bamber Bridge, not Chorley. (i.e., north of Leyland, not southeast). Cuerden Hall seems to be located nearby, and both are close to junction 29 of the M6. Multimap puts Cuerden itself in the same place. There seems to be a Cuerden Valley Park there, presumably on the River Lostock. Grutness...wha? 00:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename, and expand – Seancdaug 06:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now renamed. -- RHaworth 11:18, 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. Mo0[talk] 06:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reaverbot[edit]

gamecruft - NB, this is the my first attempt at nomination under the 'cruft' tag, your comments are appreciated MNewnham 14:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good on yer for asking for comments. So, umm, don't take this the wrong way, but ... no! Stop! BAD! While I'm not one of the "no such thing as cruft" or "cruft is offensive" whiners, frankly, just saying "-cruft" is not a good argument for deletion. When you nominate an article, you should give your argument for why the article should be deleted — is it non-notable (why?), unverifiable (how have you tried to verify it?), a hoax (where's your evidence?), etc. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What you've said clearly contradicts the notes on -cruft in the Guide To Deletion, "This article is trivia of interest only to hardcore fans of a specific film, television series, book, game, pop singer, web forum, etc.", so perhaps you can expand your rationale on the cruft concept. MNewnham 16:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"-cruft" is like "non-notable". It says nothing more than "I think this article should be deleted". Instead of simply saying "gamecruft", explain why you think it's -cruft. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as part of my completely-useless-game-articles-of-disproportionate-length crusade. Flyboy Will 21:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this to generate more discussion. --Angr (t·c) 17:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This vote comes from a gamer. Sub-noteworthy. Durova 19:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments above. Pavel Vozenilek 11:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Daveb 15:51, 1 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. One song like this in a permanent sentence is obviously not note worthy.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly Caught[edit]

Delete This article has inappropriate tone, is only one sentence in length, has too little info to convey any meaningfyl information, and in short is utterly worthless. Rlevse 14:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I believe this refers to the song by Massive Attack, and listings for individual songs appear acceptable, (although I think some guidelines would be good). Needs wikifying MNewnham 15:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no context. One sentence does not a Wikipedia article make. B.Wind 17:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteA one sentence opinion about a NN song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obina (talk • contribs) 17:57, 20 December 2005

Redirect to 100th Window. While it was released as a single, it appears not to have done particularly well in the charts and there is little verifiable material to add to the current one line article. Capitalistroadster 18:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

""Delete"" It is a minor song in the discograpy and the article is a poor one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.127.141 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 23 December 2005

Delete I strongly disagree that most songs should merit an individual entry in Wikipedia, and this is a good case in point. If you cannot write more than one sentence about a minor song by a minor group, then it doesn't belong here. If you could expand this article to more than one sentence, it wouldn't be an article about the song at all, but rather an article about the "modern day cynicsm of the British underworld" whatever that is? If it's not deleted, it should be redirected to an appropriate page on a larger subject. Finally, I also think this one sentence reeks of POV, but I have never listened to this song, or this group, and I don't follow the British underground (whatever that is, I suspect that many different groups could be called "the underground" in any society), so I could be mistaken. GestaltG 18:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Song needs to be placed in context of genre and reasons given for why it is notable. -- (aeropagitica) 18:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect -- Minor individual songs don't deserve entries, but it would still help people to find the album. P.S., GestaltG, I wouldn't call Massive Attack a minor group, since they've sold several million albums and basically founded a genre. Night Gyr 20:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PPS. This appears to be a japan-only EP

I'm relisting this to generate more discussion. --Angr (t·c) 17:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very, very close to a G1 speedy. Probably is one. Free of any and all context. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 21:26, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Home (Angel episode)[edit]

Fancruft. Unencyclopedic, without significance or possibility thereof. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, episode of Angel seen by an audience of millions. Why shouln't people able to look this up? Why destroy? Kappa 18:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They can look it up in a TV guide, any of the many Buffy fan sites, waiting for a re-run, or getting it on DVD in due time. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah they can find it somewhere in a copyrighted form, if they are lucky, or if they pay. So much for free acccess to the sum of human knowledge. Kappa 18:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't the purpose of Wikipedia when I last checked. I respect your vote, but the idea behind it is wrong. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Did it suddenly change? Jimbo doesn't seem to realize, judging from the message at the top of the page. Kappa 21:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As if insipid garbage like Angel and its like added anything worth recording into the sum total of human knowledge... --Agamemnon2 15:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I might or might not agree with your point of view, elitism is not a suitable basis for wikipedia policy. Kappa 00:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Angel (series) episodes, or perhaps into lists for each season. These are brief capsules and don't merit 110 separate articles. bikeable (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kappa. Episode articles do no harm. Xoloz 18:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs to be templated with production details, actors, plot points and episode summary. Poorly-constructed but no reason not to keep. -- (aeropagitica) 18:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep along with the other Angel episodes. I'll get to it to wikify and clean it up soon. My current project is cleaning up all the Angel episodes. --Cooksey 19:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Angel was a very popular TV show, and we have episodes of other TV shows. Carioca 19:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kappa. Free information wasn't the purpose of Wikipedia when you last checked? Okaaaaaaaaay.... CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 23:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Evil Eye 00:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per overwhelming precedent and the lack of any policy preventing such articles from being created. (And IMO Pandora's Box is well open so such a policy is unlikely). 23skidoo 17:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' I just edited it to bring it to a higher standard and therefore feel that it's a keeper. Though i'm obviouslt biased. Would be great if anyone wants to build on it further. -- Paxomen 16:51, 6 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. Note also the article hasn't been touched since March 31, 2005, suggesting it's abandoned. howch e ng {chat} 19:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Painkiller (artist)[edit]

I don't actually see an assertion of notability here, but other editors have apparently disagreed. In any event, I see no reason why this loosely defined "group of DJs" is encyclopedic. Delete Xoloz 18:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a more notable band that currently exists under this name and is listed on allmusic, unlike the nn band described in the article. Kuzaar 18:44, 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 No Consensus, so Keep. Voice of All^T|@|ESP 06:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Calibur mystical weapons[edit]

subject of article now located at Soul Edge (Sword) and Soul Calibur (Sword). can we delete this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBH (talk • contribs) 19:19, 20 December 2005
Comment - we could salvage this article and use it for the character's legendary weapons (mitsurugi's damascus sword, cassandra's valkyrie, raphael's queen's guard etc.). though we might use it to redirect to a more properly titled article (List of Soul Calibur character's legendary weapons) or something. --Phil 14:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Lets delete those other two articles and do what phil suggested. hateless 08:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete - delete this page. it's covered more specifically in those other two articles --152.163.101.9 16:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just do what Phil suggested. JONJONAUG 15:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this to get more discussion. --Angr (t·c) 18:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

redirect as appropriate or turn into a disambig. Kappa 18:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page and delete the other two seperate articles. Why are those even seperate anyway..? They are redundant. Also, add more legendary weapons to the this current article (as Phil suggested). However, the slight problem with that is that they don't have pictures like the soul edge and calibur do. Its minor, just a small fact I think everyone should be aware of. Also note that this page was created before the two redundant, seperate articles.-MegamanZero|Talk 14:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's plenty of other pages of similar fictional basis that offer even less information than this one does. But I recommend deletion of the separate pages. In canon Soul Edge and Soul Calibur are polar opposites of each other (in terms of good vs. evil) but due to their nature of origin, noting both on the same page is more useful. TotalTommyTerror 21:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher bangs watson VI[edit]

Seems to be utter nonsense Garion96 (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonsense. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonsense, very probable hoax, I doubt it's a speedy candidate and this makes me feel very sad, but hey. Lord Bob 19:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, shite. Incognito 06:16, 5 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 all. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Thomas Floyd III (Texas Lawyer), John Thomas Floyd III (Criminal Defense Lawyer, Houston, Texas ), John Thomas Floyd III (Houston, Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer)[edit]

These are the autobiographical vanity pages of an individual who probably doesn't pass the noteworthiness test DLJessup (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user (68.93.65.191) just blanked this subpage. I have restored it, but this is completely inappropriate.

— DLJessup (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. Not one, but two vanity pages on the same person supported by probable sockpuppetry. Note that IP 68.93.65.191 belongs to an ISP in Houston, TX. -- Vary | Talk 23:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertisment. -- RHaworth 11:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Joe I 21:08, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undercut Productions[edit]

nn company Sceptr e ^(Talk) 19:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable -Drdisque 21:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn pseudo-company. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:13, 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 no concensus --Ichiro 07:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Childlove movement~~ Pedophilia advocacy[edit]

moved to Pedophilia advocacy on the basis of consensus forming here. AfD template still directs here -- not trying to circumvent process. James James 10:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with pedophilia. Neologism. Euphemism for pedophilia ~~coined by Lindsay Ashford~~. Google shows virtually all the hits for "childlove" are from dupes of the wikipedia article and from Lindsay Ashford's puellula.org website. The article is inherently POV~~, and largely written by Ashford (who is on wikipedia as User:Zanthalon)~~. The title is non-neutral as it is a euphemism. Homey 19:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This nom is in bad faith Comment There has been over a year's worth of work done to keep this article NPOV. The points you argue have already been gone through in the previous AfD and you haven't brought up anything new. Ashibaka tock 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You may disagree with the nomination but the accusation of "bad faith" is hot air. As for the previous nomination, I was unaware of it as there is no note about it at the top of the Talk:Childlove movement page as is required (why is the old page not in the AFD archives?). Homey 19:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is. I retract that it's in bad faith, since you didn't see it, but seriously-- what would you do with this article, merge it into pedophilia? You might as well merge... well I won't stir up anything by drawing comparisons, but they are both very long articles and a merge would shorten both considerably. Ashibaka tock 19:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No there isn't. Look at Talk:Star Trek and pedophilia to see what the required tag looks like. It's clearly not at the top of Talk:Childlove movement. Homey 19:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That thingy is a template to make it easier to see old AfD discussions, but back in the old days we didn't use templates for any old thing. Also AfD used to be called VfD. Ashibaka tock 20:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, I was looking for the template - I see there is a notation made as an ordinary post. Homey 20:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because it itself was deleted. I've restored it. Uncle G 20:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now that that's settled, I'm going to vote keep. The biggest problem with the article is the name, which I agree is a distasteful euphemism, but it's used by many pedophiles to refer to themselves, and it was already decided that the name should stay. Any other perceived problems can be cleaned up. Ashibaka tock 20:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"it was already decided that the name should stay". Decisions can be revisited and reversed. That we "already" decided it doesn't strike me as sufficient grounds to keep the name if not the article. Homey 20:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to revisit the page's name on the talk page... but you're taking this to AfD instead, right? Generally the only reason to exclude something from Wikipedia is lack of verifiability or notability, so let's get cracking on those. Ashibaka tock 21:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neutrality^talk 19:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why? // paroxysm (n) 21:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Movement is real. If anything is POV, NPOV it. Clayboy 19:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete title, merge contents with Pedophilia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why? // paroxysm (n) 21:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This would shorten both articles considerably, why not keep them separate? Ashibaka tock 21:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We shouldn't have a new article every time someone comes up with a new euphemism. This is a duplicate/fork. Choalbaton 20:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but this is not a normal "euphemism." It has established usage, and, at any rate, we are not describing this alleged euphemism, but what it refers to -- activism for the acceptance of pedophilia and ephebophilia, a very real and notable phenomenon. // paroxysm (n) 21:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment' I'd like to suggest that the salvagable parts of the article be moved to the "Advocacy of pedophilia" section of pedophilia. I'm wary of simply renaming the article Advocacy of pedophilia as, unless we include an equal amount of information against pedophilia advocacy the article will be unbalanced and POV while including said information will likely end up in a duplication of pedophilia. Homey 20:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The "childlove movement" is not simply advocacy of pedophilia. The title childlove movement is inclusive and accurate, as that is what they refer to themselves as. // paroxysm (n) 21:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. What a ridiculous proposition. "Childlove" was not coined by Ashford, it is derivative of boylove and girllove, more specific terms designating a type of pedophilic or ephebophilic attraction. Even if you don't want to believe it, or the thought of pedophilia makes you squirm, that is not relevant here, so I would ask anyone to consider the notability of this subject carefully before kneejerking with delete. To say that this was "largely written by Ashford" is false in itself; it's been edited extensively to keep POV out since its last kneejerk nomination, which, as is apparent, resulted in a keep. Merging this with pedophilia is not a good idea, as the childlove movement is not at all completely composed of pedophiles, but also ephebophiles, and as jd420 tells me at least, normophilic people as well. The "childlove movement" article is already long enough. Moving on... if you're the type of person who judges notability by a quick tap into Google, please note that "childlove" is a rarely used term. "Boylove" and "girllove" are used much more often, so as to segregate the sexual attractions. "Girllove" gets 18,700 hits, if we exclude all pages containing the keywords "wikipedia" and "encyclopedia." "Boylove," seemingly more popular, receives 332,000 hits. These are only pages Google has spidered. There are thousands of websites dedicated to this crusade, several organizations (everyone's heard of NAMBLA or MARTIJN at least). The movement is notable: it has thousands of members, usually well-masked behind a shield of anonymity. Activism happens, whether the public likes it or not; ranging from promoting what they see as the correct use of the word "pedophile," to advocating the abolishment of age of consent laws. To say that "childlove" is a euphemism is POV itself. It is a term invented by the movement to describe themselves (in fact, it's basically just using the root Greek meaning of "pedophilia"). We have articles on organizations within the movement itself. I find it almost obscene that someone would propose deleting this article and not NAMBLA. The FBI has even acknowledged the existence of a large movement working to "legalize child molestion" in a newspeice on Ashford I seen recently. // paroxysm (n) 21:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, by definition, the term ephebophile (attraction to post-pubescent youth) excludes those we commonly refer to as "children" (ie pre-pubescents) so I don't accept your claim that "childlove" is not a synonym for pedophilia and that therefore "childlove movement" is not a euphemism for "pedophilia advocacy" as we don't generally refer to teenagers as "children". The primary definition of child is a prepubescent human hence ephebophiles are not attracted to children and the term "childlove" does not accurately describe their feelings or behaviour. I don't deny that there are those who wish to legalise pedophilia. My problem is in using a POV term to describe that movement. Homey 21:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - there's far too much good content here to simply trash all of it because of a few paragraphs or sections people don't like. I don't think this article is particularly POV, it outlines arguments the movement makes, it doesn't make those arguments FOR them. -Drdisque 21:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork for it's violation of NPOV core policy. --Rob 21:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how this is a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. //paroxysm (n) 21:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The title is inherently POV (per Homey's comment below). The opening sentence is POV (you confuse claims with facts). Also, this is clearly a POV fork. It's a way you can put in stuff, that might not get as much attention elsewhere. This whole article is written with the basic, and false, assumption the groups seeks what it claims to seek. That of course is rubbish. I would also vote to delete an equally POV title Childhurter movement, even though it would be more accurate in its description than the current title. Be happy Wikipedia (unlike 99% of society) will let you freely and fully particpate and contribute to articles in an NPOV manner, but don't think for a second you'll be allowed your own little POV fork to promote a movement. --Rob 21:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a problem with the article, fix it. If the name is wrong, now's your chance to get consensus to move it to Pedophilia advocacy. But you can't delete something from Wikipedia and make it go away. If that were true I would nominate Islamist terrorism for deletion, or merge it into Terrorism, because its activist claims are questionable. Ashibaka tock 22:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you changing your vote to rename?Homey 22:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to rename it, yes (that would be a nice step towards NPOV-ifying), but you have nominated it for deletion/merging. First things first. Ashibaka tock 22:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A rename doesn't change the fact it's a POV fork. Many other POV forks have been made for various causes, but removed. Pedophilia is the one NPOV word (as it's advocates and opponents use the same word). We don't have a pro-topicX and anti-topicX article. We have a topicX article. By forcing everybody to edit the TopicX, we ensure people from all sides will work together, counter-acting any one groups bias. The purpose of this article, is to advocate a particular cause. It will never do anything beyond that. --Rob 22:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you're saying that "boylove"/"girllove" is a useless excercise in euphemisms. Assuming that to be so, I think the fact that pedophiles campaign for political issues is a notable thing which deserves an article, and Pedophilia is very long-- the whole thing won't fit. The "childlove movement" (especially NAMBLA) has a long history tangled up with the gay rights movement etc. There needs to be a general article to describe this, so take this one, NPOV it, and move it to your favourite title. Ashibaka tock 23:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on euphemisms and "what a group calls itself". Holocaust deniers prefer the euphemism "Holocaust revisionist" or "historical revisionist". Wikipedia, as a rule, uses the term "Holocaust denial" rather than the euphemism. Similiarly, white supremacists prefer the term "white nationalists" but we use the former term rather than the euphemism. If we simply have a default where we use whatever euphemism a group prefers to use for itself that would open a whole POV can of worms. Homey 21:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per the reasons given above 80.177.152.156 21:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: anonymous votes do not count. Log in to your user if you want to be counted. Clayboy 23:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above Strong Keep vote was by me, JCUK. I hereby reiterate it, and attach my name to it. Jcuk 18:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus H. Christ. That's all I have to say. That's my vote. Jesus H. Christ. Herostratus 22:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus H. Christ I second that vote. --DanielCD 01:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Largely written by me? Rubbish. I have not edited on this article for almost a year. And no, I did not coin the word 'childlove'. It was around long before I became an activist. Zanthalon , 23:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether we agree with the movement's views or not, this is what the movement is most commonly known as - not just within the movement but outside it - and as such, it is the correct title. And the article itself is definitely encyclopaedic, although some sections may be construed as POV and may need a bit of work. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"is what the movement is most commonly known as - not just within the movement but outside it " Really? I've never heard of non-pedophiles refer to this movement as "childlove". Please provide some mainstream citations. Homey 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's normal to break out subarticles. I'd have no problem with a move to paedophilia advocacy if the antis really insisted, but adding it back into pedophilia serves no purpose except to allow outspoken conservatives to direct our editorial policy. James James 02:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on excellent arguments above. I'm not convinced the nom has really thought this through. -- JJay 03:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ZERO Lexis/Nexis hits, which means ZERO media coverage employing the term "childlove". NONE of the references use the word "childlove" in the title. This seems to be a POV fork. At the very least a title change is in order. Gamaliel 04:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero hits on all common news sources? Then it obviously should be a sub topic on pedophilia. The article in it's entirity is based on the idea that same childlove movement that isn't covered in that sense by the news. prove it to me otherwise. Lotusduck 04:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you would support it as a subtopic, then vote to rename and rewrite rather than just to delete the information. Ashibaka tock 05:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't any press coverage under the movements prefered name, then it doesn't need it's own article. Lotusduck 05:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is press coverage on the childlove movement; it's just not referred to as the childlove movement in their reports because media can apparently not stand to use the word "love" when describing pedophilic or ephebophilic attractions. As I said above, even the FBI has acknowledged the childlove movement. It has thousands of anonymous members and several organizations dedicated to forwording the childlove agenda. There is even a boylove charity. Come on, what kind of notability are you looking for? // paroxysm (n) 05:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the kind of notability/verifiability of at least the name childlove is per wikipedia standards: it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data has been published by a third-party reputable publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. So if newspapers have articles but no third party publisher calls the movement what the movement calls itself, then we don't have some verifiable source calling it that, then wikipedia can't call it the childlove movement either, because we can't verify how widespread the term is, or it should be left to publishers of original thought to determine the occurance of the term "childlove" not original research on wikipedia. Lotusduck 07:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why not just move it to pedophilia advocacy? Tell you what, I'll do exactly that. Surely you accept that some people do advocate for paedophiles? James James 09:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've moved the page to pedophilia advocacy. Would those who voted to delete on the basis that the term does not exist be willing to reconsider? I think there is clearly a reasonably sized group of people that does advocate for social acceptance of pedophilia, and covering them, and detractors of them, would be legitimate in my view. Lotusduck, you've been fairly outspoken here, and I accept your view that it is pretty much only those within this movement who call it the "childlove movement", but will you accept my counterargument that whatever it's called, the advocacy does exist and is a legitimate subject for the encyclopaedia. The argument whether it should be broken out from pedophilia is quite separate, but would merging such a long article back into its parent be a really good idea? James James 09:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a term in wide currency. - SimonP 07:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but merge some of the important content into pedophilia (movement exists, apprently, but it's not notable enough for it's own article.--Sean|Bla ck 08:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rob, Gamaliel and SimonP. Like Sean above, I think whatever useful content there is within the article should be merged into pædophilia. --cj | talk 09:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The Childlove nee Pedophlia movement is a culturally and socially significant phenomenon. I would not merge the article, Pedophilia and the actual pedophilia movement, as pedophlia has a long history, most of which does not include the modern pedophlia movement. The two subjects are related, but not the same, and should be kept separate, but link to one another. MSTCrow 09:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, move or delete - The title is unacceptably euphemistic. No comment on the content, but the title can't stay. Kosebamse 09:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved article to pedophilia advocacy. Does that work better for you? James James 09:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, dispicable yes, but it's what they are commonly referred to. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also per paroxysm's reasoning who cited external sources. It is also in line with the naming of NAMBLA it's the NAtional Men Boy Love Association. If pedophilia advocacy was at all used (and not a neologism) it would've been named NAMBPA (National Men Boy Pedophile Association). It is covered by outside sources, but gauging notability by google or Lexis Nexis hits makes no sense, when you know there's a lot of censorship going on about the subject. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry for the repeated comments, but I've done some Google searches:
"Childlove" gets 12900 Google hits [19]

"childlove movement" gets 390 Google hits [20]

"paedophile advocacy" gets 20 Google hits [21]

"paedophilia advocacy" gets 145 google hits [22]

"pedophilia advocacy" gets 316 hits [23]

I think that makes it clear the suggested rename is the POV neologism here. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"pedophile" isn't a neologism. It's a well established term. "advocacy" is also a well established term and joining them in a phrase is simply done for descriptive purposes. the word "childlove" however does not exist in any credible dictionary. Homey 18:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the search "childlove movement" on Google.com of the 146 uniques, the top hit is Wikipedia, the wiki mirrors domininate the other results (this article itself, plus all the others they've worked the term in). There is little non-wiki serious usage of the term in the results, with much of it being the usual "scraper sights" (e.g. search for anything and you get something on their sight). This actually proves that Wikipedia itself is the biggest promoter of the term. Now, sadly, others will likely follow. This shows the movement had great success with Wikipedia, as we forget how influential we are. Other people doing similiar "Google tests" will now make similiar judgements, to accept this term. Also, I would note, in your first search "Childlove" by itself, obviously has meaningings unrelated to the perverted one being discussed here. Even combined with other words, I expect there are people who use the term in the more literal non-perverted sense it's been used in the old article name (e.g. as in "childlove" means "child love" not sexual abuse of innocent children by people who are mad that I called it abuse). Finally, in all Google tests, keep in mind shorter simpler words, that are easier to spell, always get bigger results, and that doesn't tell you which is the proper term. --Rob 13:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a patron of the online boylove community for almost ten years now, I had never heard the term "childlove" until Wikipedia renamed its "boylove" article into "Childlove movement" (if I remember correctly). I remember it as a conjured-up term to merge articles on "boylove" and "girllove". I have since noticed "childlove" being used quite often, when wanting to denote the collective boy- and girllove communities (and I've also noted many in the boylove community shunning the term "childlove"). So either I was ignorant of the term before the Wikipedia rename, or Wikipedia itself has contributed significantly to the usage of the term. Clayboy 18:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or move to something like Advocacy of pedophilia. — Matt Crypto 12:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the original name, it's the name of it. See Mgm's comments. Garion96 (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC) I did some more googling. This time with all different spellings, paedo pedo etc. Pedophilia advocacy is used in the media more than childlove. So still keep but with the new name. Garion96 (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If neither is used, what does the news media call it? Just because pedophilia advocacy isn't a good term doesn't mean childlove movement is an established part of human knowledge. Paroxysm- in the news articles you read what do they call it? Lotusduck 18:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a term in wide use, hence neoligism. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 17:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Point of view fork. Cyberevil 17:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable, neutral, true, encyclopedic ➥the Epopt 18:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For those interested in media coverage of this movement, try http://kctv.com/Global/category.asp?C=73283. Check the videos. Here's the description of one story: "Pedophilia as a political movement? It sounds not just far-fetched but perverse. However, a KCTV5 News Investigation has uncovered such a movement and it’s captured the attention of Kansas ’ top law enforcement official." And a quote from the November 22 "investigation," by Phill Kline, Kansas Attorney General: "There is an effort, a sophisticated effort ... that is funded by [pedophiles] who forword such arguments." // paroxysm (n) 18:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And does KCTV ever refer to the movement as the "childlove movement"?Homey 19:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am strongly swayed by the Lexis/Nexis result and the fact that no reliable authoritative sources seem to use the term 'childlove movement'. I think that, therefore, talking in detail about the childlove movement breaks Wikipedia's commitment to No Original Research. If there were media coverage or academic discussion on this topic then I'd be saying Keep all the way (and be much less fussed about the name). Yes, it means we miss out on the description of this phenomenon. No, this discussion wouldn't be happening the same way if the topic were Fluffy Bunny Rabbits. However, some reputable source needs to cover this ground before we can. The Land 19:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think more voters should be involved editors of this topic like paroxy and land. While the article is largely written in a similar voice to encyclopedic articles, the lions share of the article is original research. We would lose basically nothing sourced accurately by deleting this article and starting a fresh pedophilia advocacy section in the pedophilia article. I think so, and anyone who thinks this article just needs a little work should consider working on the article before being sure they want a keep. Lotusduck 20:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-original research If we remove the parts of the article that constitute original research (more than half the article as far as I can tell) sections 2.1 and 2.2 in particular, the remainder should be short enough to fit into pedophilia. I think there remains a strong argument to merge. Homey 20:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV fork, with string suspicions of original research. --Pjacobi 00:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it needs some NPOVing, but I'm not sure exactly what it's thought it's forking? Articles are often broken out of their parent subjects, but they're not considered to be forks. This is not an article about paedophilia itself but about advocacy for it. James James 01:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination appears to be an attempt to silence highly unpopular political or social views by refusing to allow them to be described on Wikipedia. No matter how nasty a view may seem to us, we are not in the business of refusing to cover it because we don't like it. --FOo 00:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can make that allegation if you can demonstrate that somebody voted to keep an opposing POV fork, while voting to delete this POV fork. However, that's not the case. Also, you fail to address the serious lack of *reliable* verifiable information to back up this article. Also, we actually do try to "silence" any POV soap-box pusher on *any* side. If somebody wishes to push an agenda, they're free to do so elsewhere, but Wikipedia is not the place. You're partly right though. Their views are highly unpopular, and argueable "suppressed". Hence, they're rarely published. However, Wikipedia does not champion the rights of the unpublished. In fact, we're quite hostile to the unpublished. We don't (or shouldn't) write anything about anyone unless it's been published by reliable sources elsewhere. Is that fair? No. But that's the price of verifiability. --Rob 02:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shorten and Merge with pedophilia per User:Thivierr. Seems like a POV fork to me. Jessamyn 02:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A real movement. D e nni ☯ 02:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment Many of us can agree that this article is filled with nonverifiable information. This article could be uniquely about the activism, but information is continually being added that subtly or not describes pedophilia from an unpublished viewpoint. If this article is not deleted it can be weeded down to its' verifiable components. If the verifiable and scholarly parts of this article don't amount to more than a stub, then Pedophilia Advocacy can be redirected to Pedophilia and the content moved there. People who vote either way should help edit this article, although of course delete voters may have more ideas of what to edit. Lotusduck 04:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly would amount to more than a stub. There is advocacy, and it's perfectly sourceable. I agree that it should be uniquely about activism, and responses to that activism, and should it survive this AfD, I'm going to work on making it only about that. As I noted on the talkpage, I hope you'll join me in doing so. James James 05:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a real subject, and a real movement so should have it's article, provided content can be verified. if nessacary, remove the unverified sections, but keep the article. Silent War 06:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but fix I'm not sure I like either title but there has to be something about this group of people. I really think the pedophilia article needs to stick to medically defined pedophilia. Please don't merge. --Gbleem 08:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that there probably nees to be separate articles for those who want to support people who have medically defined pedophilia and those who advocate sex with children. --Gbleem 08:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The dividing of the articles should be along subject lines, not along lines of POV. "Pedophilia" should be about the medical and scientific ends, with perhaps a mention of any alternate POVs. Childlove...I think "Ped. Advocacy" or something along those lines might work. But I'm not so convinced "Childlove" is so POV as people seem to make it out, or even want it to be. --DanielCD 16:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think separate articles is a little much, although this article mixes those two issues and several others together rather badly. But I'm unaware of any sources that specifically call for helping people who have medically defined pedophilia in the strictest sense. There are articles proposing possible revisions to how to treat pedophiles in psychology, which is hardly the issue of pedophilia advocacy. I think what you're describing is "Debate over pedophilia treatment" and really there isn't that much of that in the article. Personally, I haven't got the strength. If it is created, I will do my best to read over the peer reviewed journal references and make things as informative as they can be, but it would be better if an article like that was started by someone with the professional expertise to begin with. I mean, it's acceptable to make an article from reliable sources without having the professional expertise, but it's exhausting too. Part of the reason people only read a fourth of most of these journal articles and then make up their own conclusions is because the things are so long. Lotusduck 14:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you consider unreferenced? It doesn't look like "original research" to me, and even if some was removed, there is far too much referenced text to merge into pedophilia. // paroxysm (n) 20:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mixing of issues and definitions is exactly why I don't want it merged with pedophilia. Pedophilia is a condition identified by a process that is standardized by a group people with fancy degrees while the childlove movement as described is more of a political/social movement.--Gbleem 22:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I will give an example: In democtatic contries one can find Nazi and Communsit parties. The reasons for they existance are many, including the right of political freedom and the fact that these parties are indicators of the general political state in a given country (i.e. if their popularity start going up, it means that the mainstream politicians do something wrong). A similar argument can be put in the present case. First, if there are peple paying attention to the childlove movement, it is an indicator that it has a political basis, regardless how small it can be. Second, if the arguments of the "movement" are weak, then it will be easy for everyone to refute them again and again. -User:Nllsq (moved from talk page. first edit)

Keep, no valid reason to delete has been set forth. --Angr (t·c) 10:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep encyclopedic topic. Grue 15:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It never ceases to amaze me how people want to delete articles simply because the content it distasteful. I had a similar debate at the Erik Beckjord article deletion; the man is an obnoxious ass, but that's no reason to delete the article. Perhaps it can use a bit of renaming/defining. To try and delete this as if it is not an issue in its own right...that is simply crass and POV to the point of absurdity. Even if it is deleted, it will just reappear, as the subject carries a great deal of importance to some people, no matter what their intentions are. --DanielCD 16:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Childlove movement was nominated for deletion on 2004-08-03. The result of the discussion was "no consensus" with a default result of "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Childlove movement/2004-08-03.

Here are some organizations. I think only NAMBLA still exists. --Gbleem 08:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is another one that advocates sex between women and young girls. --Gbleem 08:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paedophile Information Exchange

JORis

Danish Pedophile Association

North American Man/Boy Love Association

There is also MARTIJN. I believe the women/girl organization you're referring to is Butterfly Kisses. // paroxysm (n) 19:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but I might add that this article should be the focus of every decent Wikipedian to crush the POV of sick child molesting bastards. DTC 00:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how you feel, you should get right on this article eh? I think that this article is about as non-point of veiw as if the Ex-Gay article was composed completely of information found through Ex-gay organizations. That article isn't, and that article is fine. I think a lot of people are confusing neutral point of view with being positive. Lotusduck 02:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. To be considered a "child molesting bastard" you usually have to, you know, molest children. Not just advocate its legalization. Maybe you should read the article.

I would also encourage you to stay away from the article if you're going to let your emotions cloud up your neutrality. All POVs need to be presented, but without endorsement. // paroxysm (n) 02:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess that means you, not being a decent Wikipedian as far as I can see, should probably avoid the article altogether, per your own advice. --DanielCD 02:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you replying to..? // paroxysm (n) 02:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I was talking to Mr. "I'm gonna get my fucking way or else" DTC up there. --DanielCD 03:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per some of the above arguments, changing my vote from Jesus H. Christ to O... M... G!!!!
Carry on! Herostratus 06:23, 6 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 no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Thirteens (A Series of Unfortunate Events)[edit]

What is this list?? Is there any reason that 13 gets a list like this but no other number?? Georgia guy 19:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with A Series of Unfortunate Events. No Guru 22:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fancruft. ' 09:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep the idea of the reuse of thirteen within this series of novels is obviously deliberate and important, not least with the example of having 13 books, each with 13 chapters despite the books varying in length from 150 or pages up to several hundred pages- the books don't all lend themselves well to having just 1 chapters. Other occurrences of 13 are apparently also pointed out by the narrator/pen named author himself. Evil Eye 00:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC). Evil Eye 00:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely strong keep Lemony Snicket has obviously used the number 13 in abundance throughout the series, and it is extremely important to recognise this. I agree with Evil Eye - it's very obviously deliberate User:Joerifaat

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Abdulhadi[edit]

This page seems to be complete nonsense. I have never heard of the war of the "eight red days." KI 19:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to be the same person noted for shallow pn-junctions. Dlyons493 Talk 22:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NeoJustin 23:34, December 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Valentinian 00:27, 6 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 --Ichiro 07:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WAYN[edit]

Non-notable and appears to be spam. See spam reports at [24]. Ashibaka tock 19:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but expand. Website has an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better. It actually has a rank of 2,706, thus falls into Wikipedia's General guidelines for websites WP:WEB. However, the article does need expanding. Englishrose 20:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep one of the few social networking websites which does appear to be half-way notable, certainly meets WP:WEB. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I reverted spam to this AFD. I had redacted my listing but now that I've seen the spam in action I'm keeping it. Ashibaka tock 10:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - its nothing bad about the site and the article. Some people like it, some other dont, as usuall. Definietly is big player on social networks market so I dont see any point to ommit it in Wiki... Pkuczynski 23:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I use this site myself and managed to get in touch with a friend I hadnt seen for years - I think many other members have also had very positive experience: check: http://www.wayn.com/wayn.html?wci=splash&page=testimonials chanoines

Actually, I have been looking into this and all seems very clear:
WAYN allows its members to import their contacts from various address books: for the moment, they seem to have this too working for Hotmail, AOL, Gmail and Yahoo….The process is fairly straight forward and it is made clear what actually happens: by importing your contacts onto the site, an invitation is automatically sent on your behalf – you can check this at the following link: http://www.wayn.com/wayn.html?wci=register2
Their privacy policy is also making this process even clearer – you can check this at the following link:
http://www.wayn.com/wayn.html?wci=StaticPage&page=Privacy – detailed below:
5. Invite a Friend
If a user elects to use our Invitation option to invite a friend to our site, we ask them for the friend's email address. WAYN will automatically send the friend an email inviting them to join the site provided the user agrees to obtain consent from their friends to send them an invitation. WAYN stores this email address for the purpose of automatically adding the respondent to the friends list of the user sending the invitation, and also to send reminders of the invitation. WAYN does not sell these email addresses or use them to send any other communication besides invitations and invitation reminders. The friend may contact WAYN to request the removal of this information from our database.
6. Uploading your Contacts
If a user elects to upload their contacts, they accept that by doing so, an email invitation will be sent on their behalf, to the email addresses of the contacts that are being uploaded and that from time to time, a reminder email could be sent to that contact. By inviting their contacts to join the site, the user agrees that they have obtained prior consent from their friends to send them an invitation. WAYN stores the name and email address of the contacts for the purpose of automatically adding the respondent to the friends list of the user sending the invitation and to send reminders of the invitation on the user’s behalf. The users' username and password will not be saved anywhere on the site. The names of the contacts being uploaded will also be searchable via the name search facility to enable other WAYN users to find old friends. Other WAYN users will be able to send an anonymous email to the user who uploaded the contact name being searched, with a description of the person they are trying to get back in touch with, enabling the user who uploaded the contact to potentially connect the two people together. WAYN does not sell these email addresses or use them to send any other communication besides invitations and invitation reminders. The user or the users' contacts can request the removal of their details from our database by sending an email to [email protected].

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Ichiro 07:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Caesar (mini)[edit]

This page, in general, only has the cast list. It has no information about the series and the body (which is the cast list) is not enough. See Julius Caesar (mini) --User:Alvinrune 20:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a perfectly reasonable stub, although the formatting of the cast list needs cleanup up as of time of writing. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't keep it. Morwen - Talk 20:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but for heaven's sake rename Julius Caesar (mini-series) - I was expecting a special edition Rover metro. --Doc ^ask? 22:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid stub. Rename per Doc. And I'm not voting this way out of pure bias- I'm of no relation to the title character. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 00:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Frankly I don't understand the nom. If the article is too short use the expand template or edit it yourself. -- JJay 02:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename as above. --LesleyW 07:11, 1 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 speedy delete by request of creator and sole editor as an incorrect title. Uncle G 20:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phenylephedrine[edit]

Speedy Delete. I didn't do enough research and phenylephedrine is actually Phenylephrine. DirectorStratton 20:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{deletebecause}} for speedy deletions. Uncle G 20:48, 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. howch e ng {chat} 19:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop feehan high school[edit]

Useless redirect page, which was actually originally a duplicate of the article with the correct capitalization. When this page is deleted, auto-capitalization will direct users to the correct article automatically. skeeJay 20:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this be in Redirects for deletion? Or why don't you just fix the redirect, can't hurt right? Keep or re-tag -Drdisque 20:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Place in Redirects for deleteion. --Daveb 15:53, 1 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 --Ichiro 07:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casati Boya[edit]

(edit conflict) Nn company, only 16 results on Google. Nominator votes delete because it is not significant enough. King of Hearts | (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else incompletely tagged, so I finished it for him. Personally, I think its a weak keep Drdisque 20:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Err... when you go to buy "paint" in Turkey this is avalible anywhere. Also there is a closely assosiated italian "Casati". Generaly we give articles a day before we vfd them so that the original creator(s) (me for this case) have the time to expand it. I so hate vfds... --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Our coverage of Turkish paint manufacturers is not what it should be. Also I'm willing to give Cool Cat far more than six minutes to edit this page. -- JJay 02:57, 1 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 article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howch e ng {chat} 19:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mokitown[edit]

advertisement, non-enyclopaedic, possibly non-notable Drdisque 21:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, the text is just a cut-and-paste from [25]. Actually, http://www.mokitown.com is quite cute -- check it out! I'll abstain on this for the moment. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vanity, non-notable, not yet at best. Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secure Media Flow Protocol[edit]

Not notable. 13 google hits. Article added by its developer. Haakon 21:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article = spam. --D-Day 21:12, 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 no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish-Swedish_relations[edit]

This article covers topics which are thoroughly addressed in the history sections of Finland and Sweden's articles and uses them in a article which is very soapboxy. Adamrush 21:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up, as I made an attempt to do. Foreign relations are notable; see U.S.-Canada relations or, if we want to get really specific, Mexican response to Hurricane Katrina. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 23:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course foreign relations are notable. However, the future acceptable article is not going to contain any of the present one; it will be a complete rewrite out of POV necessity. That's the issue. Deleting the article doesn't mean that the article isn't warranted, but rather the article's current content. Deleting this entry is clean up. --Adamrush 19:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the name be Finno-Swedish relations? Punkmorten 01:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep and clean up. --LesleyW 07:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & cleanup as per others Scoo 10:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this article is cleaned up, it will be content-free. It consists only of a table which is merely a soapbox and, if corrected, would correspond to many paragraphs of as-yet unwritten text. --Adamrush 15:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is unreferenced, contextless POV. There is nothing to cleanup. "Cudgel War: alienation Finns–Swedes" - says who? Why? How? The topic of Finnish-Swedish relations is important and interesting, but this is really not the article which Wikipedia should have on the topic. Any article on this topic has to be started from scratch. If this is kept I suggest erasing everything in the article which is not sourced and properly discussed in its historical context. u p p l a n d 16:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Sorry i'm a bit late in the discussion here (did not notice there are separate afd-talk pages), but even though the decision is already made i thought i'd give it my comments for the record. I agree with Uppland about this article being so bad that there is jsut two choises, deletion, and or re-write pretty much from scratch. I think this is also such a big matther that teh person re-qriting it should have a specific perspective in the area (not just "i feel that..."). SO unless no-one steps forward to edit it throughly deleting it could be a good idea auntil someone does write a better one.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Ad, nothing noteworthy.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 06:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Namo WebEditor[edit]

Possible WP:VSCA, definitely written as an advertisement. I recommend delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 21:17, Dec. 31, 2005

Delete. I think it is a copyvio from [26]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeblas (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete; redirect technically impossible. Johnleemk | Talk 15:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of motorcycle trikes[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of transportation-related deletions. -- CylePat 21:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

As per the precedence found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of motorized bicycles this article is also a type of POV fork; unless of course there was some error in the method of the deletion of the article gallery of motorized bicycle. If Gallery of motorcycle trikes is kept, it goes against the aforementioned precedence. That would be logical grounds to commence an appeal for the undeletion of Gallery of motorized bicycles. (Aside: I would like to see the undeletion of that page). --CylePat 21:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a bad-faith nomination. For the record, and without voting, I made this page to remove these images from the page on tricycle, where in my opinion they overbalanced the article and distracted from the general treatment of tricycles. I did not try to find out if they were already pictured in other articles, and do not actually care one way or the other whether this article lives or dies. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. This should move to Commons. Delete. bikeable (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I must agree with user:Bikeable, It doesn't quite meet the WP:NOT criteria. I didn't think of that. So the above precedence doesn't really apply anymore because that article had text describing the photo's and cross references with the main article motorized bicycle. I'm not sure if it's proper form to vote when you nominate an article, but if I could I guess it would be a delete. --CylePat 00:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a bad faith nomination. CyclePat, PLEASE stop gaming the system. That's all this is. It's just like how you put up an article for deletion on electric bicycle hoping that it would fail. It's against policy. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created this, Pat nominated it as retaliation for deletion of gallery of motorized bicycle. As it happens the Commons linnk is acceptable to me, my sole concern was to avoid simply deleting the pictures and thus sparking a possible edit war. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Questions of bad-faith actions aside, Wikipedia is not a photo gallery. --LesleyW 07:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per LesleyW. Hamster Sandwich 11:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with tricycles, although I think this nomination is an example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. -12:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Take note: (above comment was from User:Scm83x) (I think WP:POINT is negligible or practically non existent but please leave your comments why on my user talk:CyclePat) An identical "gallery" page can be found at the commons:commons:Motorcycle#trikes, The information still exists (unlike the difficult time I am having now trying to do the same for gallery of motorized bicycles. There really is no need for a merge here. --CylePat 16:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:DP this article should be merged because all the info, already exists at the commons page "some other article". If we follow delete policy we should redirect to the commons. Should we continue with this deletion or redirect? --CylePat 17:28, 1 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. Mo0[talk] 06:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BIYJ[edit]

Delete A complete mess. Either this or cleanup. ^R_H^e _o^d_t 21:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, largely incoherent, value not clear.Bjones 21:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge If this deserves to exist at all, it can do so as an entry on List_of_acronyms_and_initialisms:_B. -- (aeropagitica) 23:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Daveb 15:54, 1 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. Jinian 15:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fortified District[edit]

Unless somebody knows this subject and can edit it I'd recommend deleting. As is, the poor English and insufficient context make it impossible to understand Eagle (talk) (desk) 21:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see any reason to delete it, as it seems to be a somewhat notable term, but I do see many places for improvement. I think a {{cleanup}} tag is sufficient for this article. JHMM13 (T | C) 22:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Fix I think the problem with this article is that "fortified district" is a generic term with no specific reference, it is not a notable term at all. The article is apparently intended to be about Japanese fortified districts during the occupation of China and Korea in World War II. The article then goes on to provide a list of fortified districts. I think the starting point here is to change the name of the article to something more specific and descriptive of it's actual content. Further, each one of those fortified districts mentioned in the article could be a separate article by itself if written by someone with detailed knowledge and maps, which I do not possess. After that point, the renamed article would exist as a general text article on Japanese Fortified Districts, with links to specific articles for specific fortified districts mentioned in the article. In the alternative, this article could be renamed Japanese Fortified Districts and a number of articles merged into it, such that each of the named areas is a subsection of this article. I am not voting for deletion here, as it is a notable subject, but I disagree that it's a notable term.GestaltG 16:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chesshere.com[edit]

Non-notable website, Alexa rank > 680,000. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You can get a better Alexa rank with a daily visit from one person with the toolbar. JHMM13 (T | C) 22:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, fails WP:WEB. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete linkspam -Doc ^ask? 22:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NeoJustin 23:29, December 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - blatant advertisement. --LesleyW 07:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fairly unknown chess server. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, the link to the server periodically spams Chess article. Andreas Kaufmann 21:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. spam. Incognito 05:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep QUALITY should decide if a link to an external site is to be deleted or not, not how famous, this site offers one of the best available platforms for playing online chess, moreover, they offer free access to all site features, not like other commercial web sites

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upperhand[edit]

Non-notable, vanity ike9898 22:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete - as per nom, nobrainer. --Oscarthecat 22:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bordering on nn-bio. JHMM13 (T | C) 22:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Counterstrike team doesn't require a page in a reference work such as WP - vanity. -- (aeropagitica) 23:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete is same category as band vanity, MMORPG guilds, and CS clans, not for WP J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    23:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Evil Eye 00:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Favorville[edit]

Has been {{notability}} tagged for a few weeks, and not expanded. The website hardly seems notable, and the article admits the service is in beta mode. Alexa ranking of a huge 1,070,422, and appears to fail WP:WEB. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page borders on advertising, not a reference page. -- (aeropagitica) 23:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, has a couple of media coverages, but not major. Fails WP:WEB. We've given them enough time to state their notability. -- Perfecto 03:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa ranking is now 331,869. The site is gaining tons of exposure, I suggest we do not delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.194.93.144 (talk • contribs)

The above remark was made by an anon IP who's only contribution has been to this AfD. Favorville still fails WP:WEB as far as I'm concerned, an Alexa ranking of 331,869 is no mark of notability. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 10:33, 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 Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cry more noob[edit]

Non-notable phrase.. --Mysidia (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nn. --Blackcap | talk 00:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can cry more, n00b, when your article is deleted. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 00:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. -GregAsche (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Nonsense. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it can be speedied, at least not as nonsense, because it is coherent text. --Blackcap | talk 17:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen coherent stuff speedied for being nonsense. I could write, "Once there was a banana who decided that he wanted to drink a cup of tea," and that's perfectly coherent, but it's also nonsense. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 22:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No no no, the canonical coherent-but-nonsensical sentence is Noam Chomsky's "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." --Calton | Talk 07:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but that's nonsensical and incoherent, whereas this is sensical, coherent, and exists in real life as an actual saying (as far as I know, not being a gamer myself), and therefore is not patent nonsense or speediable. --Blackcap | talk 16:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"I want more pancakes" is probably even more common and perfectly real, yet we would never accept it as an article. This is no different. / Peter ^Isotalo 06:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I'm voting delete on this. Obviously it shouldn't be kept, I'm just saying that it can't be speedied. As to your example, "I want more pancakes" is a personal desire and is thus non-notable and is also speediable under G3 amd A1, but is not patent nonsense, which is how all this got started. This article relates to an actual phrase used by a number of people (presumably), fits under no WP:CSD, and thus cannot be speedied. A precedent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lo and behold. Unspeediable expression, except this one was notable enough to go into Wiktionary. --Blackcap | talk 17:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "I want pancakes" is hardly a saying, which this article is claiming to be. --Blackcap | talk 18:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable phrase. Carbonite | Talk 12:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Akin to All your base are belong to us. I too use these terms. _{- Unsigned post by 202.78.85.154. This is this user's first post. --Blackcap | talk 18:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete on non notability. Shauri 15:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - oft-used phrase ··gracefool |☺ 17:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 11:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cry more noob[edit]

kind of neoligism. Then agian, I don't play MMORPGs. Kind of attack as well Sceptr e ^(Talk) 22:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreation of deleted content. bikeable (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep time has passed since last deletion, usage has spread and evolved

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stina Arnold[edit]

Although Ms. Arnold is supposedly a "well-known linguist," I can't find a single Google hit for her name, or for the language she has supposedly created (Stinisch). That, and the breezy tone of the article (her fetish for "bald and hairy men," for example) lead me to believe that this is a hoax. Joyous | Talk 22:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable, non-notable, possible hoax, possible attack Dlyons493 Talk 22:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actually there are 16 hits, but they're probably irrelevant to this person. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I saw there was just a mirror of this article. Joyous | Talk 23:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angpau[edit]

Has been {{notability}} tagged for a few weeks, and not expanded. The website hardly seems notable, and with an Alexa ranking of a huge 2,998,747, appears to fail WP:WEB. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another social networking site. Ashibaka tock 10:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why are all the non-notable social networking sites appear on an encyclopedia? --Terence Ong ^Talk 13:41, 5 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 speedily deleted already. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Komi Christopher[edit]

Non-notable, vanity Oscarthecat 22:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

91X Top 91 of 1995[edit]

One radio station's top hits list for one particular year. Don't see the notability Bjones 23:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever the admin who deletes this list is, note that there is one for 91X Top 91 of 1984 ... 91X Top 91 of 2005. However, 91X Top 91 of 2004 already has its on AfD. The author (Tom-see below) has voted to delete so this should suffice for a speedy delete on all the pages.Pepsidrinka 12:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a template just for the countdowns at Template:91X. Don't know if that could be deleted if the lists are individually deleted or if it has to go through TfD.Pepsidrinka 12:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- wouldn't even be worth keeping even if the radio station's call sign was known. IMHO the only such lists that are inherently notable are Billboard's and equivalent. One could possibly make a case for VH1, as they seem to enjoy listmaking as well. But a single radio station... no. Haikupoet 06:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- "91X" appears to be XETRA-FM in the San Diego/Tijuana market. Probably an especially notable station, from what Google tells me, but the countdown thing is a different story. Haikupoet 06:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom TheRingess 06:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. Pogoman 08:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and note that there are about 15 other articles of this form (91X Top 91 of 1996 for example - all years from 1984 to 2005 seem to be represented) which should probably go as well. --Anabanana459 04:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- I updated all of the links because there was a table on XETRA-FM, but on second thought, delete all of the countdowns and the table on XETRA-FM. By the way, there is a whole page devoted to the countdown that someone else made.Tom 18:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wouldn't these articles also constitute as a copyvio? It's a plain copy of the list, nothing else. Garion96 (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not some radio chart site. --Terence Ong ^Talk 13:37, 5 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 SPEEDY KEEP. Harro5 20:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinead Quinn[edit]

Non-notable singer who had a minor album once and has since disappeared from relevance. She has no official website (always a bad sign for a newish entertainer), and her amg entry is just two random pics. This article won't expand, as her career seems dead, and there's no reason to keep this article any longer. Harro5 23:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wouldn't say that her career is dead, given that she was born in 1990, rather it is just taking off. Ms Quinn doesn't appear to have become a notable person as yet. -- (aeropagitica) 23:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. I've reverted the mass-deletion of the article which the user who nominated it for deletion carried out when they tagged it for deletion. The stuff they deleted may need a major re-write if the article is kept, but it should remain part of the article or now. I say keep the article as the girl was part of a major UK TV programme and released an album and a single which reached number 2 in the UK chart and singed a £1 million record deal (although it does look like this deal was cancelled before it was fulfilled by all concerned). Evil Eye 00:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you volunteering to do the cleanup? Because the article can't stay in its current condition, end of story. Harro5 00:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I may or may not have time to do the cleanup in the next few days, but deciding an article is not written well enough is not a good enough reason to nominated it for deletion. It hould have been marked for cleanup rather than deletion. Evil Eye 01:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a go at cleaning up the article. In doing so I have 'uncovered, so to speak that at the end of last year she was given a reception by the Irish President for her contributions to music. Added to the fact h was second a major TV talent show and had a number 2 hit single, and has over 80,000 hits on Goggle for `Sinead Quinn` [27], I think that makes her notable enough. Evil Eye 14:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the work you put in. Harro5 20:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USSTC[edit]

I understand that WP:CORP isn't policy, but this company, offering space transport beginning in 2007, doesn't even begin to come close to the suggested guidelines. They have a nifty website, but I can't find much else going on. Joyous | Talk 23:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Daveb 15:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 17:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Webpage is just a mock-up, and contains no information of value. D e nni ☯ 02:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, plus I cannot resist the chance to vote in the last AfD of 2005. Youngamerican 04:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Unencyclopedic. --Terence Ong ^Talk 13:23, 5 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.