Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 23 November 25 >

Purge server cache

November 24[edit]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 17:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Barney humor[edit]

Too POV. 68.91.113.88

  • Keep, POV is not a criteria for deletion, it's a criteria for editing. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Right now, the page is junk, and cannot help but being junk. --Nlu 16:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. A bit bloated and some unencyclopaedic language, but hardly irredeemable. It's hard to say where the POV is as well. Every kid's show has anti movements, but Barney's must surely be the biggest. --Last Malthusian 16:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is not the function of an encyclopedia to merely reiterate, but rather to explain. Thus, it is not encyclopedic to say, "Anti-Barney humor: here are some Barney jokes." Instead, it would be "anti-Barney humor originated as early as the first year of "Barney and Friends" and continued into such films as "Death to Smoochie" and others." This is the former. Well, explaining that there is anti-"Barney and Friends" humor is self-evident. Are there references to the concept elsewhere? Are there things that need to be explained? Geogre 17:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a good article that could use some editing. Durova 18:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An Article that make wikipedia unique. Banana04131 20:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don’t see any NPOV problems and even if every lyric and list was removed it would still be sizable. Seano1 22:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that 68.91.113.88 (talk · contribs) meant to say "too POV". --Ixfd64 00:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre. PJM 04:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable phenomenon, no reason readers shouldn't be able to find out about it. Kappa 13:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Last Malthusian. Stifle 16:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Part of the culture, when I went to school. CanadianCaesar 19:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cleanup MONGO 01:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Make it a little more cohesive, make it so it's not so much as a dumping ground for more Barney songs.--Toquinha 06:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I am a bit biased about this I will admit (I am the articles father), but one thing I can't denie any longer is that it does need cleanup, but it is a true pop-culture phenomina, which probably isn't apparent to people who didn't go to elementary school in the 90's like I and many other people involved in the movement did. Protozoic Waste
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus - default to keep JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Star Trek: A New Beginning[edit]

Non notable fanfic film. Have been tagged as speedy but probably won't fall under CSD. --218.212.99.216 00:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above - not eligible for CSD though. PJM 03:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Nlu 04:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Film by two highschool students. Herostratus 07:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given that it is now relatively easy to make a fanfic film and distribute it over the internet, some statement of why this is a particularly notable fanfic film is really required to justify an article. This merely states that it exists. Average Earthman 09:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Film has a big article on Wired Magazine this month. Link shows the listing now, embargoed online until the next issue comes out. Jtmichcock 12:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be appearing in Wired, but all the above still applies. Delete. Peeper 13:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appearing in wired, so none of the above applies. Kappa 14:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've seen it and it's terrific- I found it on Kazaa acually. It isn't very widespread yet but it's growing... Klingonpixie 10:55, 24 November 2005 (Note: This user's first edit)
Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's different from the one in Wired, actually a much smaller fanfic film, but it's really excellent. Worthawholebean 11:38, 24 November 2005 (EST)
Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, or more precisely wait and see. If it's notable enough to be appearing in Wired, and particularly if the article on it is as major as Jtmichcock implies, then it's possible that this is something which is becoming widely-enough known to break through the fancruft threshold and deserve an article. So I'd say we should keep it for now, and if in a couple of months everyone's forgotten it again, then we can bring it back to AfD and reconsider.

    In particular, note that its appearance in Wired makes it verifiable and not original research, and the article is written with a textbook neutral point of view: that means it passes all the fundamental tests. I wasn't aware that having been filmed by highschool students was a criterion for deletion.

    (After edit conflict, I note that we have a voter above claiming that this is not the film featured in Wired. That would change my opinion: can anyone verify?) — Haeleth Talk 16:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A Google search for "Star Trek: A New Beginning" has 10 unique links see [1]. No Google News returns for it either [2]. I could find no trace of the Wired article either in the results or on its own site. Therefore, it is just a non-canonical film made by two high-school students. While it is good that they making their own films, it isn't notable at this stage. Capitalistroadster 17:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, whether it's in Wired on or not it's still a fanfilm of no note with extremely limited online presence. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have seen this film. It is becoming something of an internet phenomenon in my school (no relation to the school of these students). Perhaps it will become more popular globally with time. --Qilai8888 01:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's only edits are to the article and this AfD. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. Stifle 16:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable enough--MONGO 01:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have also seen this film and feel it is notable within its targeted audience. It should be noted that Star Wreck seems to be deemed Wikiworthy® Sulfur 06:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User only has 144 edits however since he/she is obviously not a sockpuppet I am counting this vote. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This film is popular in Korea to. The visual FX are really good especial for high school students (view the preview for yourself) --Kimsungli 08:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's see this supposed Wired article. Until then it's just another piece of fanfic. Gamaliel 09:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article or not, why should notable fan-fiction be excluded from wikipedia by principle, especially since other Star Trek fan films have a place on wikipedia, notable and otherwise. --219.79.40.45 10:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where we write about things that exist, not things that people hope will exist. We are not a PR firm here to publicize somebody's fan crap.

User:Zoe|(talk) 00:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • ...I think that this fan film does exist...which is why there is an article about it and an option to download it. I'm not sure that these students believe that wikipedia is a PR firm so much as they feel their film deserves representation on wikipedia (did they even write this article or did someone else?). It is inappropriate for you to call this "fan crap". Have you seen it yourself? It is quite good. --Drno007 07:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reason that this is my first post and that my only edits pertain to this article is that this is the only article I have felt inspired to edit. I am not a "sock-puppet", but I do feel that this film, at my school alone, is so popular that, at the very least, it should be allowed in Star Trek, other storylines, and it would be prudent to give it its own article. --Qilai8888 09:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. Even if there is a Wired article about it -- which doesn't seem to be true -- doesn't make a high-school film worth an article. --Calton | Talk 00:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to me that the fact that this film's makers were high school students is being held against them. On the contrary, I think its more impressive that a video like that could have been made by high school students and for only $5.00. That is what I believe makes this notable. If it is really expanding in popularity, wikipedia will look foolish if this article is removed if there is the possiblity it might have to be reinstated. --Noah211 06:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assistant teacher[edit]

Blatant advertising. --218.212.99.216 00:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Banana04131 00:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 03:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 04:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 15:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC) Abstain, it's been cleaned up a bit. 16:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's almost certainly a copyvio, too. Delete and redirect somewhere appropriate. — Haeleth Talk 16:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Worthawholebean 17:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --StuffOfInterest 19:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is a copyvio or advertising for that matter. "Assistand teacher" is a well-established, as far as I know non-profit, programme in most German universities. It can be part of the formal training for future teachers. Many students go abroad in English-speaking countries as assitant teachers, so it might be a good idea to have an entry for this.
  • Delete per nom. I just have done a bit of cleanup; Keep and cleanup further. --BorgQueen 08:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks BorgQueen for the revision. Seems like an adaquate topic for an encyclopedia, and I believe further revisions will prove this article a welcome addition to Wikipedia. --JJLeahy 23:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being an University exchange programme, Assistant teacher is no advertising! Nobody makes profit with it! All the information provided is taken from official pages (like the Goethe-Institut and the British Council)out of the public domain. Therefore it is not justified to delete the article.84.173.136.127 10:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)dichse[reply]
  • For those who want the article to be deleted: What could/should I change in order to save the article? Just tell me! This was my first attempt to write an entry for Wikipedia! Give me your reasons-give me a clue!!!Thank youDichse 11:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)dichse[reply]
    • I just attempted a cleanup, trying to make it sound less promotional. I think the article name should be rather "Assistant teacher programme of the Educational Exchange Service" (or attach any other relevant institution's name) since the term Assistant teacher is only meaningful in that particular context. Otherwise the term will be too general, leading to misunderstanding. And it is not a good idea to include how much the person gets paid, etc. If this article eventually gets deleted I suggest you start a new article with the name I recommended above, keeping in line with the layout convention, etc. --BorgQueen 13:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the cleanup84.173.133.109 20:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)dichse[reply]

Do not delete as there is first of all no copyvio on this page as this would require a copyright in respect to the passages which might be taken from other pages. An "assistant teacher" in the sense dicussed on this page is part of the so-called Comenius assistantship of the European Commission, which is a solely non-economical exchange programme which began in 1995 intended to enhance intercultural understanding within the European Union. The "salary" paid is no more than a usual scholarship in an European exchange programme supporting the mobility of young people.--Lebkuchenbäcker 21:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, improve; this describes a documented position and government-backed training program of apparent cultural note in Germany. MCB 05:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miceinfreefall.com[edit]

Blatant spamming, but doesn't appear to fit any CSD criteria. Still, delete as quickly as possible. --Nlu 00:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete definetly fits criteria, spam Banana04131 00:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which WP:CSD criteria do you think it satisfies? If you can convince me, I'll speedy delete it myself. --Nlu 00:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Might qualify as Vandalism:Spam, given the external link. I though you could speedy obvious vanity but I guess not. Also might be a "Very short articles providing little or no contex"wikifunBanana04131 00:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Second thought just Delete Banana04131 17:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spamalicious - but does evade CSD. PJM 03:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. Also...Adam Ant?
  • Delete: Buster wears white socks, but he's not a mouse. (Where's the site for Mouse and the Trapps?) Not really spam, but definitely advertising. Geogre 11:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to be a reasonable stub article with potential for expansion. Stifle 15:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable fansite (doesn't register in Alexa). Maybe appropriate as a link in Adam Ant Jasmol 17:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Someone should start a "wikidirectory" for this sort of listing...hmmmm.... --StuffOfInterest 19:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam, ad. MONGO 01:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • D spam. Klonimus 01:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arthurian Wicca[edit]

This alleged Wiccan Tradition does not seem to be notable. In fact, it does not seem to exist outside of being a phrase that refers to a school of thought within the Celtic Wicca group of traditions. I would also like to add 'patent nonsense' due to the lack of any apparent adherents of Arthurian Wicca as a religion rather than a school of thought, but the absence of evidence proves nothing, so... if anyone can provide evidence for this religion being in any way notable *as a religion*, or even existing beyond a few people, I am quite willing to listen. P.MacUidhir 00:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Nothing in the current article is verified, or easily verifiable. "Arthurian Wicca" gets 129 hits on Google [3]. Small, but notable, Wiccan traditions with little web presence get four or five times that [4] [5]. Of the Google hits, many of them seem to be referring to a book titled Morgan LaFey's Book of Spells. That said, I wouldn't want to see a precedent set whereby Wiccan traditions that exist mainly on the web get kept and Wiccan traditions that exist mainly in real life do not, but surely it is reasonable to expect some reference in Wikipedia articles to secondary, or failing that, primary sources. Jkelly 00:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on all points, and especially so on the point of setting that sort of precedent which you mention here. At the same time... if a particular tradition is notable, though without a significant Internet presence, it makes it difficult to know the extent and popularity of their tradition unless they happen to come to Wikipedia or know someone that does do so. Since Arthurian Wicca has exactly one proponent for the article, with a grand total of two edits to it, I am not particularly encouraged to give the benefit of the doubt and lend it credence. Since that same contributor is only an IP address, we also do not have the option of asking them to provide some background data (if it exists at all).--P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 01:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as above. I've asked the people at Wicca if they think its notable. Banana04131 00:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If it develops as a fully formed discipline with adherents and theology, then it can be a section of Wicca. If it gets as big as a phenomenon as Wicca, then it should have an article on it. At this point, it's just a term. Geogre 11:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. KillerChihuahua 15:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per reasons above. PJM 05:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 to delete; editorial decision taken to redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 09:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2160s 2130s 2240s[edit]

I don't know if more future decades entries exists, those were the ones I could find. Basically, same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2110s since pretty much the same.

A quick start:

  • 2110s was afd'd (and had 4 previous deletions).
  • 2120s has been deleted almost 20 times
  • 2140s has been deleted 15 times

and int continues on and on and on... Not much of these "decades" exist already. For instance, 2610s is a redirect to 27th century (and it's the only decade with an entry). The information found in the few existing is a duplicate of what is found on each year entry. For instance

2134 Comet Halley makes a return to the inner solar system - the previous return would be in 2061.

is content which already belongs to 2134 (which redirects to 22nd century) so the only new content is

The Decade as a Whole. This decade is expected to be called the "twenty-one thirties".

The last AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2110s -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 00:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete them all and speedy recreations of decade articles way into the future - there might even be a case for protections. Nothing useful can be said about them this far away. Capitalistroadster 01:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably Delete, although predictable events such as astronomical forecasts are at least legitimate (i.e., these are not Star Trek events).
Yes but such events are detailed on the particular year entry. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 2160s as empty. Keep 2130s as containing verifiable astrological events. Rename, merge and redirect 2240s to USS Enterprise if not there already. - Mgm|(talk) 08:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate with astronomical events. CalJW 08:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect: These decades have been deleted on multiple occasions, which means that our goof troop authors have some dedication to miscreation. If we fill them with astronomy, we're going to have them come along and overwrite the content with the usual "This is the year that Jimmy will die in a bizarre accident involving a roll of toilet paper!!!!!" Geogre 11:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can't speedy delete it as patent nonsense, then delete Stifle 15:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all for now. By the time it hits 2140, I assure you, 2140s will be back. :) Jacqui★ 16:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all such decades to their centuries. For example, 2110s, 2120s, 2130s, 2140s etc. would redirect to the 22nd century. 2240s would redirect to 23rd century. 64.194.44.220 16:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the appropriate centuries. Foogol 18:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to century. Perhaps a policy is needed for when the events in a decade pass some threshold count, then create a decade page (or category). --StuffOfInterest 19:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one of the most vacuous pages I've seen in AfD so far. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 00:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect ot the appropriate centuries for these decades. Foosher 02:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They can worry about it then...unless someone knows the distant future. MONGO 01:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the most important thing that an encyclopedia can document is the future. Klonimus 01:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all future years with two or less unique pieces of unique content (like the Halley's comet factoid), and merge the unique content where it exists. -Sean Curtin 01:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary unless verifiable events can be added (astronomical) or as a fictional element in some sort of TV canon. --Drno007 07:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No useful information there. I mean, we could make an article on the sixty-two fifties (6250s) but how would that be useful? --85.49.229.165 19:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very very strong oppose, there are astronomical events predicted on these dates (not mentioned on the article but obviously something will happen). These "future" artilces are usefull no less than for example 2010, instead of waisting AfD space why not expand them? Besides, they will only be recreated. Additionaly we could get a bot to create "stub" years ready to be expanded. Please use AfD strictly for articles that have no way of being encyclopedic, in 150 years the article 2160 would be a rather large article, although none of us likely will be around :(. You know this really feels depressing... --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A scond though is redirecting it to its century since that would be more usefull... --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Default to keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 01:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free domain name[edit]

Soon to rise in this location: a spammer's paradise, a directory of commercial links. -- Perfecto Canada 00:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom -- Perfecto Canada 00:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! Wikipedia is NOT a link directory; better services already exist for that purpose. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-24 02:27:22Z
  • Keep, users should be able to find out that this type of service exists; links can be removed if necessary. Kappa 02:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...which you have done. Now we wait for someone to expand it into a reasonable article (e.g., discussion of marketing schemes, examples of incidents of conflict), or to merge it to web hosting domain name, or to put HTML links again. -- Perfecto Canada 15:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I also see some usefulness...but it does scrape WP:NOT. PJM 03:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per HorsePunchKid's comment. Also seems a bit redundant, with web hosting and free hosting already being well-established articles. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 07:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, free hosting and a free domain name are two entirely different things as explained in the article. Still, there's a lot of spamming at work, I suspect. Can someone check the source of the singx.com site and see if the displayed date isn't generated based on today's date. If it is, they're conning their customers. (I'm not even talking about registering somewhere else to be eligible for one. I doubt anything would be forthcoming). - Mgm|(talk) 08:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as per User:PJM Sherurcij 11:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it will just be used for link spam and it isn't a significant service. -- Kjkolb 13:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keepper Mgm Stifle 15:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, though I think those of us voting to keep should promise to police this page. Jacqui★ 16:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't let the spammers choose which topics we can and can not have around. --StuffOfInterest 19:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don’t see much point in this article. In essence, all it says is that you can get a domain name free but that in return the providers will put advertisements up on your website. Without a list of free domain-name providers, this article is useless, and we definitely don’t want to have such a list on the Wikipedia. •DanMS 20:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect. It appears to me that the small amount of information in this article would be better off merged into domain name. Redirect if desired. •DanMS 20:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing in here that's not already covered (better) elsewhere. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 00:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Domain name (or some other related article); doesn't seem to be enough to deserve its own article, and has a lot of risk of degenerating into a spam farm. *Dan T.* 02:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Domain name. Subject worthy enough of mentioning somewhere in Wikipedia. External links should appear here as long as they aren't too trivial or narrow in scope. This criterion will prevent article from turning into a spammers' portal. Good example: www.dot.tk. Let's not submit ourselves to the spam hysteria -- fear of spam is as an "irrefutable" and all-encompassing excuse, as fear of terrorism or pædophilia, for example. -- 6birc 17:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant, information can be found elsewhere. MONGO 01:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into domain name. Not important enough for separate mention, but should be somewhere. Superm401 | Talk 07:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. Klonimus 01:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. I have copyedited the article, except for the last sentence of the first paragraph, to have a more encyclopedic tone, so it reads OK now. As for spam: If there turn out to be spam issues too difficult to dial with, THEN let's delete the article, but for now, as I said, keep. :) --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 07:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great, yet my comment to Kappa above still applies. Merge as per Dan T. -- Perfecto 15:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 with Ghastly's Ghastly Comic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google seppuku[edit]

A made up game from a webcomic. Might be notable enough to merge into Ghastly's Ghastly Comic, but it isn't mentioned there yet. the wub "?!" 18:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge to Ghastly's Ghastly Comic. Funny game, but not deserving of its own article with only 388 google hits. — brighterorange (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting. - Mailer Diablo 00:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, assuming it's even worth noting within the context of the comic's article! —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-24 02:20:51Z
  • Delete: A single joke from a single issue of a single comic? No. Far too minor for merge and redirect. This is per precedent, by the way: for a while there, we had kiddies creating articles for every single joke on every single episode of "Crank Yankers" (prank phone call show in the US). They'd watch the show with the keyboards in their laps, I gather. Geogre 11:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Genuinely interesting, but not an encyclopedic topic. Delete per Geogre. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge unless it can be shown that this game has a big following. Seano1 22:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 · Katefan0(scribble) 05:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Harmsworth[edit]

An eleven year old boy. Being heir to a fortune does not make him notable. -- RHaworth 00:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge the minimal content into Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-24 02:26:22Z
  • Speedy Delete (tag applied) Swamp Ig 05:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (but I myself am uncomfortable doing it -- I know, chicken); if not, plain old delete. --Nlu 08:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Banes 09:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into father's entry. Jtmichcock 12:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Swamp Ig Stifle 15:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to his father, as precedent and tradition require. — Haeleth Talk 16:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into father's entry JoJan 17:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge into father's entry. Jasmol 17:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Unless he puls a Paris Hilton he doesn't really seem that notable. --StuffOfInterest 19:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as we do with most sons of notable people. - Mgm|(talk) 20:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7. Turnstep 21:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Michael Chapman[edit]

vanity article; not noteworthy; self-promotion StanZegel (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 03:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete oer nom. Herostratus 07:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. This one is obvious...Banes 09:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, or delete if that isn't possible. Stifle 15:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7. If this isn't an nn-bio, what would be? — Haeleth Talk 16:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --StuffOfInterest 19:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7. Turnstep 21:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and tagged for speedy. The Management would like it known that we are not in any way related. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 00:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Saw this while looking through speedy tags. I suppose his claim to fame would be designing these collectible pins. That's just enough for me to consider it an assertion of notability, and therefore should be evaluated through the normal AFD process. Somewhat silly given that it's obvious this article is going to be deleted, but there you have it. I'm removing the speedy tag to let the AFD run its course. · Katefan0(scribble) 05:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have no problem with that. As you say, it's on the borderline. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, vanity. MONGO 01:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - fluff Williamb 00:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Type Four[edit]

Some Magic: The Gathering rules variant that someone came up with. There are many fan-created variants without any official sanctioning support from Wizards of the Coast. In the 11 years I've been playing this game I've become familiar with many well-known fan-made formats (which are mentioned in the "variants" section of Magic: The Gathering) but have never heard of this one. In any event, I don't think any unofficial rules variant for Magic is encyclopedic enough to warrant an article. Andrew Levine 00:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Jkelly 03:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-sanctioned game variant that isn't that widespread. -- Grev 05:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Banes 09:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, there may be a reason for it to be here; it will never become sanctioned due to all-out wackiness but it may end up gaining popularity. Stifle 19:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per excellent nomination Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 00:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nice nomination. More nominations ought to be as well justified as this one. Klonimus 01:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete this article. It is well-written and informative. Type four is quite popular where I live, and deleting an article that presents potentially useful information seems rash. Also, I'm fairly certain that the article's author did not "come up with" this variant, as it is fairly widespread and has been around for quite some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johankian (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as per nomination. MCB 05:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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/merge. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 02:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tahngarth[edit]

A character from the wondrous mystical realm of Magic: The Gathering. The total extent of fictional works featuring this character is a few paperback novels in which he plays a supporting role (Amazon.com sales rank for a typical entry: 288,507) and maybe two dozen game cards with him in the picture (out of 7,500+ cards that have ever been published). Andrew Levine 00:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. If they are for whatever reason kept, I would support merging Tahngarth, Urza, Gix etc. into Characters from the Weatherlight Saga or something like that. Andrew Levine 03:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Urza shoud remain seperate, as he is the main character for most of the Dominaria-based cardsets and backstories. But that is not the debate here. Create and Merge To a list of minor M:TG characters. Saberwyn 11:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, fictional character appearing in multiple novels and on multiple game cards. Kappa 02:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The novels are non-notable (see Amazon sales rank, as it's a pretty good notability criteria, at least for in-print books) and if created would surely be redirected to their respective sets. A single supporting character from them is even less notable. Andrew Levine 03:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all characters from Magic into a single article. Dunno what that article should be named (Magic: The Gathering characters would probably be good enough)... -- Grev 05:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The above sounds like a good idea to me. Banes 09:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Merge wouldn't be evil, but it is the corporate interest of card game makers to get as much "synergy" as they can by having the novel, the card, the TV show, the film, the comic book, and the action figure going and to multiply these as rapidly as possible (possible = times kids get allowance). This is a bit player in every respect, and the character is known and referred to only within the context of players/watchers/sufferers of that game/book/phenomenon. There is no need to explain these minor characters to a curious world, as the world is not curious, having never heard of them. Geogre 11:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Grev Stifle 15:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep merge all MTG characters? You must be crazy. They are more notable than your average elementary school would ever be!  Grue  19:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending a merge into a list of MTG characters. Klonimus 01:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all MTG character stubs into an article on Magic: The Gathering characters. -Sean Curtin 02:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, as above. MCB 05:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article does need a lot of work, and so do many other MTG articles, but I don't think it needs to be deleted/merged. Tahngarth 6:32, 29 November 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. Owen× ☎ 18:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Red and Black Brigade[edit]

Delete. Not NPOV; Not in encyclopedia format; wikipedia is not a webhost. Also not significant; less than a dozen members, none of whom are known. Voyager640 00:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - lots of no-no's. PJM 03:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator. Banes 09:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not only is the current content a vanity post, but the name collides with other Red and Blacks that might be sought by "brigade." Think of all those universities with "Red and Black" this and that (U. Georgia, e.g.), then Stendhal's novel, then derivatives of his novel's revolutionary calls. Geogre 11:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Stifle 19:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedia format Toho123 22:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Cleared as filed. 00:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serra (Magic: The Gathering)[edit]

A powerful wizard from the mysical world of Magic: The Gathering. I'm pretty sure she appeared in just one paperback novel (Amazon sales rank: 229,775) and that's the extent of works of fiction she's been in. She's mentioned in the name of a few Magic cards (less than 0.5% of them). A very minor fictional entity. Andrew Levine 01:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the above. Andrew Levine 03:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, fictional wizard also appearing name-checked on various game cards. Kappa 02:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that most of the players of the game are scarcely aware of her existence or her backstory. Magic is not primarily played for the storyline. Also, as far as I can tell, she appears on not a single card. Andrew Levine 03:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all major Magic characters into a single article (as per my vote on the AFD for Tahngarth above. -- Grev 05:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Again, if anyone wants to go to the trouble of creating a corral for these critters to bob around in, I don't object, but this is such a small time phenomenon that when you learn the name, you essentially know what there is to know. Geogre 11:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after merging any actual content per Grev. The remaining redirect would not be any use. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 00:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. As with Grev. Note: the statistic about the # of cards Serra's name has been on is not very useful measure of importance. (I am used to be a player of Magic)
  • Keep. I'd be worried about a powerful wizard retalliating if we attack her. Voyager640 17:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep extremely notable character in Magic universe.  Grue  19:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending merging into a unified list of MTG characters. basicly this needs the same treatment as pokemon Klonimus 01:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep or merge. -Sean Curtin 02:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 00:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serra Angel[edit]

Individual Magic: The Gathering card, which precdent has established as non-notable (see deletion log for Juzam Djinn or Razia, Boros Archangel.) Andrew Levine 01:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, recurring creature in popular game. Kappa 02:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no different than the many other popular game character stubs that pass. PJM 03:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. Andrew Levine 03:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Andrew Levine. Reyk 04:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Power Nine precedent. Popular card, but not the stuff of legend. -- Grev 06:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. No influence outside of Magic: the Gathering, and is as such better suited to handling in other articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedents. Saberwyn 11:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: In the absence of a holding pen for these entities, we are asking for name collisions and essentially putting the information out of reach. The true context here is "minor characters in Magic the Gathering Game/Book/TV show/doll collection/virus/corporate phenomenon." If a person wants to know the secret history without the joy of reading the books, then she can learn it in a tabular list of all these creatures and thereby compare her to the other mystical wizards and mighty warriors and valiant queens. Geogre 11:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. Worthawholebean 17:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 00:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Serra Angel is a classic card. The other cards mentioned in the nomination are much less notable.  Grue  19:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable MTG card. When I used to play a blue/green combo deck these things were a nuisance. Klonimus 01:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable card. Merge to Creatures of Magic: The Gathering. -Sean Curtin 02:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just another Magic card, easy to look up at [gatherer.wizards.com]. Maybe it wouldnt've been deleted if it were on Wikibooks, but Wikipedia's standards are higher. --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 07:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Delete - just another Magic card, easy to look up at [gatherer.wizards.com].
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to S Corporation. Owen× ☎ 18:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SCorp[edit]

Almost certainly a complete hoax. Google draws a blank --RoySmith 01:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete either as hoax or per WP:CORP. PJM 03:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert/hoax and redirect to S Corporation. Gazpacho 05:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Redirect to S Corporation --RoySmith 16:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Non-notable and the term "scorp" is a recognized legal term for a subchapter s corporation. Jtmichcock 12:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true, then why aren't you voting to redirect? - Mgm|(talk) 20:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Motion for speedy closure[edit]

The logical redirection for this is to S Corporation, a type of corparate organization in which the company'ss income is taxed as personal income of the owners. It is not anticipated that any further voting will be otherwise. Klonimus 01:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snaking[edit]

Snaking was nominated for deletion on 2005-11-24. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snaking/2005-11-24.

An advanced technique that belongs on the Mario Kart page or in a FAQ or not even mentioned at all. Hbdragon88 22:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a collection of manuals, Wikibooks, on the other hand, is. Move it there if an article exists, if not, create a talk page for Mario Kart DS on wikibooks and put it there until someone makes use of it. Obli (Talk) 22:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Informative, but certainly not encyclopedic. Would love to see it on a wikibooks manual. -Halidecyphon 23:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think the information here should be preserved but moved into the main article 'Mario Kart DS' with a minimized or removed diagram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelestar (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. Cyberevil 02:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Gamecruft. Also, very unencyclopedic ASCII diagram. Move to Wikibook. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 14:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to snake (disambiguation). -Sean Curtin 04:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete TestPilot 04:31, 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. —Cryptic (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shocker zulu[edit]

Non-notable, band vanity; no Allmusic entry, although there's apparently a song of the same name (by another, more notable band). --Alan Au 01:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as garden variety band vanity. Fairly well-written by new user with no prior edits; let's not teach bad habits early on.  :) - Lucky 6.9 01:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 03:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Mistitled band article on an act that is unsigned and undistributed. We wish them well, but Wikipedia is inappropriate for such articles. Geogre 17:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Stifle 19:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 00:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Doroshevich[edit]

Blogger article; not a notable blogger amongst the Blogger Elite. Do what rhymes with "elite" =p Bumm13 01:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Belarus is a fine nation. This is a guy who lives there and has a blog. No other notability claims are provided, really, except that he provides information technology. There are many such folks. Geogre 17:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 17:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Did anyone research this nomination? Mikhail Doroshevich gets over 90,000 Google hits. He appears to be a legitimate and rather prominent advocate of IT information freedom in Belarus. He played a notable role in lifting a government ban on Wi-Fi. UNESCO publishes his study on IT policy in Belarus. His reputation extends beyond Belarus. I found a Russian news site that quoted his opinion on Russian e-mail surveillance. DoWire.org lists him among the Internet's best blog and news feeds. Durova 18:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I didn't do the research, no. With a rewrite, I'd certainly reconsider, and I hope the other voters above would, too. Geogre 20:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow up: The rewrite adds some, but it still looks like a blogger article, whereas this is a person whose blog is the least important thing about him. I want to change my vote, but I can't yet, and this is not in any way to slight the work Durova has done. Geogre 02:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been asked to provide links. Here are a few:
        • DoWire.org Democracies Online
        • Digital Media Europe article - one of several Doroshevich articles for this publication.
        • EUmap.org article by Doroshevich about human rights organizations and the Internet in Belarus.
        • Openspectrum.info news report quoting Doroshevich about the Belarus government's change in policy to allow Wi-Fi access.
        • [6] a 1998 story quoting Doroshevich about Russian e-mail surveillance.
        • UNESCO page publishing Doroshevich's report on the Belarus government and the Internet.
      • From what I've seen, this man looks not only notable but admirable. Durova 21:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've expanded the article a little bit. It's still a stub but now it shows why he's more notable than a vanity blogger. Durova 21:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Quite frankly I didn't set out to become Mr. Doroshevich's champion, but I've added just a little more for Geogre. Durova 03:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Durova's rewrite. Verifiable and apparently notable. Capitalistroadster 22:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is notable, and article confirms that notability. 24.241.227.251 23:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep hi from lithuania. i know this guy, he is really working , and he's one of the best and active advocates of e-things in the region
  • Keep per Durova.  Grue  19:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable wifi. Klonimus 01:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, per CSD A3. --Titoxd(?!?) 02:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Third degree[edit]

  • Nothing more than a link to Wiktionary. Georgia guy 02:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Even discounting the votes Jtkiefer suggests discounting, I still count 21 keep votes vs. 5 deletes. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 03:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


List of shock sites[edit]

A big messy menu of mostly NN websites (with external links as entrees) and a spam and vandalism magnet [7]. -- Perfecto Canada 02:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Please sign your comment by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Vote discounted by closing admin (ip vote) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it's a vandalism magnet then we should have more people watching it. This is a useful article documenting internet culture. This has been nominated for deletion before. See Talk:List of shock sites/delete for the previous VfD discussion. Rhobite 04:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep YUCK! And shock sites are apparently a pheonomena. Why are there two sections- Shock sites and Other shock sites Sethie 06:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As someone else pointed out, this list is about the only place (other than gradually hearing the stories over time) where people can find out about these sites without having to visit them. I've seen a couple of these pictures, and they're disgusting to say the least. But no one is being forced to click on them here, and as I said, this list serves an important purpose. --69.249.85.234 03:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote discounted by closing admin (ip vote) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How many times have we got to go through this? 86.142.10.224 13:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote discounted by closing admin (ip vote) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've yet to see a single valid argument for deleting this, other than that someone disagrees with its moral content. I for one find it interesting, and I don't appreciate being told what I can and can't learn about. --194.200.167.69 12:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Did you read my nomination? Did I even mention morality? It's a list of non-notable websites with spammy external links. It has gone worse since the last VfD nom. It receives a dozen anon edits a day. If everyone here wants to keep it, then can someone here clean it up?! You guys want a pet dog but you don't want to clean up after it. -- Perfecto Canada 17:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sorry for inferring that your problem was more with the content than the presentation - that's what most people object to. If you care enough about this, though, why not clean it up yourself? It really does seem to be affecting your peace of mind.
Vote discounted by closing admin (ip vote) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unmaintainable listcruft. WP:NOT a webdir KillerChihuahua 15:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails the standards specific to list articles by 1) being inherently POV and 2) inherently incomplete. There is no way to be complete with such an article, and the judgments are always going to be personal. Finally, aside from the criteria that apply to lists, Wikipedia is not a web guide. It is not the function of this encyclopedia to make one's browsing easier. Geogre 17:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. I'd never heard of these before visiting Nevada-tan, and I'd much prefer to be able to understand without actually having to go to the sites. This list does have a purpose, I agree. Jacqui★ 16:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge notable examples into Shock site, creating a comprehensive descriptive article. That will be far more useful to people who want to learn about these sites and understand the phenomenon than the present unmaintainable list is. — Haeleth Talk 16:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote discounted by closing admin (ip vote) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is so useful in helping us to understand internet culture. It might need to be cleaned up in some areas, but so do many others. --80.3.43.10 14:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote discounted by closing admin (ip vote) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a very useful place to find out about shock sites, so that i do not get caught out- admittedly i have used one to catch out a friend, but only to return the favour.- It should possibly be cleaned up though --80.44.230.33 14:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote discounted by closing admin (ip vote) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote discounted by closing admin (ip vote) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very relevant to Wikipedia and also a place to check sites that one is referred to for SFW-ness. --Stifle 16:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we don't delete articles for being a vandal magnet or being in a deteriorated state unless it fits speedy criteria. Most of these sites get a lot of attention on the net and are well-known. I don't see any valid reason to call them non-notable, although some individual entries may be removed on those charges. - Mgm|(talk) 21:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't want to actually see these sites, but I'd like to understand the reference. It's better than googling on a phrase mentioned by a friend to actually find the real page. Please, as a public service. --69.241.232.35 22:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote discounted by closing admin (ip vote) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Bwithh 02:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this useful page about a widespread phenomenon: Wikipedia is nearly the only place where these sorts of sites are described in a clear impassive manner. This was one of the first Wikipedia articles I ever read, and I appreciated its existence then as I do now. - squibix 04:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above Adamn 12:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a lot better to read a textual description of a shock site than have to view it in person. This is an informative article which provides useful information for internet surfers. --Timecop 12:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into shock site, as this list by itself isn't informative or useful. Ekevu (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a useful page and fits well into the internet phenomenon category.--68.51.153.135 02:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(contribs) 00:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin (ip vote) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup; there are more important issues than a single (useful) list. --Merovingian 16:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do something with it... merge or protect or whatever. - RoyBoy 800 01:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Fuck morality, fuck notability, and fuck cleanup. --Phroziac
  • Keep - This page taugh me a lot about some of these pages, alternate aliases, how to prevent some issues, and how to identify any that I've been tricked into seeing. Eclipsed Moon 20:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This page categorizes a particular type of website that however profane must be documented. The purpose of Wikipedia is to compile knowledge, censorship hinders this. Kip 04:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote discounted by closing admin (only a handful of edits) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

. o º O (mmmmm chocolate!) 20:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Geogre. This is not a censorship issue; I have no problem with the nature of the content, but the list is inherently POV (there is no accepted definition of "shock site") and inherently incomplete. MCB 05:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by RHaworth (quite right). -Doc ask? 11:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Claisease[edit]

Silly neologism, not at all in widespread use. I vote to delete if notability cannot be established. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-24 03:03:37Z

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Default to keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 03:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haven_(Porn_Star)[edit]

While the article contains some factual content, it is generally of a superficial nature and not helpful. Also, the last clause is clearly opinon and does not belong in a factual article. The article is largely irrelevant.

  • Well, there appear to be three actresses named Haven -- [8], [9] and [10], so we may need a disambiguation page, but deletion is inappropriate just because the article is superficial. Weak keep, but extensive cleanup is necessary. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep per Zoe. 23skidoo 04:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We might as well have articles about each prop porn companies own. CalJW 08:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not noteworthy at all. Eug 10:35, 24 Novemhttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&q=Haven+Porn&btnG=Searchber 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Particular article is superficial beyond compare and poorly written. The subject of the article is an average performer in adult films. She has not achieved crossover success, and so there is no reason to be trying to duplicated IMDB here. Further, there isn't much biography to be written about someone so young. Geogre 17:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Given that there are nearly 4.9 million Google results for Haven porn see [11] and nearly 7000 images after removing safe search, it appears that she is notable within her field. Capitalistroadster 17:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That 4.9 million is highly suspect. The very first page of that Google search contains a hit from the phrase "I haven't seen a lot of porno." I'm sure the true number is much, much lower than 4.9m. If she had a name that was not a common word (and part of a common contraction as well), this would be a lot easier. Turnstep 03:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7. Turnstep 21:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the pornographic film industry is taboo, it’s actually quit large. I do not see her as being less notable then a minor character actor. The article being a stub is not a reason to delete. Seano1 23:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all porn "stars". Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 00:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another soon-to-be-forgotten actor. If she is still "acting" in ten years, we can reconsider. Denni ☯ 03:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zoe. Porn star with a large audience and name recognition. Kappa 13:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess that depends on what you see as "name recognition". Her name is certainly not a household word. Denni ☯ 01:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please she has good name recognition 4.9million hits is a lot of hits so erasing this does not even make sense Yuckfoo 23:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I guess. 46 porn movies to her "credit" on IMDB[12]. Other than quantity, however, I have no idea about notability. — RJH 01:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep masturbation fodder. 46 movies Klonimus 01:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NC Jazz[edit]

nn high school band. Probably a copyvio, but I didn't bother to look, since that would encourage recreation. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would vote to merge with the high school if it had an article. As it appears it doesn't, I vote to Delete. Capitalistroadster 04:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; doesn't meet WP:NMG. PJM 04:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 17:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

René Chalon[edit]

René Chalon appears to be of little significance other than the fact that he was killed by a car bomb in Paris. PBP 04:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No evidence of notability as a criminal. Capitalistroadster 04:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and Capitalroadster. Durova 18:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Microdj[edit]

WP:NOT a publisher of personal essays. I still have no clue what this article is supposed to be talking about. "Microdj" returns 702 google hits, many of which appear to be the user profiles of a forum user named Microdj. "Microdjing" returns zero hits. If this is an authentic phenomenon, I can't find any websites to support it. Rampart 05:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as/nom. — Jeandré, 11:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, promotional. Jasmol 17:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic OR/POV essay + how-to. MCB 05:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. We also have John Mercer (scientist). -- RHaworth 16:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After John Mercer (1791–1866), British calico printer.[edit]

Couldn't come up with a speedy criterion for this one. We already have mercerized cotton.

  • Delete. Gazpacho 05:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary if they don't have an article on Mercerize. If they do, delete. Capitalistroadster 07:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pay the prophet[edit]

Non-notable web site/spam/scam

  • Delete. Gazpacho 05:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection your probably right. Delete.Bjones 05:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete unless we're planning on having articles on streetcorner panhandlers as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 20:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 07:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great Metric Rip-Off[edit]

Inherently POV title, original research.

  • Delete. Gazpacho 06:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - though I sympathize with the man who feels he needs more Pringles in a can, truly a noble crusade ;) Sherurcij 11:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nomination. It doesn't even have anything to do with the metric system. A company could sell something with a label that says "1 pound" and then change it to "15 ounces" and it would be the same "rip-off". -- Kjkolb 13:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to BWMA and replace with redirect. GMR is a crusade of this group; see their homepage.
  • Delete, POV title Stifle 20:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Okay I made the article) I know this article might not be NPOV yet> I clearly stated it as a term used by BWMA and other supporters of the English (Imperial) System. If it needs a more appropriate title I will change it, but it contains some valuable information. And while the above contributions are useful I would atleast welcome a change to counter such claims.
Sherurcij,
It's not about getting more pringles in the can...It about the economics and strategies private corporations will apply when there is disruption such as that caused by a country when going fully metric. The people are Losing their pringles. I know you probably won't care that the people are being cheated...It's understandable...It's not your money.
Kjkolb,
You are absolutely right in your above post. It's exactly the same except for the fact that the people might not catch that they are being cheated. In that lies the worth of this article.

Chooserr

  • That is fine for your web site, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda or activism. Gazpacho 06:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I gave the article a fair look. Durova 10:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added to the article and strived to make it more NPOV can someone take another look? Chooserr
    Sorry, no. Where are the references to price surveys showing that the prices did not drop? Whose prices are we talking about anyway, the manufacturer's, the wholesalers', or the retailers'? As it stands the article is just an advert for an activist's web site. Most grocery stores in the US now have per-unit prices on their tags, so this wouldn't even work on someone who's paying attention. And if it did work, it would be no different from any other product downsizing. Gazpacho 23:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep english measurments wont give an inch. Damn Eurocrats Klonimus 01:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; even still, it's unsourced original research, and unverified that companies even do what it is they are accused of in the article. The external link yields a 404. MCB 05:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Pathmanathan[edit]

Seems like a non-notable bio. Claim to fame could also be made for innumerable other "youngest person to have $medical_procedure performed on them", yet most/all of them would be nn aside from their medical history. Deletion or maybe merge with sex change; I'm not sure. PeruvianLlama(spit) 07:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Just thought I'd point out that 202.161.97.20 (talk · contribs) originally added this page to the list of AFDs, but didn't provide a reason, so I'm picking up the ball now. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 07:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable: only one Google hit for "Nikola Pathmanathan", and that's from a Wikipedia mirror! The comment on the pictures ("Made it myself") suggests that the contributor is a personal acquaintance of the subject, which would make this vanity as well as unverifiable. See also Ryan Pathmanathan and Gerrard Vipulananthan, by the same author, similarly illustrated with personal photographs, similarly weak in terms of claiming notability, and similarly difficult to verify; anyone feel like AfD-ing them? — Haeleth Talk 18:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, should have been speedied, as the other two have already been, for failing to allege notability. Probably an attack page, like the other two were. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tintin 14:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. MCB 05:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brickhouse betty[edit]

Non-notable (and lame) webcomic.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vertebrae the band[edit]

Not notable, possibly even a hoax since googling Vertebrae "don harper" nakisha yields no results. Akamad 06:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete first album not released yet, NN band, crystal ball Pete.Hurd 01:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Grover[edit]

Hoax/nonsense. Author said "google it" so I did.

  • Delete. Gazpacho 06:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it, knowledge belongs to the world Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.194.238.13 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.57.14 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. It's nonsense. Even if the person exists, they are not notable, and the article is just a joke, literally. Is there even a debate over this? It's obvious garbage. Rediahs 07:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it, I met the man once, he was truly a character. Jimmy Wales 07:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete as attack page A6. Article starts by saying he is a sexual deviant and continues in that vein. BTW, I doubt that was the real Jimmy Wales casting his vote here.Capitalistroadster 07:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Jimy Wales? This is a legitimate article, check the Forbes directory for his bio. MXM 07:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted. Attack page. I also recommend that one take a look at Image:Shawngrover.jpg, I am not sure that it is truly not a copyvio, but it is hard to find a source. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not speedy it as well? It was clearly uploaded for the hoax. Gazpacho
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Rush Limbaugh. Owen× ☎ 18:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Sixta[edit]

Not notable, besides which same info on person is already in the Rush Limbaugh article. Herostratus 07:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, notable only by association. Gazpacho 09:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rush Limbaugh. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Once she and Limbaugh divorced, she ceased to be notable --Rogerd 02:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable...ex wife of Rush...has done nothing of note.--MONGO 01:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World MUJI Xmas[edit]

I love MUJI: I've got a desk full of MUJI office supplies, I'm drinking my coffee from a MUJI coffee mug, and at home my books are stacked on MUJI bookcases. But this is NOT an encylopedia article, it's a promo from the Christmas sales campaign. Delete. Calton | Talk 07:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete catalog - I wonder if this is going to become an annual cleaning chore here at WP? KillerChihuahua 15:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you want it to be deleted, then go ahead. What I actually wanted to do was to put up a page about their Christmas campaign, something I found unusual and unique. I started the page without any promotion for that company in mind, but more of an encyclopediac article. I have tried my best to talk about the campaign too. For the record, as much as I love MUJI, I do not work for them nor have anything affiliated with them except being a loyal customer. And since Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia that informs the user as many things as possible, I didn't see why a page about their Christmas campaign didn't belong here. And trust me, the last thing I would do is to spend a good time putting up pages promoting for some company. Le Petit Vagabond
    • Guy, their Christmas campaign isn't unique, not in a country full of Christmas campaigns. Unique would be what Barney's New York is supposed to have done one Christmas, which was dress up a display window to look like Sigmund Freud's office and hire an Freud impersonator to sit in it. (Well, that's David Rakoff's story, at least.) --Calton | Talk 07:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm. Bitch? Well, if you don't like such curt replies, neither do I, so maybe you can give some better reasons that just listing crap here. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lepetitvagabond (talk • contribs) 05:43, 25 November 2005
  • Delete as per nominator. MCB 06:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rockman Perfect Memories[edit]

Two sentences of subliterate gamecruft. Herostratus 07:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - And no AFD tag (which I've corrected). There's no game by this name (or even this vague description), although there is a (WP:WEB-failing) Mega Man fansite by this name. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete (Edit conflicted): Subliterate indeed. But it does seem to be a game, [13] or something. If someone knew what it was and was willing to do a rewrite that would be ideal, but unless someone steps forward... --PeruvianLlama(spit) 07:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be the fansite I was referring to. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's an actual product with that title, but its a publication about the Rockman series[14], not a game.Jonny2x4 22:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Liar paradox. Owen× ☎ 18:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Postcard paradox[edit]

Not notable enough for a WIkipedia entry - Akamad 07:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Press Your Luck. Owen× ☎ 18:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whammy (Press Your Luck)[edit]

Dicdef, not sufficiently notable by itself to merit its own article, and adequately covered in Press Your Luck. It appears to be a user's first article so I'm real sorry about this, and please believe me that it's not personal. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Katen[edit]

Marginal notability. In my opinion deletable but not speedy, and I want to hear what other folks think. Moderately strong delete. --Nlu 08:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think it's quite obvious that the person who put this up is the one and only Jesse Katen himself. Being published once by the Ithaca College Journal on Sex, Gender, etc. and being the student of somebody else who could barely be considered encyclopedic herself, does not constitute even the smallest iota of fame. This page is vanity and a waste of space. --JHMM13 16:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination and JHMM13's wise words. Blightsoot 16:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two minor claims to notability, neither of which amounts to much: (1) Author of an article in the Ithaca College Journal of Race, Culture, Gender, and Ethnicity, and (2) Founder of a dance school, of which there are thousands in the world. •DanMS 21:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 07:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. B.Wind 08:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Festivus. Owen× ☎ 18:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Festivus[edit]

Unencyclopedic, but does not appear to fit any CSD criteria. Delete. --Nlu 08:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Festivus. Johnleemk | Talk 08:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested above. PJM 13:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (or keep). Jacqui★ 16:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not merge!!!!! Lyrics are either copyrighted, or belong on Wikisource unless there is some sort of discussion about them. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lyrics are gone already. Besides, some of the information is still relevant. Johnleemk | Talk 07:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Festivus. No Account 23:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Festivus. Jonathunder 15:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Stifle 00:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to remove any possible copyvio history, then recreate as a redirect to Festivus. Firebug 00:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Wall[edit]

This article looks to me to be a hoax. It's orphaned, poorly-written, and turns up an incident that neither I nor Google have ever heard of (nor alternate spellings). Googling "Jennifer Wall" on its own turns up too much noise to be sure, but trying to narrow it down by adding phrases like "serial killer" or "murderer" or even "Andrew Wall" show up nothing promising. Also, the "homestead" owner with the unlikely name of Aaron Apollos turns up bugger-all. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for want of verification. Gazpacho 09:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probable attack page --Doc ask? 09:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. PJM 13:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Mark Gallagher. Unverifiable and probably a hoax. Capitalistroadster 22:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax. Note correct spelling is "Kalbarri" -- Ian ≡ talk 09:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable MONGO 01:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verification can be made. --Roisterer 09:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probable hoax, unverifiable, no Google hits. Sarah Ewart 12:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. (1896, multiple murders? That would've been 'hanging', not 'seven life sentences'. --Calair 22:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dead People Server[edit]

Article about a page that doesn't even remotely meet the proposed guidelines at WP:WEB, specifically Alexa ranking is 125,350. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 10:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 10:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 61,000 Google hits suggests some notability; and shows that the site is widely discussed. WP:WEB says "Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better. This is only to be brought into consideration if no other means of justifying a website's article can be found." (my emphasis). Andy Mabbett 12:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Jtmichcock
  • Delete WP:NOT a webdir.KillerChihuahua 15:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable per Alexa. Karmafist 15:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 00:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems like advertising to me. B.Wind 08:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Public distributed artificial intelligence[edit]

This article describes an alleged field of Artificial intelligence which is not generally accepted. Indeed the only proponent of such a field is the original author of the article himself. I have added a {{disputed}}-Tag half a year ago, and so far nobody has edited the article. Silvestre Zabala 11:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Owen× ☎ 18:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robots 2[edit]

The article claims there are no plans for a sequel to the original movie, therefore the article itself is not needed. 203.213.7.133 12:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, WP:NOT. PJM 13:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, although perhaps there should be more Wikipedia articles about things that have not happened, will not happen, did not exist and are not true. Think of the possibilities! Peeper 14:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A classic example of an article rendering itself moot. 23skidoo 17:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we could also have articles about Harry Potter 9 and someone who will not be the next American president, but if they're not planned there's no verifiable info to make an article with. (Note: This nomination shows me we shouldn't ban anons from nominating. Well done!) - Mgm|(talk) 21:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above, and let us please pray there is no sequel, the first one was horrible. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Former version was a hoax, current one is pointless. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD:A3. Stifle 00:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Death by Rugging[edit]

No sources in text, No pages returned on a google seach if -wikipedia is included in the search --Philip Baird Shearer 13:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is one case where I know this was done (see talk:Death by Rugging) and I have added that case to the appropriate page (Abbasid Caliph. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: probably a hoax and certainly unverifiable. The case Philip Baird Shearer describes, while a genuine case of someone being killed using a rug, bears little resemblance to the act described in the article: the historical case involved the victim being rolled in a rug and trampled to death by horses, while the article describes beating people to death actually with a rolled-up rug. — Haeleth Talk 18:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete article. Even if Philip recreates it (though he should preferably use a different name), better not to have the history polluted with hoax material. Mozzerati 23:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no intention of recreating it! --Philip Baird Shearer 13:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson I of France[edit]

Delete original research --Ghirlandajo 14:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable French king --The Minister of War 14:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-existent French king, more like. Unable to find any reference to this so-called legend on-line. Certainly no indication of a Hudson I ever being monarch of France. 23skidoo 17:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If he were king of France, he would be notable as per WP:BIO as far as I am concerned. However, he wasn't King of France. A Google search came up with nothing verifying the claim see [15].

Nor did Google books come up with anything useful see [16] Nor did Google Scholar come up with anything useful [17]. In short, there are severe verifiability problems with this article. Capitalistroadster 18:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If this were a mythical figure the article could at least cite the source of the myth. Looks like a pedestrian rehashing of the St. George myth. Durova 18:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not even a plausible hoax; any such folk-hero would certainly have been worked into the Arthurian cycles, and it goes without saying that no such hero was. I hope nobody spent too long trying to verify it... — Haeleth Talk 18:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless the lack of credible sources is remedied, this appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability --redstucco 09:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Mace[edit]

Obvious hoax that weasels around speedy - Delete. PJM 15:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per proposer Stifle 15:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not so sure that it weasels around speedy. Jasmol 17:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article makes claims of the subject's notability - even as outrageous as they are - it is not eligible for speedy deletion. PJM 03:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Transwiki and delete. --Nlu 10:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AESP[edit]

moved to Wiktionary, is there a speedy category for this? Stifle 15:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I am not even convinced that this is a real term that is in use. Google provides only three hits for “advanced email service provider” (in quotes), two of which are Wikipedia mirrors. I’ll be glad to change my vote if proved wrong. •DanMS 21:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Untrihexium[edit]

The article Untrihexium should be deleted. The article indicates that element 136 is the "last chemically stable element" according to classical physics, because electrons in element 137 would travel at the speed of light. In fact, the last chemically stable element according to the Bohr model is element 137, as is correctly stated in the article Untriseptium. (They can't both be the last chemically stable element!) That electrons in the 1s state of element 137 have a velocity less than the speed of light in the Bohr model is easily verified, using the equation in the Untriseptium page: This formula can be verified in any indtroductory physics textbook that includes modern physics, such as Giancoli. 67.186.28.212 15:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and correct if in error. An incorrect statement about a real element is not reason enough to delete the article. BD2412 T 16:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per BD2412. - Sikon 16:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC) Abstain per new arguments. - Sikon 05:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix the errors, and keep.' 142.205.241.145 18:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Wikipedia has untripentium too. Fix the error. Durova 18:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I didn't notice the redirect. Perhaps the nomination doesn't explain things well enough to nontechnical people. This is not "a real element" in normal sense. It's a prediction. Element 137 is theoretically significant. Element 136 is an insignificant prediction. The editor who created this article made a mistake. There's nothing worth keeping because fixing the error renders this very non-notable.
    • The heaviest element found in nature is uranium, element number 92. The heaviest element the IUPAC recognizes as created in the laboratory is meitnerium, element 109. That's only 17 elements created in more than 60 years. We're not likely to see 136 or 137 in our lifetimes. Durova 23:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ununquadium was synthesised long ago. Besides, why would IUPAC give proper names for darmstadtium and roentgenium? - Sikon 02:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Has it been confirmed? If so then another page needs an update. That's beside the point for this discussion. Durova 10:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remark: Untripentium does NOT have an entry; it redirects to Systematic element name. Untrihexium, like Untripentium, does NOT exist; if there's nothing theoretically interesting about it, and experimentally it doesn't exist, there should be no independent entry: only a redirect. 67.186.28.212 21:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: that an element is theoretical does not make it non-notable, if the possibility of its existence is seriously discussed in the relevant scientific community. BD2412 T 03:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Other theoretical elements with similar atomic weights do not receive Wikipedia articles. Only 137 is theoretically significant. Durova 10:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is element 136 is discussed at all, experimentally or theoretically, in the scientific literature? I have not been able to turn it up in my favorite database (Ingenta). 67.186.28.212 15:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me put it another way: if the theoretical existence of element 136 has been discussed in the literature, that information is not contained in the current article on element 136. If the demonstrably erroneous information is removed from the article, the article will have zero information content. 67.186.28.212 15:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into systematic element name and redirect. No Account 23:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Stifle 00:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with articles for all elements of atomic number higher than 116 (the heaviest element produced/discovered so far) and put them under something like Theoretical chemical elements. B.Wind 08:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

M4-78[edit]

This is getting increasingly weird. We have a separate article for a planet that isn't even from a Star Wars video game, this is a planet that was cut from a Star Wars video game. Most of it is speculation based on incomplete game files, as well as a link to a mod in development. Meanwhile, many more notable Star Wars planets don't even have separate articles.

See also a closed VFD, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cut Ending to Knights of the Old Republic II. - Sikon 16:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm a Star Wars nerd, but this is taking it too far. -- 142.205.241.145 18:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • MERGE into KOTOR2 or DELETE 132.205.45.110 18:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as essentially non-notable; there's no need to cover cruft that wasn't even mentioned in the noteworthy work it was cut from. If someone wants to add a one- or two-liner to a list of Star Wars planets, that would probably be all the coverage this planet needs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and mention on List of Star Wars planets (M-N). While the planet is canon, it's not notable enough for in-depth coverage. A sentence or 3 on the larger list is fine. Meanwhile, I transfered most of this to Star Wars Wiki [18]. -LtNOWIS 07:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge - Please DO NOT DELETE this information. I just stumbled upon this information and am pleasantly surprised to see these fascinating details about one of my favorite video games of all time: KOTOR2. Please note that I am unopposed to this information being transferred to another page. 67.80.175.154 05:22 EST, 27 November 2005
    • If you're looking for "esoteric" information that only poses interest to KOTOR II players, you can consider using a specialized encyclopedia, like the Star Wars Wiki (where the content of this article has already been transwikied). - Sikon 13:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 03:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stonegard[edit]

Non-notable band, no major releases, limited touring. Jasmol 16:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - They are notable in Scandinavia (See here : [19] JoJan 18:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do they have a charted hit in Norway (or elsewhere in Scandanavia)? If so, that would satisfy WP:NMG. Jasmol 22:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, but they have been "on a national concert tour over notable musical venues in at least one large or medium-sized country" - i.e. Norway. [20] - and their records have been noted in VG and Dagbladet (Norwegian newspapers) and also on Panorama.no. Sam Vimes 16:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep per above arguments. Punkmorten 17:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 00:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Manual Dexterity - DVD (due out 2006)[edit]

This was linked from the article Omar Rodriguez-Lopez as a movie that he will produce in 2006. The Rodriguez-Lopez article indicates that the movie has been postponed indefinitely, and this site says that "either no one knows anything about this project, or they just aren't willing to say." The songwriter did drop an album in 2005 that claims to be the first half of the movie's soundtrack, but we already have an article for it here.

Whether the movie is true or not, I'm nominating this article for deletion because it is non-notable and future-predicting. An article is warranted when and if the movie comes out. -D. Wu 16:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOT crystal ball —Wahoofive (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP is not a crystal ball JoJan 18:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability shouldn't be conflated with verifiability. The issue here is not notability but verifiability. If there is no available knowledge on a subject, because it doesn't yet exist, then the article is unverifiable. However, there is (and has been for several years) knowledge about the movie A Manual Dexterity to be had. Wikipedia can certainly cover the reports from sources that such a movie is planned, and by whom, even though there is nothing known about the movie itself. See here, here, and here, for examples. But this article contains nothing of use, is completely unsourced, is partially speculative, and is at the wrong title anyway. Delete. Uncle G 21:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if we do need an article about this, the article's title shouldn't include "due out 2006".--Atlantima 00:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 00:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grevian[edit]

Insignificant website. It's very likely to have been made by the webmaster him/herself. Obvious delete Blightsoot 16:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as A3 JoJan 18:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete — RJH 01:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IN DA Streetz Entertainment[edit]

Non-notable record label; only press releases I could find were on sites that let anyone issue a "press release" for advertising purposes. [21] Jasmol 16:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as A1 JoJan 17:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 00:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Mckenzie[edit]

CEO of non-notable record label; only press releases I could find were on sites that let anyone issue a "press release" for advertising purposes. [22]. See also the afd nomination for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Black_Child and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IN DA Streetz Entertainment. Jasmol 16:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as A1 JoJan 17:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7 (has *some* context, so not quite A1 material) Turnstep 21:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 00:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A.I.B.A.[edit]

Non-notable and an advertisement. eCourier (that article, written by the same person, also contains blatant bias) is a marginal start-up company, and its delivery mechanism surely does not warrant its own article. Google test returns no relevant hits for AIBA or A.I.B.A. The article claims that the algorithm was created in part by MIT, but I could find no evidence of this fact. -D. Wu 16:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. I do get a few hits when googling[23], but nothing that says to me that is notable. -- AJR | Talk 23:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — advertizing/PR-speak. — RJH 01:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 00:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Kidd[edit]

Appears to be vanity. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as A7 JoJan 17:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete--Megan 17:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Unfortunately not a speedy. The article does attempt to assert the importance of the subject, but not successfully. Reyk 21:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. MONGO 02:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 00:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Coyle[edit]

NN, no potential --Impaciente 16:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable as per nom Bwithh 03:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable; no specific Google hits JoJan 09:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely unnotable. MONGO 02:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did some cleanup on this article a couple days ago, but was pretty skeptical about its usefulness. I turned it from advert crap to just plain old, regular crap. But still, it should be chucked. Youngamerican 02:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 00:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Feite Faen[edit]

1) No claim of notablility 2) No allmusic.com 3) some google hits, but all in norwegian so unable to verify 4) no google hits for scrotumrock (ewwww) 5) substandard article. NOTE: this band MIGHT meet criteria for inclusion if they have toured in important venues in Norway per CFD. Unable to verify this. A Norwegian speaker could. Perhaps instead of delete article should be written in Norwegian and included in Norwegian Wikipedia? (Extra delete points IMO for playing non-esistant genere "scrotumrock") -- Herostratus 19:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, joke band. And yeah, I'm Norwegian. Punkmorten 17:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm Norwegian too and I've never heard of them, our local "trubadur" seems to be more notable than these guys, and I'm not entierly sure he's quite ready for a Wikipedia article either (released 9CD's the two most popular of wich sold about 1500 copies each). --Sherool (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 00:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Product (independant hip-hop artist from Meriden, Connecticut.)[edit]

Band is not notable. I couldn't find it on the Internet. Mentions author's name. Author didn't respond to my question. —preceding unsigned comment by Art LaPella (talk • contribs) 18:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-notable JoJan 17:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability asserted. Two guys who have “...tinkered with concepts for an eventual album.” •DanMS 20:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 07:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Stifle 00:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedied by User:Neutrality. – Robert T | @ | C 00:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lethal Born Killers[edit]

Just seems to be a few guys in a gaming clan. Not notable. DJ Clayworth 18:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I checked them out and they do seem to have a good win loss record. No website, no major tournaments though. I'd compare their level of notability to the number one or two team of an amateur softball league. Not encyclopedic. Durova 18:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MIT .LRN[edit]

Delete. Advertisement/promotional brochure. This entire article reads like a product promotion. The product itself may be noteworthy but this article is nothing more than promotion. DanMS 18:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert T | @ | C 00:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Somali sultanates[edit]

The page is rife with tribalist propaganda that literally could have dangerous implications in Somalia today 70.28.236.161 19:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No reason to delete. Keep and cleanup. - Mike Rosoft 20:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a legitimate topic. Strongly agree with need for cleanup. Possible merge with History of Somalia, but both are long articles and will need some study. •DanMS 21:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with possible examination for POV. Capitalistroadster 23:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - encyclopedic topic JoJan 09:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is woefully short of articles on the history of non-English-speaking countries, so it would be a pity to lose this one. It despreately needs clean-up, though. I have started, and request the help of others in making this a keepable article. This is an episode of Somali history, so it need not be merged, espeically when both articles are lengthy. Ground Zero | t 23:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and tag for expert as well as cleanup MONGO 02:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. Stifle 00:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: appears to be at least partially a copyvio from [24], but I think that section can be edited out with no great loss to an otherwise legitimate historical article. MCB 07:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 00:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sirhc Namyah[edit]

Delete as probable hoax. I found nothing about this guy by Googling except various mirrors of Wikipedia. If the article is taken at face value, he was a precocious child who was the principle aithoor of a collabrative book at the age of 12 or so. Finally, if you reverse the letters of the two names, you get Chris Hayman, which I suspect is the name of the twit who wrote this hoax. If deleted the entries for this hoax in the December 3 and Jesuit High School, New Orleans articles that point to this article need to be deleted as well. Caerwine 19:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • And Mr. Alucard thought that nobody would notice that he writes his name backwards... Delete unless verified. - Mike Rosoft 21:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. No AllMusic entry. 160 Google hits, ALL Wikipedia mirrors. OK, Mr. Hayman, the jig is up. You’ve had your fun, time to go. •DanMS 22:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Stifle 00:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 to delete; article moved to PSOne. Johnleemk | Talk 09:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation 1[edit]

Does anyone have any evidence that there is a system called the PlayStation 1 that is distinct from the original playstation. If not then this article should be deleted. Foogol 19:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect 1.7 million Google hits for PlayStation 1. Durova 20:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but do those results say that PlayStation 1 is actually a distinct videogame system from the original PlayStation which this article is implying? I doubt it. Foogol 20:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not as far as I could tell. I'm not voting to merge. Durova 03:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as mispelling. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 20:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as misspelling/unofficial name. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to PlayStation. The article actually describes PSone, which is practically the same machine as PlayStation but in a different form factor. However, when people specifically say "PlayStation 1", they're usually referring to the original PlayStation. Or, if they say "a PlayStation 1 game", it means it runs on any hardware compatible with the original PlayStation. And people usually seem to expressly say that; Saying "a PlayStation game" will make people say "for which PlayStation was it made for?" (Thank you, Sony, for your fine unambiguous product naming.) It's a common unofficial name. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT we have an article NES2 about a redesigned NES, which is the concept as this article. 132.205.44.134 02:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • RENAME to PSOne, and mergefrom PlayStation for relevant information. 132.205.44.134 02:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move this to PSone, I agree. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:45, 26 November 2005
  • Note: PSOne already redirects to Playstation where the PSOne is covered under PSone#Variants. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Durova. Stifle 00:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to PSOne (Needs an admin, so do it after completion of AFD)Mozzerati 21:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Adam Bishop. -Doc ask? 22:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of Judeas[edit]

A non-existent country. (Possibly from NationStates?) Delete. - Mike Rosoft 19:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it's a hoax. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 20:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense, and those illustrations are ugly. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep'I am 14 and It may be a country I made up for a geography project but it is mine and i love Judeas and my drawings are not uglyAranMaxwell1Cox
    • I am afraid Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not your personal playground. Use Wikipedia:Sandbox if you want to make similar experiments. - Mike Rosoft 22:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 00:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition for class sizes larger than 100 in university settings[edit]

Original research. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 20:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is an opinion piece written in the first person, with the author asserting that class sizes at Clarion University should be limited. This is canonical soapbox material. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It is an encyclopaedia. The fact of the article being written in the first person I take to be a strong indicator that there is no widespread movement with this platform that has been the subject of independent news coverage and been the subject of commentary, and that thus there is no encyclopaedia article to be had here. Delete. Uncle G 21:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencylopeadic. Eddie.willers 21:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but we really do need a general article on class size. - SimonP 22:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NPOV/NOR. Stifle 00:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 00:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manhunt.net (Internet Personals Website)[edit]

Delete. This is nothing more than website promotion. No notability for this website is asserted. One among thousands of dating websites. DanMS 20:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Ad. utcursch | talk 07:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advertisement JoJan 09:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. MONGO 02:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JoJan. Stifle 00:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable gay hookup site. A bit like cruisingforsex.com Klonimus 02:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing in the article content separates this from pure website promotion. Mozzerati 22:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 00:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Naslund[edit]

Doesn't seem notable Nv8200p talk 20:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as A7 JoJan 09:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because he used departured in a sentence.. AAARGHH!
  • Delete — listed as a former member on the band's page (with an umlaut in Näslund). Doesn't appear to have made a notable contribution. — RJH 01:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't appear to qualify for speedy deletion but certainly not a keep. Stifle 00:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 00:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Indigo Kitchen[edit]

Appears to be advert for non-notable pod-cast-style internet radio show. ThereIsNoRadio.com has an alexa rank of 1,572,444. Google has 70 hits for "The Indigo Kitchen". Also please see this related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThereIsNoRadio --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 20:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, very, very few podcats are notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction: This is actually used to be a podcast but is now a live broadcast. However, my nomination remains. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 01:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it was never a podcast. It was just pre-recorded for on-air play. There was never an MP3 download due to its copywritten music content ;) Anyway, I'm abstaining from this vote --Kevin McManus 00:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Deskana 09:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 00:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedialogy[edit]

A google search for this term finds nothing. Appears to be either a hoax, or somebody's private invention. Either way: not encyclopedic, delete. - Mike Rosoft 21:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, OR, and uses "Wikipedia" as a generic term for all wikis, which is something we do not want to encourage. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Revived 22:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Everyking 03:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic MONGO 02:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per everyone else. Stifle 00:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedied by User:Katefan0. – Robert T | @ | C 00:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Überschriften und Inhaltsverzeichnis[edit]

This is a German article and should be moved to the German wikipedia.

Delete - per nom Chelman 21:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied. · Katefan0(scribble) 05:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 admitted hoax. --Carnildo 08:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glitter lung[edit]

Apparent joke Catbar (Brian Rock) 21:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a clear demonstration of WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers 21:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 04:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a joke from the current issue of The Onion. Andrew Levine 06:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciated being called "what looks to be a respected Wikipedian". However, I'm not respected, I'm a bit of a nuisance, albeit rather a jocular one, from time to time. Well-spotted Catbar. --Wonderfool t(c) 12:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 00:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Barbie Standard[edit]

Granted, there may well be a good article on the phrase, but this ain't it. Delete Hiding talk 21:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable, original research. Eddie.willers 21:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. Subject is notable, but this article doesn't do it justice. Owen× ☎ 21:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google has never heard of it. Interesting original research, but still original research. Denni ☯ 03:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It is usually referred to as "Barbie Proportions". Owen× ☎ 04:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. PJM 04:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Stifle 00:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Eddie.willers -Nv8200p talk 17:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 00:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paducka[edit]

nn podcast (aren't almost of all them nn?) created by Ideabloom studios, which itself is listed for Afd. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-notable JoJan 09:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 00:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 00:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Smith[edit]

Non-notable, no sources cited. Sesel 17:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity. Gazpacho 22:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. Sliggy 22:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Theorist and creator, while still in high school... interesting. Revived 22:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, bless him. AndyJones 00:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to speedy delete per non-notable bios, but that would probably fail. Have to settle for Delete. Stifle 00:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. If the guy's ideas ever show evidence of being taken up by anyone outside of Barrie, I'd be happy to let him back in the Wikipool, but until then... Bearcat 11:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 00:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Justicism[edit]

Brainchild of Tyson Smith (see above). Again, non-notable and no sources. Sesel 17:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as original research, with no attempt to establish notability and lacking sources. Sliggy 22:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity original research. Gazpacho 22:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism Flowerparty■ 22:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above. Revived 22:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Who what where how when? Stifle 00:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 recreation of previously deleted article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judeofascism. -Doc ask? 22:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judeofascism (term)[edit]

I believe this article deserves an up or down vote and a chance to be sourced & NPOV'd.

Nominator votes Weak keep. Article obviously needs improvement, but just cancelling without a vote or chance to improve it seems too much like censoring an unpopular POV. FRS 22:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Hockey League[edit]

Another fictional hockey league along the lines of Plain States Hockey League and Pennsylvania Hockey League, created by the same user (with a different AOL account). User:Zoe|(talk) 22:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fictional league still looking for players and franchise owners JoJan 09:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 00:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Envisionext[edit]

Another advertorial. Delete Owen× ☎ 22:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Ad. AndyJones 00:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 04:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — advert. — RJH 01:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AndyJones. Stifle 00:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 00:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Embodiment (album)[edit]

NN album (self-released), artist nominated for AFD fails WP:MUSIC, recommend delete. Pete.Hurd 22:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - fails to meet WP:NMG. PJM 04:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - self-released, advertisement. Punkmorten 17:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Stifle 00:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 00:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mother2.net[edit]

Completely non-notable website which has been self-promoted by random spamming on wikipedia pages by User_talk:72.224.249.162 Richard W.M. Jones 23:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spam. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion as vandalism. - Mike Rosoft 09:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — per nom. — RJH 01:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Stifle 00:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 00:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stealth breasts[edit]

Non-notable. A Google search turns up 12 unique hits, most of which seem to be in various forms of pornographic stories. Revived 23:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Personally, I don't see why the speedy tag was removed. Barneyboo 23:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was borderline, so I elected to bring it here as a precaution. Revived 23:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neologism / nonsense ... ERcheck 23:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Revived 23:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete should have been speedied--MONGO 23:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no real content Sethie 01:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Patent nonsense Xaosflux 02:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn neologism. But I don't see it as a speedy - as stupid as it is. PJM 04:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not patent nonsense, but not belonging on WP. Stifle 00:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 00:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Braun Scott Woodfield[edit]

  • Delete. Canadian soldiers are not an exception to the rules that soldiers are not notable. Especially ones that die in traffic accidents. There are over 40 nationalities in Afghanistan multinational force. Williamb 23:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Bwithh 03:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Punkmorten 17:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. It may not strike someone as a notable death, but Canada very rarely loses soldiers in any circumstances. He's our first loss in 3 years; a single death makes national news here, folks. Please keep that in consideration. Radagast 17:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per nominator. Stifle 00:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 23:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naxcon[edit]

Advertising, created by User:Naxcon. Userfying would be inappropriate. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Spam/advertisement. --Hurricane111 00:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad. AndyJones 00:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- advertisement. Doubt they are notable, although haven't actually checked. Herostratus 03:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Stifle 00:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 23:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RCIS[edit]

This seems to be an article about some anti-cheating group in the MMORPG RuneScape. I personally play RuneScape, and as much as I hate cheaters, I don't think that the RCIS is notable enough. There seems to be no relevant Google results. Perhaps it could be "userfied" instead? Maybe if a Wikipedian is in this group, they could move it to their user space. --Ixfd64 23:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's defunct, which is would you won't find any hits on Google.Mike 00:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — A small, independent group looking for game cheaters? It's unclear to me why this is notable or encyclopedic. — RJH 01:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't appear to be notable. Stifle 00:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 23:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shuhag Yahya[edit]

A supposedly famous Bengali in Britain who has 5 hits in google [25] (by being a member of the school band). Claim notability by being the grandson of the first Bangladeshi to settle in Dundee, Scotland Hurricane111 00:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • A7 Speedy being the first Bangladeshi to settle in Dundee may be an assertion of notability - although it doesn't meet WP:BIO. Being his grandson isn't nor are there any other assertions of notability. Capitalistroadster 00:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. The last sentence claims the subject holds a "world record", so the article evades A7, in my view. PJM 03:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 07:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anon removed afd tag [26] at this point (as if it was going to make any difference). Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 22:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for various reasons as above. --Bhadani 13:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per PJM. Stifle 00:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_24&oldid=1081093175"