Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 28 November 30 >

Purge server cache

November 29[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 Speedy Delete, this is an attack page. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kneejerk Mafia[edit]

Neologism + POV + attack. Perhaps could be speedied? --202.156.6.54 00:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete, speedy if possible. Durova 00:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete with extreme prejudice - POV, personal attacks, neologism, and several other reasons for this article to disappear. 147.70.242.21 00:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Extreme POV. The Hooded Man 00:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete attack page. Stifle 00:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I can't justify a speedy. Be patient, and this too shall pass. --RoySmith 01:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in due time. BD2412 T 02:31, 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. Friday (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Esarni End[edit]

Supposedly the thirteenth in a series which only actually has twelve books. The thirteenth is a work in progress, its title is unknown, and it already has an article page at Book the Thirteenth (A Series of Unfortunate Events), which will doubtlessly be moved when the actual title is known. Delete. TheMadBaron 00:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not a crystal ball. Durova 00:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- No hits on Google.
But if I'm going to laugh if it turns out to be the right title. He could market that skill. The Hooded Man 00:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it did turn out to be the right title, the thing to do would be to move Book the Thirteenth (A Series of Unfortunate Events) to The Esarni End. We don't need two articles about the same book. TheMadBaron 00:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non verifiable (not even showing up as a speculated title on fan sites). -- JLaTondre 01:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete article already exists as Book the Thirteenth, actual title not known. No brainer to delete. Zordrac 07:49, 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 A1 --RoySmith 02:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jump Superstars Attack Ability[edit]

Fancruft and basically empty, says in progress but it hasn't been touched in months Smmurphy 00:10, 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. --JoanneB 14:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IR_Gurus[edit]

Spam. Includes "Please visit our website" etc. Mark K. Bilbo 00:24, 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 SPEEDY DELETE (under WP:CSD A8 I deleted this article as a verbatim, unformatted copy in Greek of http://www.pasppamak.gr/modules.php?name=History and http://pasppamak.gr/modules.php?name=Positions, from the website of PASP. Although PASP is a political movement and not strictly commercial (under CSD A8.1), the article has no future even if translated or transwikied due to its blatant copyright infringement.) --Gareth Hughes 11:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ΠΑΣΠ[edit]

This page appears to be written in Greek. Being unable to read it, I cannot judge for merit; however, in any case it does not belong in en-Wikipedia. Possibly should be moved if it can be confirmed. Eyvin 00:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. According to WP:CSD, this should be deleted providing it is on another Wikimedia project presumably the Greek Wikipedia and is so listed as a CSD. What happened to the articles requiring translation page? Speedy delete if it is in line with current policy.Capitalistroadster 00:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Its all Greek to me (groan). Youngamerican 03:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a speedy (at least not for nonsense or being on another Wikimedia project, and babelfish tells me it's not a commercial content provider either); it's a copyvio. But in general, you want to tag these with {{notenglish}} and list them on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, not WP:AFD, if you can't tell what they say. —Cryptic (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's an article on PASP, the student wing of the socialist Greek political party PASOK. There a corresponding (but brief) article on it at el:Π.Α.Σ.Π. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as copyvio. The sign says it all. Move to greek encyclopaedia if it passes copyvio (and there is no article about it there). Zordrac
  • Copyvio - delete NSLE (讨论+extra) 09:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete — this is taken word for word without any reformatting from the PASP website. Thus, it doesn't need translated into English or transwikied to el, but I see this as WP:CSD A8. --Gareth Hughes 11:11, 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 into The Seatbelts. - Mailer Diablo 19:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ask DNA[edit]

Non-notable song from a barely-notable band. Stifle 00:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Hooded Man 00:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the article and made it for the album Ask DNA with my friend, not just the song. The infobox isn't quite finished because its late at night and I need sleep. Help finishing would be nice. -Cabutt 05:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into The Seatbelts. I don't know if merging songs/albums into the band's article is kosher but it seems like the right thing to do. Nifboy 05:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into The Seatbelts. I'm wavering between Keep or Merge. They already have their own article at The Seatbelts so a delete is inappropriate. The band article isn't really filled in properly so could use this. It is well written. Actually, the more that I think about it, the more it should be a flat out merge. The Seatbelts article needs more substance, and this kind of thing is precisely what will add that substance it needs. Well done Cabutt for the effort. Zordrac 08:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into The Seatbelts for sure. Makhnono! 19:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into The Seatbelts but also, Cabutt didn't change this to the album, he is my friend, I changed it to the album and did it all. He just added in the picture and fixed one thing for me. -Ktn-robx
  • Merge Sethie 02:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into The Seatbelts. Good idea. Cabutt 04:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kadavul[edit]

dict defn as best Ewok Slayer 00:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - extreme brevity, lack of context, possible vanity (with the picture). 147.70.242.21 01:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - vanity, hoax?, etc HackJandy 07:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it appears to be a hindu name for God. [2]. Oh, and I think everyone would benefit if, before making a vote, they had a quick check on google Zordrac 08:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dicdef - see here: [3]. I was wrong, its the tamil name for allah (islam). I somehow forgot that Hindus worship everything :). Its a dicdef. Modified article to suit. Move to wiktionary. Zordrac 08:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Of course, in saying that, the fact that people in Oman and India and Hawaii had all made temples and plays and such calling them "Kadavul" this that or the other suggests that it may warrant an encyclopaedic article. I'm not sure. Does God warrant an encyclopaedic article? Or how about a name for God? If we have an article for Jehovah or Beelzebub or some other obscure name for a deity, then we probably should keep this. Actually, stuff it, I don't know which way to vote on this one. Zordrac 08:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In its original form, it was certainly worth deleting, but now it's a perfectly reasonable (sub)stub. If somebody can expand it a bit with some information specific to the name Kaduvul, it's worth keeping as a standalone article. At worst, it should get a redirect to Allah --RoySmith 14:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless there is something unique to the tamil interpretation, redirect this alternate name for Allah. We keep separate articles for seperate concepts. Alternate names are resolved through redirects. Rossami (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From what I read, with the game shows and temples and all of the rest, there are assertions towards this name having meaning that is separate from Allah. Zordrac 18:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Rossami, assuming it is accurate, and merge this in the article about Allah. If there is something unique about the way Allah is conceived or worshipped by Tamil speakers, the article needs to mention what that difference is. If it's only a synonym, redirect. Smerdis of Tlön 16:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It did seem pretty obvious that it was the word for Allah, both from the original version of the article and from the google search I did on it. But I am not sure. The existence of all of those game shows and temples and stuff with the name "Kadavul" suggests that a redirect is probably inappropriate. Zordrac 18:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am going to vote now. I have discussed this in dic def talk, and it seems that there is a clear precedent for making an encyclopaedic article about the name of a deity. Based on what references I did have a look at, it seems that this has an encyclopaedic value at least partially independent of Allah. After all, there is an Indian English-speaking game show called "Kadavul" while they speak English and could easily have named it Allah. There must be some reason for that. So, while I am not the one that should be writing the article, I think we should stub it and leave it for someone a bit more knowledgeable. Zordrac 05:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you say something more about the game show ? Tintin 15:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-Its still a stub but it looks much better now. -- --(User | Talk | Contribs) 05:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete kadavul is the Tamil word for God, not just for Allah. That apart, it can't have anything more than a dictionary entry. Any relevant info can be moved to Islam in Tamil Nadu or some such article. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, redirecting this to Allah would be inaccurate and inappropriate. And, I want to remind that it is not a name of a God, but merely the Tamil word for God. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to God; if there is anything significant to say about the word Kadavul itself, the entry can be expanded later. No need to delete. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Sundar. As said above, kadavul means God, not just Allah. Tintin 15:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sundar. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Someone has changed the article a bit - changed Allah to God and touched it up a little.Tintin 00:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 10:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Sundar. Herostratus 23:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Thomas Arbuthnot[edit]

Not a speedy because of some claim to notability, but doesn't seem to have any place here. Possible listify. Stifle 00:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Expand to establish notability. For the time being, weak keep for the opportunity for someone to flesh it out. 147.70.242.21 00:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. As the very model of a modern major-general, I am sure that something could be said about him. Capitalistroadster 00:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing more than a line clipped off a geneology page [4], and as far as we know he's not notable. Peyna 01:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence given of notability. nothing about notability comes up on google. there have been thousands of 20th century senior military officers. Most of them did nothing particularly notable individually. Bwithh 04:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1838-1919, I dare say he was, for the most part, a 19th century senior military officer Zordrac
  • Delete Unless someone adds what he did, he is not notable.-- --(User | Talk | Contribs) 05:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as nothing in google, and nothing in article either. Zordrac 08:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep for now as enough evidence from others that it is a good faith article that may have merit. I may change my vote back to delete pending the results of a discussion. Needs to be expanded. Zordrac 18:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. FWIW, I note that User 62.101.207.27 has many contributions, mostly various Arbuthnots, apparently copied from the Arbuthnot family archives. Possible copyvio? Perhaps this all should be a list? Anyway, the other Arbuthnots seem genuinely notable. Herostratus 09:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I'm lazy, but can you link straight to his contribs for me? I am tempted to change my vote to keep based on your argument. Zordrac 10:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done, down there vvvv - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 11:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: One of the things WP:NOT is genealogy, and the contributor is, essentially, filling out the family tree. It's true that this one, if written by another hand, from scratch, could pass muster, but that's written from scratch, which is to say that none of this content would remain, which is to say delete. Note that none of these Arbuthnots is related to John Arbuthnot, who is, until the late 19th century, the only really famous one. Geogre 12:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The funny thing is that your argument almost convinced me to change my vote towards keep, yet you voted delete! :) I am going to change my vote to keep, just to make sure that there's no consensus and this can be debated properly. Zordrac 18:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two Google hits on "Henry Thomas Arbuthnot", from the same site listing the Arbuthnot family tree. And I have seen nothing in this discussion to establish any notability, let alone enough to warrant a WP article. - Dalbury(Talk) 21:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the following Arbuthnots are included in the ODNB:
...although it may perhaps be added that Wikipedia is likely to be much more inclusive in other fields, such as cricket players (to take an example with relevance for British biography) than the ODNB would ever be, so why not army generals? I don't feel like voting on this particlular article, though. (Just one suggestion: maybe, if he is a son or younger brother of somebody more famous, include a brief note on him in that article?) -- u p p l a n d 09:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge although what Uppland says has some merit, the problem here is that there were lots of senior army oficers in those days, the majority of whom barely get a mention in their regimental history. If this guy led any notable campaigns then I'd vote keep without hesitation, but since the author hasn't taken the trouble to add any background, and the majority of sources will be treeware for someone from this era, it's hard to see this as anything other than free mirroring for [5]. Perhaps the best thing is to merge all the Arbuthnots (of whom this anon author has added several) into one proper article on the Arbuthnot family? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoever it is is obviously a student of some aspects of history, having corrected entries on Eton College and corrected categorisation on a few other entries. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. User:62.101.207.27 Expanding it is the intention. There is no copyright breach here as the author is webmaster kittybrewster.com responsible for original entries.

LOL! And you think we hadn't guessed that? Anyway, at present there are many stubs: I would suggest merging the Kittybrewsters to one article and the Edinburghs to another until such time as they become unwieldy. I think it would give a better idea of the history and continuity of the families, as well as beign easier for me, the reader, to follow. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. —Cryptic (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Myuu's Meow[edit]

Pokemon web forum, no alexa rank, completely unencyclopedic, delete.--nixie 00:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete -- Nothing less than spam. The Hooded Man 00:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - spam. Author is apparently also the admin for the site. 147.70.242.21 00:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I speedied it. The contents were "The Japanese version of Mew", "A growing Pokémon forum, please register and post, post, post!", a screenshot, and two external links. —Cryptic (talk) 04:21, 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. --JoanneB 14:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brijbrij[edit]

School essay with nonsense title. I originally tagged as copyvio a while back for some reason, can't really speedy it because it doesn't seem to fit the criteria. AfD away and delete in a week it is. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Wow. Just have to ask: Why? The Hooded Man 00:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think that's called "unclear on the concept." Guess, no original research? Mark K. Bilbo 01:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I hope this paper didn't get better than a C. "Rests in obscurity"? Hardly. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wonder why the author thought Wikipedia would want his essay on Che Guevara, when he used Wikipedia's own article on Che Guevara as one of his sources. --Metropolitan90 04:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*) 05:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Che Guevara - The title is actually, of course "Ernesto Guevara", which returns quite a mass of google hits. In fact, if this student was willing to allow us to, we might be able to move some of it over to Ernesto_Guevara (aka Che Guevara). Are we allowed to do that? I don't know the policy. Considering that Che Guevara has a tag about factual accuracy, an essay like this might be just what it needs to improve its accuracy. Zordrac 08:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can merge the text of this article anywhere on Wikipedia under the GNU Free Documentation License which applies to all contributions to Wikipedia. But this is just a student essay which was researched from, among other places, Wikipedia, which makes it unlikely that it will help the accuracy of Che Guevara. By the way, the main article title is Che Guevara; Ernesto Guevara, the subject's given name, is a redirect to the more commonly used name Che Guevara. --Metropolitan90 03:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NSLE (讨论+extra) 09:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This doesn't belong within 100 yards of wikipedia. --Bachrach44 20:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 21:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some student's paper on Che Guevara, no idea why it's posted here.Chuckhoffmann 07:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 21:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

25 O'Clock[edit]

This is so confusing that I can't even call it patent nonsense. Stifle 00:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with XTC or Dukes of Stratosphear, or at least allow a rewrite to eliminate POV. XTC (and its successors) have been around since 1972 and have a worldwide following. 147.70.242.21 00:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup. Notable EP released by the Dukes of Stratosphear aka XTC. Allmusic.com rated it "one of XTC's best releases under any name" see [6]. Capitalistroadster 01:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a notable release. I've cleaned it up to hopefully be coherent. Someone who is more familiar with doing album articles than I can probably add the infobox and whatnot easilly. --W.marsh 01:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well done to W. Marsh for his work. Capitalistroadster 03:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nice cleanup (and a great album). Bikeable 04:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this too please it is much better now Yuckfoo 05:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Decent Stub.-- --(User | Talk | Contribs) 06:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and close Vfd. Obvious. stub it too. Zordrac 08:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I've clarified it and expanded it some. It only ever needed some fixing up, it was never really a deletion candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but enough debate to still be able to assume that this was a good faith nomination. Still wrong to nominate it though. But we all make mistakes. Zordrac 20:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with XTC or Dukes of Stratosphear. I'm not comfortable with opening up WP to articles on singles. -- Dalbury(Talk) 21:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I've extended it a bit further too. As to "opening up WP to articles on singles", there are a lot of articles on singles on Wikipedia already. And this was officially released as a mini-album. Grutness...wha? 00:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Preaky 23:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Friday (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Dowd[edit]

Doesn't seem to be notable, couldn't find anything about him on Google. MechBrowman 00:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete looks like a vanity page. Can't find anything about him, the songs listed, nothing. Mark K. Bilbo 01:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity; the article creator's past weighs against it as well. Peyna 01:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vanity. Ifnord 05:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete no claims to notoriety. Made by a notorious vandal - User_talk:Sully_mahmood. Delete and warn Sully mahmood (again). Zordrac 08:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy A7 NSLE (讨论+extra) 09:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. Just enough assertion of significance (even if I can find no evidence of the album he supposedly published) that I can't justify a speedy A7. If the author really is a repeat vandal who's gaming the system by knowing how to write something which carefully avoids WP:CSD, then he needs a stern warning or a block. --RoySmith 14:50, 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× ☎ 21:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flonkerton[edit]

Non-notable joke on TV show The Office. Nine google hits. Seems silly to redirect to The Office, since "flonkerton" is neither mentioned there, nor likely to be. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion whatsoever for the first AfD. Relisting. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 00:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with The Office under a possible "running gags" section. 147.70.242.21 00:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge if necessary. Peyna 01:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the correct article is The Office (US) since I don't remember it from the UK version PTSE 01:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Shouldn't be merged: not notable, probably won't come up in the show again. --Mrtea 02:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ∾ Smells like a hoax, and if it isn't, it's still not worth keeping as a seperate article. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 03:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, five Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete how come you guys got 5 google hits while I got 16 hits? Is my google better than your google? LOL. Zordrac 08:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
LOL sorry just checked. 3 of the 16 hits are this Vfd!!!!! HA HAHAHAHA! 08:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly notable, its Google count has trebled due to discussion in a popular and notable web-forum[7]. Internet phenomena are notable; just need to rewrite article to reflect recent developments... This one'll be on FAC in no time. -GTBacchus(what!?) 17:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain this better? I thought that 16 hits is pretty low. Only decent hit is A blogspot page, which hasn't been filled in yet. Zordrac 18:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect he's taking the piss. The "notable web-forum" he cites is, in fact, this very AfD discussion. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 19:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zordrac, you yourself said that the Google count had gone from 5 to 16, which is more than treble, and that part of the growth was due to discussion here. I was just rephrasing your post. The trouble with irony in cyberspace... delete, per nom, oh wait that's me. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
LOL good one. Move this discussion to BJAODN. Made me laugh. Zordrac 20:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't that make it a good joke, and thus ineligible for that "honour"? (FWIW, delete running gag so notable that not even fans of the series remember it.) — Haeleth Talk 20:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Haeleth, when you refer to "fans of the series" you're probably referring to those of the UK version. It's actually from the US version (The Office (US)) which is why the UK fans wouldn't remember it. It's really not notable from the US version anyway though. Mrtea 00:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I got the same hits Zordrac got. But if you look at the hits, you'll see that though it says there are 16, there are only 9 on the only page that comes up. Of those 9, two are to this page, two are to cafepress, that cuts it down to 7. One is to flonkerton.com, which does not exist. That leaves 5 Google hits for the word with the meaning in the article. I stand by my count. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:02, 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 Speedy as patent nonsense --RoySmith 01:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lakes Eleven[edit]

The article is nonsense and poorly written. Jtrost 00:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - vandalism, unencyclopedic "creative writing," and (if that's not enough) very hard on the eyes. 147.70.242.21 01:04, 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. --JoanneB 14:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Murdered_out[edit]

Neologism? Probably vanity to get the picture in. Mark K. Bilbo 00:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - neologism and vanity. This borders on a joke as well. 147.70.242.21 01:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete- Clearly the previouse poster is too presumptious to appreciate some authentic Sacramento slang. The term murdered out is widespead in Sacramento and contributes to the cities rich and colorful culture. This is not a joke and should be kept. Mark Bilbo is just bitter because he will never be murdered out. Rather he is clearly Unmurdered out and probably has never here's a good one. Song lyrics which been laid either.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.167.204 (talk • contribs) 29 November 2005
    • Comment Got cites? As in WP:V? Mark K. Bilbo 01:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Local "Sacramento slang" is as noteworthy to the rest of the English-speaking world as Miami or Virginia Beach slang... which is not noteworthy at all. Delete B.Wind 06:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity --PTSE 01:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obvious vanity article. This article is obviously going down. Reyk 01:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism. It will be murdered out in five days time. Capitalistroadster 03:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I asked my parents, who live in Sacramento, and they have never heard this phrase. The first page of a Google search only comes up with one usage in this manner, and that's a song lyric. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I laughed so hard I was going to BJAOD it, but then I did the usual old google search and my google gives me 946 hits (I know that for some reason other people's googles give them less hits - maybe because I have safe mode off?) [8]. Simpsons episode. Sideshow Bob: I'm all murdered out. Of course, he was talking about actual killing. That's the only reference to any kind of a joke. Even the song lyric [9] is talking about actual death. In other words, the article above is about something that doesn't exist. Whilst Sideshow bob's quote is listed at least 10 times, and hence is quotable, he wasn't referring to it in the way that this article suggests. Zordrac 09:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The Yo-Pose. Neologism defined -- private joke. Let's nowiki its link while on VfD. Geogre 12:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete: Of course you parents have never heard that phrase before Zoe, its used only by young people. Not your mom and dad walking around Safeway going "That can of chicken noodle soup is murdered out". You people have no respect for local culture.
    • What we do have respect for is Wikipedia, and no self-respecting encyclopedia would include a term you just made up. When it's been around for five years and has made it into dictionaries, then it might be acceptable for Wiktionary, but it would never be acceptable for Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. -LtNOWIS 04:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --RoySmith 02:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asgard legionnaires[edit]

Band vanity... no evidence that they pass WP:MUSIC. The one thing that might be worthy of discussion is the claim that they are the first metal band to release anything (apparently a demo) in Doha. Honestly, I don't know if that's meaningful in and of itself... it certainly would be if they were signed to a reputable label, etc. But other evidence points more towards the typical story of a high school band that had some fun then the members grew up and the band split up ([10], they are broken up now) still with apparently no label releases. Not on AMG, very little on Google (though that's understandable since they're based in Qatar). The author's other contributions are mostly vandalism, but that is just of minor interest here. --W.marsh 00:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 05:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-noteable and article text hints at vanity. HackJandy 05:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as band vanity, no tours, no records. Herostratus 09:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First of something is automatically notable. If they are truly the first such band from Doha, then they need to stay. Good old google with its 598 hits gives me a good starting spot. And here you go with a review. Might need some more verification, but we're not getting it from google. But the claims make it notable enough. Zordrac 09:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: First of something can be significant, but it depends, in a way, on whether it's a something that sets examples and paves the way. There isn't any evidence that there is now a Doha metal scene, nor that this is a venerated trailblazer. The band appears to have remained undistributed and uncharted. Geogre 12:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that WP:MUSIC is a guideline and not a policy, this is perhaps a great example of why it should remain a guideline - here's a band that doesn't fit WP:MUSIC, but is notable due to its significance of being the first band from Doha. Perhaps WP:MUSIC is the wrong rationale to judge them. Anyways, keep assuming proper verification. --badlydrawnjeff 14:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just don't know that being the "first" band is automatically notable without A) verification and B) any sign that being the first band had an impact. Say I formed a band in 1987 and billed it as the first death metal band in Kentucky... more people live here than in Doha. But we played a few shows in people's basements, had no releases, didn't spur a scene, no one really remembers us. Would we be notable? I think not... just typical band vanity. Now evidence that they had an impact on the music scene is obviously going to be harder to come by, becase they're in Qatar, not Kentucky. But still... considering the lack of releases, verification and the way this fits the typical high school band mold... --W.marsh 16:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, right, you said exactly the thing: It's Qatar, not Kentucky. Of course verification is important, and I'm adjusting my vote to reflect that as I should have before. Notability because of the culture and inherent impact is, IMO, important. --badlydrawnjeff 16:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Popularity is not everything. A lot of unpopular things have historical importance because of being the first of something - even if they did not subsequently influence anything. Firsts that influenced culture, like for example AC/DC was significant not due to its popularity (it wasn't all THAT popular) but because it was the first ever heavy metal band in Australia, whilst less popular bands such as Carcus (band) were if anything more influential because of being the first death metal band in the world, in spite of popularity. I can think of so many examples of hardly heard of things that are important because of being the first, and having historical importance. Zordrac 18:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I would suggest that hardly heard of things with historical relevance is precisely what an encyclopaedia is there for. If its something that we already know about, then we don't need to look it up, do we? I mean, who cares about looking up about ICQ? We already know about it because its enormously popular, well known, etc. You might care about the intricacies of how it came about or something, but other than that, who cares? I am much more interested in hearing about less heard-of things like about a planemo to describe Pluto and the 10th planet, or about that woman who was a natural conductor of electricity, because then we are learning something new. IMO those things are much more encyclopaedic than a popular thing such as ICQ. Zordrac
All of this is true, but the bottom line is that something actually has to have an influence, even if it's obscure to popular culture. We can just assume they're influential without any evidence... and as far as I can tell there's no evidence that they're more than the typical highschool myspace band that gets voted deleted all the time. --W.marsh 21:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm all for leaning over backwards for music groups from non-English speaking countries, but these guys are into Heavy Metal and have their own website, so they're not traditional musicians unsophisticated in the ways of the Internet. They still look too non-notable for me. -- Dalbury(Talk) 22:08, 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 A7 --RoySmith 02:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy de Guzman[edit]

The article does not provide any reason why this person is notable. Jtrost 01:00, 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 A1 --RoySmith 02:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The_Buckner_Group[edit]

Spam (everybody wants in the Wikipedia these days eh?) Mark K. Bilbo 01:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, leaving the company soon, just whacked in whatever was in the company website.

What exactly are you allowed to have about a company here? I looked at a couple of other ones, but not sure what wikipedia defines as 'advertising'.

Delete if you see fit.

  • Well, definitely not copying the website, that could be copyright violation on top of advertising. Policies are found at WP:CORP and WP:NOT. Frankly, though, an entry by the company would likely be viewed as advertising regardless. Generally speaking, in the case of an encyclopedia, someone other than the company writes about the company because it's notable. Mark K. Bilbo 01:43, 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. Owen× ☎ 21:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Dalziel[edit]

Not-notable, vanity. Google gets 230 hits on "Adam Dalziel", but of the first 20 only 4 are for this Adam Dalziel, and 3 of those are from Wikipedia or a site pulling from WP. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not notable. 147.70.242.21 01:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - if we were to keep one, it'd be the place Model Motion. You can't be notable for creating something unless the thing you have created is notable. LOL. So see if he can establish whether Model Motion is notable first, and if so, consider keeping that one. Don't consider keeping this. Zordrac 09:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Apparently I can't say "speedy" because of the criteria for speedy deletion. Zordrac 18:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: ur remote control to the delete button: not apparently very significant in the fashion or South Beach worlds, and his site is a portal. Geogre 12:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above arguments. Punkmorten 22:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evgeny Mando[edit]

Completing nomination initiated by 195.10.5.6. No vote. BD2412 T 01:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Hoax or very non-noteable or something stranger. For such an extensive entry, Google yeilds nothing. HackJandy 05:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - nothing on my google either. Came up blank. So unless there's a mis-spelling or something, or it needs to be translated from Russian, I think we move it to the bad jokes place. Zordrac 09:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and it makes no real claims to notoriety either. No claim, no refs, easy choice here. delete. Zordrac 09:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Delete with peas and homebrew, to the sound of kletzmer trombone. Appears to be hijinks. Geogre 12:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Certainly feels like a hoax. -- Dalbury(Talk) 22:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax --Aranda 56) 03:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Lewis[edit]

Likely hoax, Google turns up nothing for "RJ Lewis" + "International Athletics Organization" or "RJ Lewis" + "Humanitarian Silver Star." CanadianCaesar 02:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable Olympic wanna-be. —Brim 04:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, no validation of claims either. -- malo (talk)/(contribs) 05:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verify - if he is really Korean champion, then I think he's got a strong candidature for a Keep vote. It may be that RJ is short for his full name. I got tired of trying to figure this one out so at this stage I am abstaining. I need some rest. However, if the claims are true, its a definite keep in my books. National champion at the age of 18 sounds notable. I don't know if you guys remember a fellow by the name of Ian Thorpe, or perhaps Kieran Perkins. Both of those were enormously notable for being national champions - because Australia was the best nation in the world at swimming at the time, and they had a chance of then being world champions. Korea, of course, is one of the best at wrestling. If its true, and he's done that much at 18, then he's notable in my books. Zordrac 09:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A 19 year old who has won a silver star from Tony Blair, as well as a championship in wrestling in South Korea, and yet strangely evades Google mentions? Let's compare the likelihood of that versus the likelihood of a vanity/fantasy article. The burden of proof is on the author. Geogre 12:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If his name is, for example "Ryan James Lewis", and that comes up with 20,000 google hits by that name, then we have verification. The word "Lewis" combined with any kind of athletics combination or olympics comes up with millions of hits. Whilst these are dominated by Carl Lewis it is quite feasible that a "Ryan James Lewis"" or whatever his name is, is part of that. Therefore, I don't think we can say absolutely that the claims are false. Zordrac 18:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as a hint, the author of this page also added to this page: Andrew_L._Lewis,_Jr.. Common theme of "Lewis". But Andrew L Lewis J was an American presidential candidate. I suspect that our friend the author has a last name of Lewis and/or is related to these two. That suggests that this might be legitimate. Have sent a message on his talk page asking for verification. Zordrac 19:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google turns up no hits for the term humanitarian silver star, which leads me to believe it's a hoax, regardless of what his real name is. --Bachrach44 20:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - you've convinced me, that that verifies things. Making a vote now. Zordrac 20:29, 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. --JoanneB 14:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your coke[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article apparently about an uncompleted film by two USC students that was "halted in the late summer of 2003" and "slated to continue in the summer of 2006 and is expected in limited release." No references. Not easy to verify. No evidence presented of encyclopedic significance at this time. Not listed in imdb. No evidence presented that "Your coke" is an idiom in any widespread use. Nominator votes delete. After it is finished, released, listed in imdb, and reviewed by major reviewers, we could have an article about it. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete looks rather like vanity also. Mark K. Bilbo 02:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above --Martyman-(talk) 03:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete adding to the suspicions of vanity is the fact that IP of the creator of the page is located near USC. Peyna 03:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete —Brim 04:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Your coke" isn't even the name of the incomplete student film per the article, just a neologism from it. --Metropolitan90 04:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. — JIP | Talk 08:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - my eyes are tired from wading through google to try to justify this one. It sounded like a maybe with the article, but then again, when you think about it, like a film that has not yet been made, that has a 1 in 1 billion chance of being notable (its by a bunch of students), and then in turn we are talking about a slang term that only the 4 people making the film used. I try my best to justify keeping an article, but this one just doesn't cut it. Zordrac 10:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's an obvious delete, but I don't quite think it meets the criteria for speedy delete or I would have done so. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. --Bachrach44 20:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 23:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. —WikiFanatic 04:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Birchview Elementary School moved to Birchview Elementary School (Plymouth, Minnesota)[edit]

NN ankle biter farm, article far below WP standards Pete.Hurd 02:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is a hoax, no indication of the putative school's location, the write-up suggests the editor intends the article to be humourous, ironic, or some such thing. School cannot be verified. Recommend delete Pete.Hurd 02:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and possibly contact the administration of Wayzata High School in Marion, Minnesota per the anonymous user's history. This is a high school student so it's not appropriate to repeat here, but I think you'll find the vandal's name. Durova 05:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: hoax? "putative school"? "cannot be verified"? When I did a Google search on the term "Birchview", this school in Plymouth, MN was the third item on the search result. See this. The article isn't much, but to call the author a vandal is a huge stretch. Please assume good faith and don't bite the newbies! -- DS1953 06:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Durova's "vandal" comment may refer to vandalism to Natural selection which was comitted by the same IP as the creator of this article. I found this article by checking up the contributions of that IP after reverting that vandalism. Enough time passed between the two events that I would not necessarily assume they were by the same person. Pete.Hurd 07:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Check the page history at Wayzata High School, which was altered from the same IP address on the same day this article was created. Especially note the text inserted and the comment by the person who cleaned up afterward. Durova 08:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is adding a reference to Marion Barber III, a rookie running back for the Dallas Cowboys (and who graduated from the high school) vandalism? [11]? Please assume good faith. -- DS1953 21:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right you are. Point withdrawn. This returns us to the puzzle of which Birchview Elementary School this might be. Durova 23:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not an article, it is a biased review of the school. The article even fails to define its location, so we cannot tell whether it is about the school in Plymouth, Minnesota, Macon, Missouri, Ishpeming, Michigan or some other place. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failing NPOV, too. NSLE (讨论+extra) 09:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak keep after rewrite. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 04:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - rewrote article. Its obviously the one in Plymouth, Minnesota - since thats next to Wayzata High School lol. Its an actual school, and our policy on schools is that, for the most part, we keep them. Oh, I only did a stub for the article though. Mind you, since there's more than one school with the same name, perhaps we can disambig the page. That makes it MORE NOTABLE not less. Zordrac 10:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that it was WP policy to keep all school articles. Can you point me to this? Pete.Hurd 15:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SCH and also the notes at the top of this page. "Schools are generally kept as policy". Generally, of course, doesn't mean always. This may be an exception. It is not quite a definite policy yet. Zordrac 20:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that statement? It certainly is not policy, and it isn't at the top of any page I'm looking at right now. Chris talk back 18:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as empty: It's a predicate nominative now that it's verifiable. A fact is not an article, and before someone says "improve it," improving at this point is functionally no different from "write it from scratch," except that it means carrying a vandal attack in the edit history. Geogre 12:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nn school Catchpole 13:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per george accept i dont know what is a predicit nominitive is but it sound reely BAD so i say deth to predicit nomintives!!!!!!! Furfy
  • Delete. Short of being the site of a signficant event I fail to see how any elementary school can be notable. --StuffOfInterest 16:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all schools. Please participate at WP:SCH instead of nominating schools for fruitless no-consensus defacto keep votes. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article I nominated [12] and tell me again why you think such a thing should not be nominated for AfD! Pete.Hurd 16:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{sofixit}. List it for cleanup at Schoolwatch. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So all school articles belong to a magical subset of articles in which no lower bounds of quality exist? They can never be bad enough to merit deletion? All that verbiage about "don't take it personally" and how AfD is a constructive process in the AfD literature just doesn't apply to the magical category of schools? I'm not going to {sofixit}, I spend far too much time working on topics of actual encyclopedic value as it is. Pete.Hurd 17:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, "yes". School articles have a unique set of standards. Pete.Hurd 17:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is "Keep all schools" a fruitful vote? — Haeleth Talk
Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BlankVerse 18:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete, this school is below the threshold established at WP:SCH.Gateman1997 19:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not the remedy to stubs provided by the WP:SCH proposal. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • How so? The proposal says 3 or more verifiable sentences. This article does not meet that criteron or any other being discussed. It should be merged per the proposal.Gateman1997 20:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • And redirected. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, after it's been merged and deleted.Gateman1997 20:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • The history of the redirecting article is to be maintained. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Is that policy, to keep the history?Gateman1997 20:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's standard practice. More to the point, it's simpler to keep the history than to delete it, so what's the point of going to any extra effort? — Haeleth Talk 21:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Point taken. I suppose in the long run too when someone does get the urge to write an actual article about this school too it makes it a tad easier to rewrite it. Granted I'd rather history be gone, but that is secondary in my mind to the merge so *shrug*.Gateman1997 21:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I don't think the normal GFDL attribution requirement applies here. We're not using the text of the school article, we're just adding a mention of the school to the district. Simple facts, like a school name, by themselves, aren't copyrightable (as far as I know). There's really no text in the school article to move anyhow (for instance my sentence saying the school is part of the district would obviously not be used in the district article). So, I think the issue of preserving history here is not signficant, and I would be fine either way. Before a copyright holder can complain their GFDL-rights were violated (through lack of attribution), they actually have to show that copyrightable/copyrighted work was actually copied, in my non-lawyered opinion. So, I think what's done with the old history is a minor issue, that can go either way. --Rob 05:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this substub with the school district article, unless someone steps in to add a good dollop of facts verifiable from secondary sources. (This is the position I signed up to at WP:SCH. Anyone who hasn't participated in that debate yet, get over there, find out what's being proposed, and make your voice heard!) — Haeleth Talk 21:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 22:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Wayzata School District per WP:SCH (I dislike the proposal partly for assuming all schools are a part of a simple small school districts, but this school actually is). --Rob 04:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless the lack of credible sources is remedied, this appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability--redstucco 11:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable and not notable.  Grue  16:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. Useless in its current state. Please do not under any circumstances use this to create a no consensus verdict. --Celestianpower hablamé 18:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:V as it does not have at least two WP:RS cited. Chris talk back 18:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article is sourced, notable topic. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notable in what way? As for the article being sourced, it's not hard to source one sentence. Chris talk back 23:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notable as an important educational institution serving Plymouth, Minnesota and a significant institution of the local government. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, but please answer the question that was asked: notable in what way? Chris talk back 00:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • See above, the sentence beginning "notable as," although I'm not sure how you missed it. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I see that sentence, however, it doesn't actually state why the school is notable among the millions of schools worldwide such that it merits its own article in a general encyclopaedia. Chris talk back 01:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Once again, it is notable among the millions of schools worldwide because out of those schools, Birchview is among the rare few that are important educational institutions serving Plymouth, Minnesota. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Why does the fact that it serves Plymouth, Minnesota make it so much more notable than other schools that it merits its own article in a general encyclopaedia? Chris talk back 01:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If you make the pond small enough, then anybody (or any school) can be a big frog. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Why would it have to be "more notable than other schools"? We're writing an encyclopedia, not hosting some sort of twisted notability competition. Virtually all schools are notable, and there's no contradiction there. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Every time I see someone say something like "We're writing an encyclopedia", I smell a fallacy in the air. Chris talk back 07:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is a local government, then it should be smerged into the town article. --Idont Havaname 00:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(To clarify: We don't write articles on individual city halls, fire stations, or any other institutions of local government... except for cities with large metropolitan areas.) --Idont Havaname 00:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Smerging it into the town or district article would also satisfy me. --Idont Havaname 00:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and please write more about this school it is important Yuckfoo 01:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see this page as much more likely to grow than the underdeveloped Wayzata School District page it is proposed to be merged into. People attend, and are familiar with, schools, not districts. Turnstep 01:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. In the future, please keep comments such as "NN akle biter farm" to yourself. Silensor 19:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep.  ALKIVAR™ 23:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Anything below the High school level --Jaranda(watz sup) 02:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encylopedic and nothing would be lost by deletion. Merge is not an option since it counts as a keep for the article and not the information. Vegaswikian 05:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non notable. I have no idea why so many people think that schools should be automatically included no matter what. It's not like its a university which conducts research, nor has it any notable alumni, nor has some major event ever happened there. So the argument is that this school exists, well so does the fire station, community centre, newsagents, corner shops and public toilets. - Hahnchen 04:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 14:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William Aberhart Debate[edit]

Vanity [13] CanadianCaesar 03:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - voted on that one for merge. I think now we've got 3/3 merges, just need consensus for where to merge to. I suggested Model United Nations, which already mentions Westchester as the host for the next conference. In that case, yes, it is school debating, but its a biggie, so its noteworthy. Zordrac 10:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Would look at a merge if the school had an article. Capitalistroadster 08:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as vanity for 2-hit google [14] which clearly says it is a debate team. I will get right on looking at the AFD that needs consensus. Zordrac 10:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no speedy delete for vanity, so just regular delete. There is no article for the school (thankfully). A sublocal concern. Geogre 12:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is, but there shouldn't be. LOL. Thanks for directing me to the rules. Zordrac 20:33, 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 Delete. --JoanneB 14:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fundiments[edit]

Okay so it's been some years since calculus but this makes no sense. I can't find anything to support the idea of "fundiments" in calculus. Original research? Mark K. Bilbo 03:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given that the author also used the mis-spelling "fundemental", I suspect that this is little more than the tautologous notion that the fundaments of calculus are the elements of the fundamental theories of calculus. Uncle G 03:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is either total gibberish, or so deep I just don't understand it :-) --RoySmith 03:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - take it from a college mathematics instructor: the article says nothing. B.Wind 05:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NSLE (讨论+extra) 09:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if its a mis spelling, it has been done a lot of times before. 449 people that mis-spell the same word in the same way? I don't think so. Of course, dictonary.com says it doesn't exist either so maybe it is a mis-spelling. So yeah, delete. Zordrac 10:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It says nothing meaningful whatsoever. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I should point out (and it pains me to do so) that there is a valid term that may trip up Google searches: "fundament" and "fundiment" are both archaically valid, and they can both refer to the foundation of just about anything. Further, they are used as a polite term for the anus in early 19th century parlance. However, that's a Wiktionary matter. This article is original research. Geogre 12:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My dad enjoyed used it in the 19th century sense. Gives a whole new aspect to the word "fundamentalist," doesn't it? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could redirect to Foundations of mathematics I suppose, but, bottom line, this article is unfounded and debased. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And there are also "fundamentals" and "foundations" for underwear. (The Foundation Series as a saga of Victoria's Secret?) Geogre 16:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Take it from a math major, this article content is nonsense. novacatz 08:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 23:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was This article should go speedy TU per WP:CSD A1 --RoySmith 03:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manipulistic[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary CanadianCaesar 03:29, 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× ☎ 21:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Denim Revolution[edit]

del nonnotable yet neologism, unlike denim revolution, unrelated to Belarus. mikka (t) 03:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete A multi-year search of an international news database shows that only one November 2005 article in The Economist magazine uses this phrase. The use of Denim as a symbol in Belarussian politics dates from September 2005 - this fact could be moved to the Belarus wikipedia page for the politics page. But this little known neologism should be deleted for now Bwithh 04:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to A Day of Solidarity with Belarus.
  • delete original research --Ghirlandajo 09:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - [15], [16], [17]. Valid term used for topical story. Zordrac 19:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first of your links is to "premium content" that I can't view. The second is to a page that contains no mention of the word "denim" that I can find. The third is to a blog discussing current events in Canada, while the article is about Belarus. I have to say I remain unconvinced that this is not a neologism. — Haeleth Talk 22:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Searching Google for "Denim Revolution" + Delarus gets 29 hits, all but one on economist.com (and that last one is an accidental conjunction of article titles). Definitely non-notable outside of the pages of the Economist. -- Dalbury(Talk) 22:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - the Economist is a legitimate source, and its coinages can reasonably be expected to gain currency (no pun intended), but I see no evidence that this has happened yet. Perhaps the information should be merged as Bwithh suggests. — Haeleth Talk 22:46, 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 02:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toa Nidhiki[edit]

Do we really need to have an article about every single minor character on the face of this Earth? No. This is just an obscure character in Bionicle. Delete Titoxd(?!?) 04:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as intensely non-notable Bwithh 04:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good Lord. Delete. non-notable. Herostratus 09:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We don't need every toy, every extra in an animated film, or every trading card. We certainly don't need this ... barnacle. Geogre 12:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with bionicle. Not sufficiently notable for own article, article already exists. Zordrac 19:13, 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 redirect, which has already been done. Fait accompli. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 19:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xu Zhou[edit]

Duplicate of the page for Xu Chu with inaccurate and unused (as far as I'm aware) spelling of his name. --Omdal 05:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal discussion for this AfD. Relisting in hopes of a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 04:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. Western transliterations of Chinese names can be wildly inaccurate. I see no harm in keeping this as a search option. Durova 05:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - seems to be redirecting already. I think that's the sensible thing to do. keep it as it is. Zordrac 19:14, 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× ☎ 21:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kean Hartling[edit]

  • All of you are wrong I verified some of the information within the Wikipedia article on Kean Hartling and it was based off of an old Irish publication within the Freeman's Journal, dated 18 March 1923, an article titled Heroes of the Great War by Drake O'Reilly, a not-very-popular or well-known editor of the Journal. Get your facts straight before you threaten to delete anything. Don't Delete Bubby (unregistered) 21:42, 03 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't verify any of this. —Cryptic (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nor can I. A Google search for "Kean Hartling" shows seven Google hits none of which confirms this [18]. There is a list of Australian recipients of the Victoria Cross here on this site related to Anzac Day. [19] Hartling's name is not listed there. There is a list of Victoria Cross recipients by name on Wikipedia. His name is not listed on List of Victoria Cross recipients by Name - H. Delete as unverifiable probable hoax. Capitalistroadster 04:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The author has also recently planted false information elsewhere which was subject to a speedy delete as a deliberate hoax. Bwithh 04:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - hoax/vandalism. Article contradicts itself in places. B.Wind 05:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh. Zordrac 19:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do all countries get as many well-written biographical hoax articles as Australia does? It seems like a few come up every week. pfctdayelise 22:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probable hoax. Sarah Ewart 23:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless article can be confirmed. --Roisterer 08:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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× ☎ 21:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skyhawk(2006)[edit]

Not encyclopedic roller coaster that hasn't been built yet. Delete —Brim


  • Despite POV problems (almost promotional in nature), better to Rewrite and Merge with Cedar Point. The construction is going on; this could go into a "Planned for 2006" section. B.Wind 05:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but definitely clean up. The swing is noteable as the worlds (soon to be tallest), and May 2006 is pretty close. However, the entry reads like a bad TV commercial. If it doesn't get cleaned up I move to delete based on vanity. HackJandy 05:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I fixed this article so it doesn't sound like a nine year old wrote it.-- --(User | Talk | Contribs) 06:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Cedar Point. Verifiable since it's under construction. I'm a bit unsure of whether roller coasters deserve their own article, but I don't think a deletion is in order. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Roller coasters aren't inherently notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia and this one isn't much more notable than any other coaster. New rides are frequently the fastest, or the highest, or have the most loops when they first open, but they are usually surpassed in a few months or years because the industry is extremely competitive. I have a hard time thinking of anything that could make a roller coaster notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. For me, it would have to be the first of a type of coaster, the most visited ride in the nation, the oldest coaster in operation or cause a large number of deaths. -- Kjkolb 11:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cedar Point. Individual roller coasters are not significant enough to warrant individual articles. If kept, the title should be changed to Skyhawk (Cedar Point) (or something similar) as the (2006) should go. -- JLaTondre 12:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - tallest, first, best, etc, are automatically notable. Even if it hasn't been finished yet, it is still of historical importance. Zordrac 19:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cedar Point: When it becomes known outside of its park (when it is complete and becomes the biggest, baddest, scariest, hairiest, etc.), then it should be discussed outside of its park. At this point, it is under construction, and there is many a slip betwixt cup and lip. We'll wait for it to achieve its records. (And will we automatically search and AfD any coaster that got an article previously for being biggest/tallest/fastest/etc.?) Geogre 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cedar Point per Geogre. -- Dalbury(Talk) 22:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apology- I'm sorry as the author that this page had so many faults. Please delete if needed. 5:55 PM 29 November 2005
    • Comment. It's nothing to worry about. It seems you are new to editing in Wikipedia. Take a little time to read some of the articles in Help:Contents and you'll quickly get the hang of how things work here. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, as above, but definitely not delete. Roller coaster records don't change *that* often. Turnstep 01:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cedar Point. Preaky 00:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 19:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Urban housework[edit]

I believe that this is best understood as a one-off source of satire rather than any genuine sport or performance art movement. Removing the hyperbole from the article would leave nothing, and there is no referenceable source that can be used to document the existence of this movement, since the only purported sources are television and web sites. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep Bankovious 21:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above is user's first edit ever. Owen× ☎ 00:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Bankovious is a sock puppet of one of my very own personal trolls. I have accumulated several personal trolls over time and none of them ever seem to go away entirely. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Hey, I've heard of it so it must at least have had some notability. It won't last though and someday (soon?) will be but a dot in the rear-view mirror of popular culture. I'd say leave it for a while yet though. Spondoolicks 17:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable due to media attention. MCB 22:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Owen× ☎ 00:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per nom. Media coverage saves it from a regular delete, but that's not enough to make it unfadish enough. karmafist 00:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting in hopes of garnering a consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 04:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ifnord 05:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is an event that actually happened than keep. If it someone faling to be funny then delete.-- --(User | Talk | Contribs) 06:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Sure doesn't pass the 100-year test, does it? We do have an article on extreme ironing though. I guess it was on TV, but will it be notable even 2 years from now? There's gotta be a limit to including really minor fads. Should be merged into an article with extreme ironing etc. Or at any rate cut to one paragraph. Herostratus 07:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per The Uninvited. -- Kjkolb 11:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - happily meets WP:WEB per the media coverage. Sounds valid. Referenced, etc. Zordrac 19:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless, that is, someone can provide sources to verify all that claimed media coverage. -- Dalbury(Talk) 22:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain until some better Google hits are found. I gave up after my google searching led me to this very discussion. Methinks the googlebot is getting a little too good. :) Turnstep 01:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 00:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

K. Douglas Woolsey[edit]

nn author/game designer, 63 unique Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as per nom Bwithh 04:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom HackJandy 05:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - not *yet* notable game designer/author. Looks like he will be soon though. In 12 months or so, when he is notable, recreate the page. Zordrac 19:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this self-publishing, vanity author. Ifnord 00:22, 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 DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mordredica[edit]

nn fantasy world, 45 unique Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:34, 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. --JoanneB 14:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vaginoid[edit]

This was originally tagged for speedy delete, but that tag was removed, so now it's going up for deletion. Obvious hoax. No hits on Amazon for this supposed science fiction author who was apparently noteworthy enough to have an extant notebook uncovered and written about. Delete —Brim

  • Speedy delete as hoax. Ifnord 05:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

M. M. P. was local to Mill Valley, CA and probably not famous enough to be on Amazon.com.

  • Delete. No citation and not linked from anywhere. --StuffOfInterest 16:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - makes no decent claims to notoriety. "briefly mentioned" in some obscure 19th century book hardly makes it notable. Even if it is true, it needs to be merged to the original book. Zordrac 19:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Another unfunny joke. A full sized woman shaped like a vulva? Umm, let's not think about that too much, eh? Geogre 22:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Arrghh! -- Dalbury(Talk) 22:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 00:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not only pretty dumb, but the autthor isn't listed in Nicholls (which is to science fiction what Wisden is to cricket). Grutness...wha? 22:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron LaBerge[edit]

Delete I'm just not convinced that he is notable enough to be worth an encyclopedia entry. It's not as if he's being said to have made any innovations, nor is in a position to make policy for his company. Caerwine 04:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. I have suspicions the article was written by a LaBerge family member Bwithh 05:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Corporate officers are not inherently notable. FCYTravis 05:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:WEB with lots of media coverage. [20], [21], [22], and ESPN is a major company. Vice President of a major fortune 500 company makes him notable, I dare say. He's probably earning $1 million per year. Zordrac
    • Comment A million dollars ain't what it used to be. . WP:WEB doesn't apply here in my opinion, tho it would for the website, but it's the article on him, not the website that's being nominated. Caerwine 22:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Meets WP:BIO by the exact same criteria that is in both policies. Out of WP:BIO, "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". Same thing but written differently. Zordrac 23:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response What newsworthy event is he alledged to have participated in? The 82 hits mentioned below are not a particularly notable number, especially for a modern person who makes his living working with computers. At best, this guy appears to warrant a mention on the ESPN.com article, if it were a separate article and not a redirect to ESPN, and even then that would be shaky since he appears to have nothing to do with the content side of the operation. Caerwine 23:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 82 Google hits for the Aaron Laberge at ESPN/Disney. There is an Aaron Laberge who posts a lot in forums and such, but the posts don't sound like an executive. They may be from his son. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't think one's salary even enters into it unless that's noteworthy in itself, as evidenced by publication in a business magazine's top earners list for example. Ifnord 00:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dalbury. Show me the moneynotability. Turnstep 02:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Joan of Arc. Owen× ☎ 21:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffroy Therage[edit]

The entire stub is redundant and cannot grow. This was Joan of Arc's executioner. He was merely the man who carried out the sentence, not anyone involved in the decision. The only document that mentions his existence is her retrial transcript and his one quote, that he feared damnation for having burned a saint, is already repeated in the main Joan of Arc article. Durova 04:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom , unless evidence of other claims of notability can be made. Bwithh 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it's acceptable to vote on one's own nominations. Durova 08:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Joan of Arc. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect is unnecessary because there is barely enough historical data about this man to constitute a footnote. It is rather unusual that Wikipedia names him at all. I have never seen a biography that indexed his name. Durova 14:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it matters a lot, but I'm sticking to my guns, on the basis of, shrug, "what harm does it do?" We're told that redirects are cheap, and it's a real historical person, etc. etc. I'm probably wrong, but I have a faint, faint synaptic firing that says maybe I've heard the name somewhere. However, the only likely places are Shaw's Saint Joan and Mark Twain's Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc. I just did an online search of the PG text of the Twain book [23] [24] and the executioner is not named, only referred to as "the executioner." Deletion would probably do no harm since a search would find the Joan of Arc article. In fact most Google hits on "Geoffroy Therage" are to copies of the Wikipedia article on Joan of Arc. So, it doesn't matter... but I can't think of any particular reason to change my vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it can't do any harm to keep a few electrons gainfully employed. Durova 23:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Makes the article less likely to come back in the future. Also, clear the link in the Joan of Arc article. Someone probably thought they were doing a favor filling out a redline link. --StuffOfInterest 16:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Joan of Arc. Would be a good candidate for merge, except that that's already happened. Its quite feasible that someone might look this up when doing research on the topic. Zordrac 19:38, 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 Keep as nomination made in bad faith by an anonymous vandal. Capitalistroadster 05:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Camberwell Grammar School[edit]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a domain for schools to freely advertise themselves to others. It is highyl inappropriate that this should occur where others should have access to information rather than marketing history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.24.204 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Obviously. Prominent Australian school. Nominations like this just waste everyone's time. Cnwb 04:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I actually considered a delete vote until I saw the nominator's vandalism of said page... Deltabeignet 04:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This nomination was made by 138.217.24.204, whose vandalism of Camberwell Grammar School can be seen here. And even more, committed after the nomination was made, here. Cnwb 04:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AfD was obviously made in bad faith and should be thrown out. Let's not waste our time. pfctdayelise 04:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This nomination is a bad faith nomination by an anonymous editor. The article is in good shape when not being vandalised by the nominator.Capitalistroadster 04:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I just had to revert out a large slab of the article because it was a copyvio from a school publication. See talk. --bainer (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and please close down this nomination it is anonymous and in bad faith Yuckfoo 05:07, 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, leaning to keep. - Mailer Diablo 19:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The_Skeptic's_Annotated_Bible[edit]

Not notable, somewhat of a vanity page Mark K. Bilbo 05:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I question the inclusion of this article. The SAB is somewhat known in online atheist communities (I'm a regular at alt.atheism on Usenet by the way) and you find a number Google hits but it's still something of a "local" phenomena. It's not all that well regarded and certainly isn't viewed as a scholarly work. The SAB is already cited at Inerrancy and, I think, that's sufficient for a non-peer reviewed, purely web phenomena. The traffic in Alexa isn't terribly high and the discussion forum at SAB has attracted only about 480 users. If somebody wanted to take a crack at it (I'll pass), it might be worth merging into an article of "contemporary" online Biblical criticism works but I just can't--myself--see it having its own article. Mark K. Bilbo 05:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Seems like small potatos and not particulary scholarly. A mention in inerrancy seems more than enough. David D. (Talk) 05:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Currently reads like spam. Probably notable but only if it can be cleaned up. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whether or not it's fantastic scholarship, this book gets over 100,000 Google hits. Looking at the talk page and history it's pretty clear that this article is the victim of more nonsense from Jason Gastrich. The proper solution is page protection. Durova 05:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I remember coming across this years and years ago and reading a fair chunk of it, but I can't remember any mention of it in the past few years (probably because I stopped reading philosophical debates on forums back in high school). The atheist in me wants to keep it as a notable atheist website based on that, though. Nifboy 06:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. SAB comes up regularly in online discussion of Christianity - most people with an interest in biblical errors/inerrancy arguments will have heard of it, I think. It's scholarship is shoddy, but that isn't a reason for deletion of the article about it. I don't think it is fair to describe it as a vanity page, either - there is no evidence that the site author wrote the article, and a variety of people have been editing it back and forth. SAB is 'cited' at Inerrancy only as one of about forty links at the bottom of an already-long article. It merits it's own pageSquiddy 07:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. SAB is very well known on the internet and has been around for years. It's a good athiest resource if that's the type of thing you're looking for. JHMM13 08:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per JHMM13. Seano1 09:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Squiddy. --Enlad 09:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep The writer of the SAB is entitled to his point of view. We are entitled to know that the SAB exists. p.s. anyone who creates or uses such a ridiculous word as 'inerrancy'is just unable to communicate. 82.38.97.206 mikeL
  • Keep. Never really thought about its notability before, but I've used it plenty of times. And <Jonathon Ross voice> can we have a big welcome back to Mr Jason Gastwich?</Jonathon Ross voice> --Last Malthusian 13:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well, just in case there's confusion, I'm an atheist, a known regular of alt.atheism, the host of the alt-atheism.org website, and Gastrich thinks I'm in some "conspiracy" to wipe Christianity off the Internet or something equally silly. I'm seriously questioning whether the SAB is notable enough to have a separate article of it's own. Mark K. Bilbo 13:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Just in case there's confusion, I wasn't suggesting that you were Jason Gastrich, just that (per Durova's comments) his cold hand seems to be resting on AfD's shoulders again. --Last Malthusian 16:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Except it's not even that. Actually, it came out of a question by another user--who is definitely not Gastrich--of whether the SAB is notable enough to have a page and my own attempt to defend the SAB sounded pretty weak in my own ears. Even with my own personal bias of being an atheist I couldn't come up with much to defend the SAB having an article of its own. Mark K. Bilbo 17:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let me try a defense: I have voted for inclusion on articles of much lesser notability, whether or not I liked the concept embodied. 100,000 Google hits is a very large number. I don't believe we're in any danger of lowering the bar here to include all books. This one happens to be widely read and widely commented upon. Someone who has heard of it might well look to Wikipedia as a source of information. The article can list the book's strengths and weaknesses in a nonbiased manner. Given the subject, few other well known sources can be counted upon for neutrality. Durova 19:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Interesting. In six or seven years of being one of the loud mouths on alt.atheism and running generally amok in the online atheist community, I've rarely seen a reference to it. In fact, the most attention I can recall being paid to it comes from Gastrich (who seems quite obsessed with it). I just still can't see it having its own article. It's already cited in Inerrancy and Alleged_inconsistencies_in_the_Bible (maybe some other places I'm not aware of). That seems about right to me. Mark K. Bilbo 23:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak Delete Per nom. Perhaps a mention elsewhere. --DanielCD 13:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per nominator. Perhaps merging into a more notable subject.--Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 13:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, imagine if encyclopedias listed every published work of any note, at all. Despite its generally use and fame (or notoriety, if you will), it really isn't a significant work of scholarly examination. - WarriorScribe 14:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But Wikipedia is not paper. Durova 16:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, but not really relevant to my point. In the meantime, a database can become burdened with superfluous or unnecessary information, and those things may infect the integrity and use of the database, as well as its performance.
        • It could hardly be more relevant. There is no need to delete this, we have room for obscure topics, even if this were one. And don't talk about burdening the database; if this article is deleted, they'll archive this discussion and keep a copy of the article open to sysops, taking up just as much space. Yeltensic42.618 03:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Merge. Conflicted, but it doesn't seem notable enough for an article on its own. Best to make it a note in an article discussing criticisms. --StuffOfInterest 16:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as it has historical importance. Should be linked from debates about the bible etc as well as atheism and the like. Zordrac 19:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Historical importance? On what grounds? Would you care to cite some world events that have been shaped by the Skeptic's Annotated Bible? Has it perhaps been a central text in the Intelligent Design debates, or did it directly lead to the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, or what? — Haeleth Talk 23:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete/merge. Nothing against the subject-matter as such, but I'm not sure why it deserves an article of its own. This would be well placed in a broader article on critical editions of scripture: there must be other things of the same kind out there. — Haeleth Talk 23:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Sure, it's not the most scholarly work out there, but it certainly has a sufficient amount of notability. Anyone ever hit Random Article and see stuff that seems trivial that is kept because it's worthy of inclusion? Anyone ever notice the large section on comics or TV shows? This is worthy of inclusion.Harvestdancer 00:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's well-known enough to be worthy of inclusion. Rose 02:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. However, if the SAB is notable enough to have an entry, then a paragraph on rebuttals (namely, the two full rebuttals) are obviously notable as well. --Jason Gastrich 08:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's possible, almost certain, that the SAB is more notable than any rebuttal of it. But if it's worth mentioning that people have written rebuttals, then it's worth mentioning the rebuttals. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I mentioned Here there could be many rebuttals. It's worth mentioning rebuttals exist, but to specifically mention any rebuttal means that the rebuttal has to be notable enough. If this article is kept, we need a way to decide which rebuttals are worth specific mention and which would be covered by the sentence "The website has particularly riled Christian fundamentalists who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, and some have responded with apologetics." Most of the alleged rebuttals are covered by that one sentence.Harvestdancer 15:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the same note, it might be said that the "Skeptics Bible" could also be referred to the same way in one sentence at the bible article. --DanielCD 21:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did say "most of the alleged rebuttals". My point was that ones noteworthy enough deserve their own metion. Harvestdancer 00:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete of course. Izehar 13:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known reference source. --Gene_poole 00:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)*[reply]
  • Keep of course. Per notability established by Google. Turnstep 02:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 15:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the most notableest page in the history of the multiverse. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very popular and oft-cited site. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 15:49
  • Keep. Preaky 00:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep, duh. Do you deletionists want to be able to read the entire encyclopedia? I am extremely amused by many of the "reasons" I have seen deletionists cite. Yeltensic42.618 01:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, really, unless we're dealing with garbled gibberish text, a hoax, a string of inane comments, or a vanity page for some insignificant loser like me, there's no point in deleting a page...if you don't think it's important enough, just don't read it. Don't ruin it for the rest of us who want to read about it. Wikipedia is not paper; there is plenty of room for more obscure topics. Yeltensic42.618 20:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep 110,000 google hits with the quotes. This is clearly notable. Would you delete just anything because YOU haven't heard of it?? OK, it's mostly vanity, but what we do with notable vanity articles is NPOV, not delete. Jules.LT 18:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep not sure if the means my "keep" gets 2 votes or what. Sethie 02:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as vanity. Mo0[talk] 06:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Davey Morgan[edit]

Vanity page. The author is Davey Morgan. I'm unsure whether this organization is notable, but Davey sure isn't. Deco 05:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • The organization is very notable, if you would check the below links, you will find other references to the Euphemian Literary Society.
Links:
- Davey Morgan
  • Delete. The organization might be noteable (I haven't checked), but Davey Morgan is not. Open vanity and non-noteable. HackJandy 05:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


If you will go here: Euphemian Members Page you will find that Davey Morgan is noteable.

01:01, 29 November 2005 (GMT)

  • Dave, unfortunately I fail to see how your entry is remotely encylopedic. To me, it just looks like a place card. Please check WP:BIO. After doing more research I am tempted to nominate Euphemian Literary Society as well for non-noteable (I notice there is a copyvio there even). HackJandy 06:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the WPBIO thing yet, but the Euphemian Literary Society is very noteable. It is one of the most profound liteterary societies in the US in which Robert E. Lee was himself an honorary member! You can search www.google.com yourself and find it listed many times and you can search erskine.edu and find it. The society has had a big impact on history.

  • Comment Robert E Lee was a member you say? Google differs with your opinion. Even searching the Alumni database does not provide said information. If anything this should be merged into Erskine_College. However, the topic at hand is whether or not the Davey Morgan entry should be deleted. Wikipedia is *not* your personal CV. HackJandy 07:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ... Oops it looks like someone already nuked it anyway. HackJandy 07:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • It seems someone went ahead and speedy-deleted it. I don't contest that the ELS might be notable, and there is a possibility that Davey wrote the content of that website being the ELS historian. But Davey himself is clearly not notable if his only claim to fame is an honorary, temporary position in a student organization. Deco 06:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, but I am not a honorary temporary position in an organization, but the official webmaster for the organization and the historian. I was appointed the position and had to qualify to become a member, in which I will always be the member, because I am an Erskine College faculty.

  • Comment - its silly that this was speedy deleted without consensus. Especially since the Vfd discussion is still able to be edited. Whoever the admin was that speedied it would do well to remember to follow correct policies next time. Can someone please fix this up? Zordrac 19:45, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shorthand-Aided Rapid Keyboarding[edit]

This article refers to the IBM name for a technology under development by many companies, a natural extension of predictive texting. The article is a stub, there is no guarantee that the finished product will carry that brand, and no guarantee that this will become the generic term. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 20:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep for now, and redirect to the generic term when one emerges. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting for a second run, not enough discussion. Titoxd(?!?) 05:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As WP:ISNOT a crystal ball says: Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Even the name of this is "future history". Tonywalton  | Talk 15:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting due to insufficient consensus. Please vote. - Mailer Diablo 16:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guy guessed it right: this system has changed name between development and release ShapeWriter. Move the rewritten version to the correct name. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used to work for an IBM business partner - nothing gets released without at least five name changes :-) Looks like this is still on the blocks, though - still a research project not a commercial product. My initial concerns stand: without a significant installed base to give balanced critical judgment, is this article original research? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a yet-to-be-released software product, I would say delete. However, I tend to consider this article as a description of a completed research project: the authors have published some papers on their system [25] (one of them has been presented at CHI 2003, which I think is an important conference in the field of Human-Computer Interaction). Actually, it's just a matter of point of view.
    By the way, do I understant it right that this article has been relisted 2 times (is it here for the third time?). Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with ShapeWriter (or whatever name it goes with) and also *Redirect page in case someone gets here by accident. Quite valid to list it as it seems to be topical enough to pass WP:WEB and WP:V. Zordrac 19:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the damn thing until we know what to call it. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:06, 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 nomination retired, hence speedy keep. Titoxd(?!?) 06:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal elite[edit]

I don't know how this page can ever become NPOV, given the nature of the subject, also, seems unencyclopedic Deletemea culpa! Late night, little sleep, didn't look this one over well enough! Keep -- негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*) 05:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. As a political insult it is noteworthy. The article attempts NPOV. Where it fails in its current version is its lack of citations. The only two external links are to blogs, one of them on Blogspot. Durova 05:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Keep. Durova 23:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that this article has been in existence for 1.5 years lends some legitimacy to it. This is a real topic and, despite the fact that it is a volatile subject, giving it a NPOV treatment is not impossible. Jorge1000xl 05:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! I musta missed that when I glanced over the history... --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*) 06:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - We don't delete articles that aren't perfect yet. Liberal elite has been bouncing around for years and is therefroe notable-- --(User | Talk | Contribs) 06:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up. If Champagne socialist gets an entry, I suppose this does too. The blog links at the bottom serve no function though, I believe they should be deleted. HackJandy 06:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid concept. Herostratus 08:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Just because an article has the potential to case NPOV deputes doesn’t mean it has to be deleted. Seano1 09:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Damn silly concept if you ask me, but a notable epithet in American politics (which occasionally creeps into British politics). --Last Malthusian 10:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clean it up a bit and add a link for Conservative crackpots. :) --StuffOfInterest 16:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as original nominator changed his mind. LOL. End this one. Zordrac 19:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! SchmuckyTheCat 00:10, 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Domination Through Impurity[edit]

Garden-variety band vanity. 66.191.124.236 05:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Band vanity. No claim of notability. Herostratus 08:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was going to vote delete because they haven't been published, but they meet WP:WEB quite happily due to media coverage. [26]. I would suggest that in cases like this WP:MUSIC, which states that a band has to be published, shouldn't be used, as they seem to be notable enough as a live band. This is a similar case to Fugazi and You Am I, 2 extremely well known live bands that were known as live bands for 10 years before releasing their first albums (Fugazi never released an album AFAIK). You Am I eventually had number 1 hits. The reality is that some bands don't want to make a studio album and only ever play live. Many examples of this kind of thing. There's ABBA impersonators that are extremely notable that get 50,000 people at their gigs, yet never release anything. Zordrac 19:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unrelated to the article, but Fugazi hella released albums. :) Peachlette 04:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong Fugazi. The one I am referring to never released an album after 15 years on the national circuit (or a single, either). Wrote over 50 songs though and played to crowds of 50,000+ Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2 notes to my comments - 1) Apparently Fugazi doesn't have their own page (hmph, they should!) 2) Apparently this band does have published albums so may meet WP:MUSIC anyway. Zordrac 19:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - how exactly does this article have anything to do with WP:WEB? That would only apply if the URL was the entry. Sadly, even the link you provided does not confirm any of the three WP:WEB suggestions HackJandy 22:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, reviewed in the media? Sheesh. Obvious as you're gonna get. Zordrac 22:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see blogs and I see webzines, but I don't see any attention from the mainstream media. Unfortunately we don't generally count web mentions as establishing notability of a band, except in certain cases like Allmusic. And this band doesn't appear on Allmusic. — Haeleth Talk 23:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, text is lifted, complete with misspelling of "intense", verbatim from the band's website. rodii 21:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - possibly speedy. Copyvio, does not fullfill WP:MUSIC, has not been published, no AM, WP is not a crystal ball.. HackJandy 22:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. 292 Google hits, and I only see one CD released (Unmatched Brutality, published by Comatose Music). Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the various reasons given above and summarised by HackJandy. — Haeleth Talk 23:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - band has a record produced on a label, tours and plays various festivals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.104.160 (talk • contribs)
The above contributor is the originator (I won't say "author") of the article, which, as mentioned above, is copy'n'pasted from the band's website. I have no argument about the band's notability, but the article could document which label, which festivals, etc. As it stands, though, it's a copyright violation, it's not wikified, and it has no sourcing of any kind except for the band's website. It's gotta be better than that. rodii 02:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can't vote again, but may I say, if band has a record produced on a label, tours and plays various festivals then WHY DOESN'T THE ARTICLE SAY SO??? WHAT LABEL, WHAT TOURS, WHAT FESTIVALS? Even if it IS true, I'm basically at the point where, if a band is too freaken lazy to make their OWN case for notability, why should I have to slog through the web to find it? I say: even if a band is notable, if they don't make the claim in the article, the hell with them.Herostratus 08:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. the band did not write this article. I am a fan of the band, and I was merely adding a side project for one of the members from the Nile page, and I decided to add information for it. I took the bio from their website and didn't change anything because I didn't realize 10 people would see it over night before I had time to learn how to properly use wikipedia and edit and add to the content. also this is from WP:MUSIC "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." From this, DTI is allowed to be posted here because Joe Payne from Nile is in this band. (Cyrock)
    • Comment Cyrock (talk · contribs)'s first edit was about 15 hours after this article was nominated for deletion, so if he started it, it was under a different user name. Oh, that would be 65.190.104.160 (talk · contribs) -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was the original person to post the information, then someone else kindly first edited it so it was not in copyright violation. Either way, It does not change the fact that this article is allowed to be posted under WP:MUSIC for the reason I have previously stated. (Cyrock)
      • Comment Allmusic.com is rather cryptic about Joe Payne; his genre is rock, and absolutely no other information. I get 262 Google hits for "Joe Payne" + Nile. I don't think that makes him "extremely notable". -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Has nothing to do with him. The Guideline says "member was in a BAND that is extremely notable. Nile is one of the most known death metal bands other than Cannibal Corpse. Thus, according to my previous statement, this article is allowed. Also allmusic is not very up to date and correct. They list Nile as Rock, when they are Death Metal, and do not mention their latest album which came out 8 months ago. (Cyrock)
          • Comment. You forgot to quote the rest of the line from WP:MUSIC, "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." Right now it looks like Joe Payne's notability comes from recently joining a notable band, and I don't see that notability rubbing off on Domination Through Impurity. When Joe Payne gets his own article, then there can be a Redirect from Domination Through Impurity to his article. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment. Open your eyes. You forgot to read. I quoted the ENTIRE thing in my original post on it. Stop trying to make things up to further your own arguement. Also until it clearly says an Artist needs to be "extremely notable" before joining an "extremely noteable" band, this article is clearly able to be posted. It only says the BAND of which the artist is in has to be. Also your personal opinion on Nile "rubbing off" on DTI has ZERO credibility. Your personal opinion is not fact. I can just as easily say it will "rub off". (Cyrock)
              • Comment. Cyrock, sorry, I didn't mean to pile on you like that. I was getting a little frustrated after seeing a bunch of really poor band articles. The D through I article is improved, by the way, good work and congrats. It must suck to have a bumch of people piling on you when you're just starting out. Sorry, and welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately getting caught up in a deletion argument is probably the worst way to start out! There's a lot of fuzzy warm goodness here too, so don't get scared off! Herostratus 08:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. FCYTravis 19:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was MOVED TO User:The Invaders Nexus/Killmart. Harro5 06:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Killmart[edit]

Does not assert notability, does not appear to pass WP:BIO, fails to WP:CITE sources and thus fails WP:V. Tagged for speedy deletion as repost and nn-bio, tag removed so bringing it here. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:00, 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× ☎ 21:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Proto-Ogre[edit]

Non-notable blog and blogger. 66.191.124.236 06:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, completely non-notable. You beat me to it.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 06:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all b**gcruft. - Randwicked 07:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see how this blog is any different from any other. — JIP | Talk 08:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mark K. Bilbo 14:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete LOL so obvious as advertising. Some of these Vfds are funny. Put it in BJAODN Zordrac 20:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. rodii 21:05, 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 speedy delete by apparent author request. Mo0[talk] 06:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant (runescape)[edit]

I did originally suggest {{merge}}ing this, but the anonymous creator reverted that suggestion. I'm moving to the next level now. Delete, or... Merge as this does look like possibly useful information. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what you wanted?

You can delete it now....


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fandamentalism[edit]

Neologism, claimed explicitly by the blog post http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2004/12/fandamentalism.html that is the sole reference for this page. 66.191.124.236 06:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as neologism - no evidence presented of wide spread of word. A613 Google results doesn't indicate widespread use see [27]. Capitalistroadster 06:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Most all of those Google hits are actually misspellings of "fundamentalism." Not much evidence "fandamentalism" is being used at all. Mark K. Bilbo 14:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN and Delete - common mis-spelling though, some of the google hits were funny. I feel sorry for the professional journalists who stored their pages as "fandamentalism" when talking about extremism. I hope they didn't get fired for it. Oh there's also another silly hit about it being used in its proper context [28] (as in, not a mis-spelling), and there's probably others as well. But just a joke really, I think. Zordrac 20:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 01:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's as observed by old bill - Shakespear, " full of sound n fury signifying nothing!" sum


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dorkswithoutfaces[edit]

Non-notable website. The article gets high marks for honesty but low marks for encyclopedic value. The page starts "Dorkswithoutfaces is a little known website". 66.191.124.236 06:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable (aka, Spam). --StuffOfInterest 16:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and close Vfd. No claims to notoriety. Article starts with "is a little known website". So unless it has historical importance (first of something, etc) then its a no-brainer to delete it. Don't know why this isn't a reason for Speedy Delete, but so be it. IMO when the article itself admits that its irrelevant, I think it should be able to be deleted on the spot. Just MO. Zordrac 20:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could not verify any of [[WP::WEB]] suggestions. Nom says it all HackJandy 22:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Honestly Don't Care I'm the guy who owns the site, I was just told about this thing today by the guy who posted it. Wow, what a pile of crap he wrote. Anyway, do what you want boys & girls, gave me some material to write about today anyway. Although a little commentary, for a site that offers encyclopedia entries for Chat Rooms & a guy who legally changed his name to Optimus Prime because his wife divorced him, it seems highly dubious for you guys to be put in a position where you make that sort of call? Well either way, it's all in good fun! There is quite a lot of interesting stuff to read!
  • Comment - true to his word, he wrote an article about wikipedia based on this AFD... Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not sure that I am comfortable with him quoting all of our votes in there, but I suppose its legal for him to do so. He seemed to write about Wikipedia in a positive light at least. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The site is really lame, by the way.  Grue  23:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FWIW I posted his review in the Wikipedia news section for people to read what seems to be the most positive review of Wikipedia in a long time. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 02:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Secaucus roller hockey[edit]

Non-notable article created by anon. user --Aude 06:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - 141.150.47.236 created this non-notable article. This user also vandalized New York Rangers and New Jersey Devils articles, replacing player names and info. ---Aude 06:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as 0 google hits, no claims for notoriety, no refs. The author did make pretty flags though, so should be encouraged to keep creating articles, perhaps just directed a bit better. Zordrac 20:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why does the External links part take me to an article about the New Jersey Devils though? [29] Trying to confuse us and make it look like Secaucus roller hockey and New Jersey Devils are the same thing? Looks like a serial vandal trying to disrupt wikipedia. Warn user. Zordrac 20:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey i know the guy who did this article and he isnt a bad guy maybe he was trying to make this article and accidentally edited the rangers and devils sites — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.158.180.252 (talk • contribs) - an anon. user at this address has vandalized Secaucus roller hockey and other articles.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harding bubble[edit]

This article is original research and irredeemably POV. --דוד ♣ D Monack 07:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Squiddy 08:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, also concepts within a single university aren't notable. — JIP | Talk 08:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (also, looks like an attack page). Mark K. Bilbo 14:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator but also due to being an attack page. Smk 16:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with tags that are already in article for cleanup etc. Is not original research, as google gives me 22 hits explaining it, so original nomination not accurate. Sounds like a legitimate concept. See what happens with the tags, then renom later if needed. Zordrac 20:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sophomoric sarcasm about an inherently non-notable concept. Hey, my friends and I used to bitch about our university too. rodii 21:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The author might even be an angry student at the schoolRjensen 15:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greed Band[edit]

Some wristbands, such as the Livestrong one, are certainly notable due to their popularity. This one, however, is rather specialised. Wristband-cruft, if you like. Has a link through to a site which requires password to enter. Pretty much duplicated at Greed Is Good (also at AfD). Delete CLW 07:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note - further to the above, from the edit history, User:Cashandhoes would appear to have been set up specifically to create this article and link to it. CLW 07:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greed Is Good. One of them should remain. I think this is the one that should be the "official" title. Zordrac 20:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only hits I'm seeing on Google for this meaning of "greed band" are from this article and its clones and ads selling greed bands. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wristband-cruft, indeed. Harry Shearer, as I recall, recently read a list of the various wristbands and their colors on his radio show, and it was a LONG list. --Calton | Talk 01:33, 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 consensus to redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 02:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greed Is Good[edit]

Some wristbands, such as the Livestrong one, are certainly notable due to their popularity. This one, however, is rather specialised. Wristband-cruft, if you like. Pretty much duplicated at Greed Band (also at AfD). Delete CLW 07:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note - further to the above, from the edit history, User:Cashandhoes would appear to have been set up specifically to create this article and link to it. CLW 07:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wall Street Very notable line from the film. Capitalistroadster 09:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Socialistbikester :). Youngamerican 15:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Greed Band and keep 1 version of this (or redirect that one to this). Very notable. Zordrac 20:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - cool article, but CLW's research seems to prove it was setup by someone promoting it. No way to verify HackJandy 22:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to Wall Street - memorable and quotable line from movie. Edward 22:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wall Street. The "greed band" part is NN. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wall Street, the movie. Memorable line from the movie, hijacked to sell wristbands. --Calton | Talk 01:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wall Street Preaky 01:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 02:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Team Biohazard[edit]

Yet another videogame webforum with no indication that it's of encyclopedic interest. 66.191.124.236 07:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article makes no attempt to establish notability. - Randwicked 07:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable in its current form. I actually thought it would be about the Battlebots team from a few years ago. --StuffOfInterest 16:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I had the same thought - and I doubt anybody would think the Battlebots' "Team Biohazard" would merit a Wikipedia article on their own, either. B.Wind 23:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article itself says its vanity. Makes it crystal clear that this is about a group of people who use a particular game. Should I include an article on Blood Angels, the group I use in Metal knights? Zordrac 20:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: That link actually works lol. But its about a different thing. I knew our clan name was based on something lol. Zordrac 20:45, 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 02:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soulajar[edit]

Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC criteria - Akamad 06:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Punkmorten 19:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no album, no other claims for notoriety. Good on them for getting a few gigs though. I know that's hard as a struggling musician. But advertise on a web page or in a forum, not in wikipedia. Oh, and also delete the image too. Zordrac 20:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:36, 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 02:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Hilton, Motherfuckers![edit]

Non-notable band. Deco 07:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (for the record, I tagged it as "{{nn-bio}} (of a band)" — yes I did read it.) — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I thought the template only applied to persons (because of the language it uses). Deco 07:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hrm, after reviewing WP:CSD it seems like nn-bio does not apply to bands, particularly since there's discussion of criteria for bands on the talk page. The closest thing is "Unremarkable people". I think this one really has to go through AFD. Deco 07:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. This looks like it was written by the band members. — JIP | Talk 08:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indication on the article that they meet WP:MUSIC criteria. - Akamad 08:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn bandcruft, Motherfuckers! Youngamerican 15:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obvious advertising. I know its hard to start yourself off as a band, but try using web forums. Pretending that you're already notable isn't good. Zordrac 20:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: {{afd}} tag was removed by a contributor whose IP appears markedly similar to that of the author. Be watchful for such activity. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: looks like a vanity article --MilkMiruku 01:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 01:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was MERGE to The Fairly Oddparents. — JIP | Talk 06:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary Gary[edit]

Basically, this material is already in the The Fairly Oddparents article. Some additional material is here but it's probably trivial and is malformed. Recommend Delete although Merge is a possibility Herostratus 07:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect Youngamerican 15:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stub. Considering the popularity of the show, and the importance of the character within the show, I think that he warrants his own article. A bare minimum is a merge. Zordrac 20:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and not to mention that every other character in the show already has their own article. lol. Imaginary Gary is clearly of historical importance within the context of the show. It's kind of like the importance of Duane Dibbley in Red Dwarf or Ace Rimmer. Neither were shown much, both were alter egos, but they were important to the show. Minor characters aren't always unimportant. Zordrac 20:53, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Peasley[edit]

Non-notable. Results 1 - 2 of about 3 for +button +"Aaron Peasley". Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting, I guess, but Delete. JHMM13 08:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to definetaly exist, and gets a few more hits under the name "A.M. Peasley". About as obscure a topic as you can get, but certainly of interest to the button collecting crowd. - SimonP 15:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (not a personal attack): Where does one draw the line? I hate to compare everything to Leeroy Jenkins in terms of notability, but... it's certainly tempting. In any case, if kept, this should be moved to the name under which Mr. Peasley is least obscure best known, but my opinion on the matter is yet unchanged. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is always a difficult question, but even 15 Google hits isn't bad for someone who died in 1836. - SimonP 20:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as having historical importance. 1) Web pages weren't about in 1836, so WP:WEB shouldn't directly apply. 2) It makes valid assertions to notoriety as being one of the world's leading manufacturers of buttons. 3) The web page linked [30] establishes and verifies this assertion. Zordrac 20:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. SimonP's research did the trick. HackJandy 22:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the article by itself asserted, and proved, notoriety. Didn't really need additional research. That's my opinion though. Zordrac 22:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added more information about him (he was more than just a button maker) and a couple of references. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Preaky 01:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete 0/4/0(see talk page) karmafist 20:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Fogle[edit]

Non-notable, possible hoax, no inbound links, no relevant hits for +"Adam Fogle" +disability or +"Adam Fogle" +born +1984 or "Adam Michael Fogle". Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • here & here. del Vanity. mikka (t) 09:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete well done mikkalai on finding that. He's 15 years old and wants to find his family tree. Well done. Perhaps he thinks that by posting it in here, it will help him to find out his family tree? Not encyclopaedic though. Zordrac 21:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The recently added links to two blogs don't help; they confirm indications that Mr. Fogle does not meet Wiki's criteria for an entry (see Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines). That's nothing to be ashamed of; I don't qualify for a bio either. Mareino 16:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mr.Fogle is a columnist here in Georgia. He is also a very good political activist. He is the editor of the widely circulated Conservative Statesman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecumbee (talk • contribs) 11:23, December 1, 2005
  • Keep. He's not 15. If you do the math, you will realize that he's now 21 and possibly one of the best political writers I have read in years. He's well known in south Georgia, but it appears you would choose to ignore that and prefer to thumb your elitist nose at him rather than validate an up-and-coming star. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.165.209.34 (talk • contribs) 11:32, December 1, 2005
  • Its about time fogle gets some respect. read his stuff fellas, ya'll will change your mind. keep the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.165.209.34 (talk • contribs) 13:03, December 1, 2005
    • Comment: previous comments votes are from the same IP address, whose only contributions are to this AFD discussion and to the article being voted upon discussed. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • he is my friend, he saw that i mispelled georgia and went in and fixed it. that is why it is showing the same IP, although it is possible that since we live in the same complex we may have the same public ip address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecumbee (talk • contribs) 13:31, December 1, 2005
  • That's wierd freakofnurture, you seem to have linked me to an edit I didn't make. This could not have been a mistake, but rather a malicious attempt to de-validate my statements. Why do you feel the need to lie? You attributed this:

"Its about time fogle gets some respect. read his stuff fellas, ya'll will change your mind. keep the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.165.209.34 (talk • contribs) 13:03, December 1, 2005" to my IP addy.

But if you check the records, [31] you will clearly see that the edit came from 141.165.213.226. Care to explain why you lied? - 141.165.209.34 (you can call me Joseph) Posted by anon. user at IP address 67.50.88.236.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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!) 10:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lexicon of science[edit]

Substantialy the same as List_of_cocepts_in_science, which is also AfD. If that one is deleted then this one should be too. Swamp Ig 07:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is substantially similar, but the context is different. A serious consideration should be given for its inclusion, rather than hasty judgements. I would like a civilm discussion rather than biased judgements. Charlie 08:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wonder if this sort of thing isn't covered in a template titled "Scientific Terms" or something like that. It's essentially a list of article links broken down alphabetically, which I believe is exactly what a template does. JHMM13 08:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see how this article could be expanded to include all the important concepts in science without becoming a huge, unwieldy list of no use to anyone. Same goes for the (mis-spelled) List_of_cocepts_in_science. Even 'Lexicon of Biology, of Chemistry, of Physics' would be too broad in scope to be useful, IMO. --Squiddy 08:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you presume its size, before letting anybody to try making it. Don't be too hasty! it is unhealthy. There is no page scientific terms on wikipedia. I repeat why such haste in recommending delete.Charlie 09:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. What a trainwreck. rodii 21:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It hurts my eyes. I see no reasonable use for it. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why the genuine efforts of some one should hurt anybody's eyes. The only reason can be intolerance.Charlie 11:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC) Delete - not because the article is irrelevant but because it is not holistic and may misguide by its limitation to unsuspecting readers. If the author can make it comprehensive and holistic I shall consider him a real good samaritan. sum[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 The Slab Boys. This is a legitimate redirect from a mis-capitalised title and doesn't need to be deleted. — JIP | Talk 08:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The_slab_boys[edit]

Inadvertantly created with the wrong capitalisation in the page title Oscar Bravo 07:57, 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 speedily deleted as an attack page. FCYTravis 20:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Laughlin[edit]

Non-notable. Most likely a hoax. Zero hits for +"Adam Laughlin" +"One-Eyed Willy" or +"Adam Laughlin" +rape. Delete — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. JHMM13 08:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as an attack page. -- Kjkolb 11:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, db-attack. PJM 16:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. It's an attack, just with a little window dressing. --StuffOfInterest 16:38, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everest towers[edit]

Article about a skyscraper in Delhi that won't be built till 2013. The article states that approval has been granted (no word on funding), but I can't find any reference to this on the municipal website [32]. Google returns a mess but nothing concrete except the article referenced on the page [33]. As it stands, unverifiable. Randwicked 08:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unverified, not particularly notable. --RaiderAspect 10:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as per above. Makhnono! 20:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a crystal ball and all that. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:09, 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Izowned[edit]

"Izowned" doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. Not sure I can put it any other way.. JHMM13 08:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Redirect to Pwn if verified to have any moderate currency of use, otherwise, delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see any connection to Internet usage, so why redirect to Pwn? -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion did not gather enough votes for consensus, relisting. Please add your comments below this line. — JIP | Talk 06:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aliks Sauve[edit]

Apparent hoax. Search results for "Aliks Sauve" pertain mostly to gamer frag statistics and to one possibly real person who died in 2005. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems a bit non-notable if it isn't a hoax. JHMM13 08:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. — JIP | Talk 08:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And the only references I can find to "Sir Charles Barkley", who Aliks supposedly entertained, are the basketball player and a show dog. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and thanks for revealing the meaning of "per nom" to me. Kreydon 00:35, 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 speedy delete as NN and possibly previously deleted organization. Mo0[talk] 06:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FightBadGuys.com[edit]

Wikipedia is not a promotion tool. NN Student organization founded last month. Good luck to them, but Delete. Herostratus 08:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Founding date says it all. Delete. JHMM13 08:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete maybe speedy delete, looks like it has been deleted before Sethie 02:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inter Minan[edit]

Highly nonnotable amateur football team. Susvolans ⇔ 08:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC) I speedied one of their players, but unfortunately only people get vanity articles speedied. Susvolans ⇔ 08:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If no speedy is available, Quite fast, but not necessarily "speedy" Delete. JHMM13 08:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With Celerity per non. Herostratus 08:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:20, 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hyboreal Games[edit]

Four-guys-and-a-dog software company, just organized, no products, no Google hits except their web site. Delete. Herostratus 08:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete per nom. JHMM13 08:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom HackJandy 22:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete No reason for deletion! The creators of Diablo new company. Sturmfuhrer 17:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. See WP:CORP. herpa derpa derp i am a failmod who likes to eat semen. -- Dalbury(Talk) 18:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lack of Google hits irrelevant to me due to the very recent public announcement, although "hyboreal games" do already give about 54,000 matches. A new game company started by influental game designers formerly of Blizzard Entertainment fame, with an announced Action RPG game called Starfall. Interview, press release, news article, news article, news article. -- Jugalator 09:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. And it looks like all those Google hits have been generated since this article was nominated for deletion. It looks like an amazing job of flooding the Internet with press releases. Unfortunately, WP:CORP explicitly eliminates press releases, no matter how many appearances, from establishing notability. This company still does not meet WP:CORP. -- Dalbury(Talk) 10:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I don't doubt the credibilty of the members of Hyboreal Games, a new software company is just that, a new software company. After they get a few games under there belts I'll be all for having them on Wikipedia.Ognit Ice 19:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC) This user's first edit was on November 30 2005[reply]
  • Weak delete until they've released something. I've no doubt that they will, and as ex-Blizzard devs, it will probably be good, whatever it is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Zenmachina 09:29, 5 December 2005


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PRO-DEATH[edit]

Vanity article for a band. Written by the band's members (evidence: "Join our newsletter"). Difficult to google because the band's name is a general term. Delete unless notability can be shown, and even then rewrite to get rid of all the self-praise. — JIP | Talk 08:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • BLOCKTEXT ALERT. Wow. This is one of those times when you realize more energy will be expended rewriting an article that might deserve a nn bandvanity speedy instead of just deleting it now. Let's delete it now unless notability proof is given. Delete. JHMM13 08:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, painful article to read. -Willmcw 09:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ouch. --StuffOfInterest 16:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All listed above. Fails WP:MUSIC ^demon 17:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete 24.224.153.40 20:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yep. rodii 21:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mechanized death metal. Cute. Delete Denni ☯ 05:10, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bharath Srinivasan[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable biography - Akamad 08:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd say the community will find this article "unnecessary." This member of the community votes for a Speedy Delete. JHMM13 09:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:BIO. Harro5 09:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN, vanity, silly. ("thats right - the first of January!" What are the chances!?) Bleh. rodii 21:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 0.27% - just sayin - id bet against those odds
  • Delete unless verification provided on the operating system and the published paper. •DanMS 00:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete nn =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jag är Ipren - Den intelligenta värktabletten[edit]

Only 960 hits on Google, and none of those seem to be in English. Delete as a non-notable foreign something rather. JHMM13 08:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Has any consensus been established about whether proprietary pharmaceuticals are notable or not? - Randwicked 09:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment. A google search for Ipren gives 41,400 results. This is a Swedish ibuprofen. Redirect as such. - Randwicked 09:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judging from the title, this is not primarily intended to be about the pharmaceutical, but about the TV commercial that comes with it. This explains the relatively few Google hits - "Jag är Ipren - Den intelligenta värktabletten" ("I am Ipren - the intelligent painkiller") is an exact quote from the song sung by the dorky man dressed as a pill, the "Ipren man" (in the picture). It is a notable campaign in Sweden. I don't know what the policy is on articles on TV commercials, but since this isn't really an article to begin with, I vote delete. If somebody is willing to write a decent stub, I would reconsider. Ipren could be redirected to Ibuprofen (but it is now a redirect to Irpin' for reasons not explained in that article). I am skeptical to redirecting this whole phrase. u p p l a n d 10:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a specific advertising campaign is not encyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 10:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Transwiki if our Swedish friends want it. Youngamerican 15:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to re-creation unless more context is given to establish notability. This is, after all, the English language Wikipedia; foreign language pop-culture phenomena need to be explained if they have no English language notoriety yet. Would cheerfully keep an expanded article, or a new article that explains its context in Sweden. Probably ought to be moved to Ipren in any case; English language readers are unlikely to search for "Jag är Ipren. . ." Smerdis of Tlön 16:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've made Ipren a redirect to Ibuprofen for now. - Randwicked 13:25, 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 del. mikka (t) 01:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of toilet slang[edit]

Last week I cut this list ofut of toilet humor. Today, tracking references from it, I stumbled onto deteted-protected Body parts slang. After reading its VfD, I see its arguments are fully applicable to this one:

Official policy: WP:ISNOT a...slang and idiom guide, WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and Original Research. And that's not to mention the verifiability issues with all of these unsourced neologisms.
This article also functions as an original research magnet: people are using it to invent and promote their own neologisms.
  • Therefore, delete (drop a load, drain the radiator, shake the dew off the lily, release a depth charge) . mikka (t) 08:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are more such lists on Wikipedia, and while this is a borderline case, the policy has always been to maintain them. Truly, I don't expect things like these from an encyclopaedia, but that goes for so much more here. Caesarion 10:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Neutral seen that the Body parts slang page has been removed. Best solution would be placing the list back on the toilet humour article. Caesarion 10:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong. I quoted policies. Which are yours? mikka (t) 10:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • List like these imo do not fall under the cite-you-sources rule and we really should treat them differently. ~Guideline fetishism here on en: is skyrocketing. Caesarion 10:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd call it consolidation of experience. Wikipedia is not anarchy. Wikipedia is not democracy. mikka (t) 17:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still think these rules should be applied more loosely, but actually I always found lists like these a little bit strange. No more objection against deletion, but since it would be a pity if it disappeared forever, I preserved it in my user space: User:Caesarion/List of toilet slang. Caesarion 22:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nom. --RaiderAspect 10:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flush ...er...Delete. PJM 15:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, in spades. rodii 21:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Does wikimedia have anywhere for thesaurus-type lists though? I think this list could serve a purpose (however filthy) to SOMEONE, but it doesn't really belong on wikipedia.--Hraefen 22:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it has. And there is a shiny box of hyperlinks to it right at the top of the article that you are discussing. Uncle G 01:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's yet another collection of thesaurus entries. But unlike sexual slang (or, indeed, toilet humour), once the thesaurus entries are removed there is no actual encyclopaedia article revealed that was buried beneath. We already have a thesaurus. Wikipedia is not a thesaurus. Delete. Uncle G 01:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rather, redirect. ... I hate to say it, since this is funny stuff. Still, it should really be a link to a more appropriate Wiki site. I hate to see it go, but I think we need to drop it. I might say more, but I've gotta run! JRice 19:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send it somewhere. I think it's useful to have lists of slang available somewhere as a reference in case a person needs to use them. --ZachPruckowski 19:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nyneaolo[edit]

Zero Google hits. Delete per band vanity. JHMM13 09:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Harro5 09:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. PJM 15:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. How many of these are there? rodii 21:32, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asdonk[edit]

Has nothing to do with equine species. Doesn't seem notable or verifiable. 1 google hit for "Asdonk Estate", nothing for +Asdonk +"Earl of Leuven", nothing for +Asdonk +"Charles the Great"... and +Asdonk +Merovingian seems to give lists of names. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. Feels fabricated, but if it can be verified and wikified could be good... but google doesn't give much cause for optimism. rodii 21:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I take back that "fabricated." See the Verasdonck site. A google search for Asdonck turns up more. Still low quality, unwikified, needs work. rodii
  • Delete. Although User:Rodii has found a source that seems to support part of the article, I still suspect that someone has tried to create a very long pedigree by pulling together scraps of information about people in different ages that may not be connected. I would want to see much better sources before voting to let this stay. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:30, 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 consensus to delete; we shouldn't really be keeping unverified content anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 12:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seton Village[edit]

A short stub on a non-notable retirement village. Not what we're looking for as a subject of an article. Harro5 09:24, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil joshi[edit]

Unwikified vanity; context shows the artist might be of note but the majority of this article is unsalvageable. Erath 09:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Vanity, unwikified, copyvio (lightly edited PR blurb straight from Joshi's website--just because you change some wording doesn't mean it's not plagiarism). rodii
  • Delete It seems like the contributions from the author 59.92.134.224 are only for this article. Can't confirm vanity but definitely NN according to Google anyway. HackJandy 22:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know who is Nikhil joshi. But this is not the only article in wikipedia to have such text and tenor. Why single out this article. Some articles for administrators themselves look no different. But may be wikipedia has a silent ownership and there are more equals among equals. When individuals are profiled, there will be some contents to manifest like vanity - but outlooks are mostly subjective. Modify, moderate, do anything but don't kill information. sum

I didn't "single out" this article because of its content. I would nominate any similar article for deletion. The article is a vanity page for a non-notable person and a copy-violation from his own website, according to the votes above, which are fairly unanimous. I appreciate your concerns but I feel consensus will show this kind of article is not welcome at Wikipedia. Erath 17:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

European Foreign Policy[edit]

Good subject, but the present article is all Original Research, not to mention unsalvageably POV. The slate needs to be cleaned. Delete --RaiderAspect 10:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears to be a copyright violation. Rhollenton 12:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 13:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, it is a copyright violation of a paper from here see (http://www.eufpc.org/news.htm). Reporting it now. Capitalistroadster 16:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the history, Kelly Martin has looked at it and claimed there is a license. Delete this as NPOV and add European Foreign Policy to our list of Requested Articles. Capitalistroadster 16:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Capitalistroadster's approach sounds good to me. rodii 21:42, 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly Athletic F.C.[edit]

Non-notable 5-aside amateur football team ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 11:29, 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 consensus to delete; don't get the redirect vote, so presumably it's meaningless; album article was not helpful in providing context. Johnleemk | Talk 12:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Los Wages[edit]

Another vanity article on a wedding band. - Randwicked 11:40, 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 editorial decision made to redirect instead of delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical synaps[edit]

Article with a misspelled title, already covered at Electrical synapse and nothing to merge. Stifle 11:51, 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 Delete. Enochlau 03:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O.C.C[edit]

Unencyclopedic nonsense, non-notable "organisation", appears to exist just to attack one member of the "gang". ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 11:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Might be a speedy deletion candidate with {{db-attack}}, {{nn-bio}}, or even {{nonsense}}. Failing those, Slowly Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lots of no-no's, including an attempt to communicate at the end, but not a speedy. PJM 13:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Maybe put a redirect in its place to Orange County Choppers. --StuffOfInterest 16:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does it even need to be asked? It's not notable. All mentioned above. ^demon 17:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it is more sane than many of the pages on wikipedia and may well be useful to members of the ivybridge area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.19.146 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notable. Agreed with the redirect suggested above. Stephenb (Talk) 10:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naakers bones[edit]

Tagged for AfD by User:Freakofnurture, but no nomination written. Fixing nomination. Abstain. — JIP | Talk 12:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC. (Sorry, had to step away from comp for about 10 minutes.) Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 12:19, 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

Luke Brown[edit]

  • delete vanity page Billhpike July 2, 2005 02:14 (UTC)
  • Delete --IncMan July 2, 2005 03:15 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:33 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. --bainer (talk) 2 July 2005 12:28 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's vanity, and it's a fragment. Rob Church 2 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (speedy) was copyvio from http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/040925/1/296d.html. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Brown[edit]

Googled - cannot find any mention of this person being a notable football player for any of the clubs mentioned. Note that this article has been deleted before (see above!). Strongly suspect hoax. Stephenb (Talk) 12:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vanity. Durova 16:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No verifiable evidence that Luke Brown is a soccerplayer of any great note. The previous Luke Brown article was on a different person an Amherst student so it should not be speedied as recreated content. A Google search for "Luke Brown" Liverpool does not verify the claims see below [34]

According to Google, the best known Luke Browns are an artist and a boatbuilder although I don't know whether either is notable enough for Wikipedia see [35]. Capitalistroadster 17:14, 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.

Please continue discussion on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rastko_Perišić, as the deletion vote should IMO be carried for both articles simultaneously. Duja 12:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rastko Perišić[edit]

Vanity page IMO, no Google hits. --Missmarple 18:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clear case of one. I AfD-ed and "redirected" the AfD page for Shadowdream here, as it's clearly the same source. Duja 12:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about this:

What about this: WP:NMG or this WP:BIO. PJM 13:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh, I iandvertently screwed related Shadowdream entry (Saved AfD log page before saving article's AfD page) just above Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_29#Rastko Perišić. I don't succeed fixing it -- anyone? Duja 14:47, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Galvin Family, the[edit]

No indication why this family is notable, seems to be just a vanity page StoatBringer 12:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Looks like it was taken from one of those bogus "buy your family shield" kiosks. Coat of arms belonged to an individual, not a family. Ifnord 15:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preserve The Galvin family used to be rulers of southern provinces of Ireland, such as Dungarvan and Youghal. Also, a sect of the Galvin Family are the founders of the communications giant Motorola. Also, the Galvin's are high ranking officials in the American health system, one being Chief of Physiotheraphy for the AHA. A member of the Galvin family was in the English national football team in the early 1900s. Daniel Galvin, world renowned hairdress, is 'World Hair Colourist of the Year' and is a powerful force in fashion from London, and ever increasingly, the world. Another thing of 'notable' worth is that a Galvin was the very first soldier to paratroop into Holland after Operation Market Garden was commenced.

Also, I think there is no information here that would serve as 'vanity'. As the site says itself "Many visitors come to this site to acquire knowledge. The second reason is to share knowledge." I am merely sharing knowledge, and now people may, if desired, which I'm sure people will desire, to read the article. It is not MY article, it is a article for other Galvin's around the world, of which there are many, and anyone else for that matter to find more on there background and be educated in its long and notable History.

As well as this, I had not finished this article and I did intend to add 'notable's' and such like.

As for calling the family shield bogus, I have official documentation that says otherwise, and dozens of NON PROFIT sites also show the coat of arms. It is a part of FAMILY history, not for INDIVIDUAL profit

Alexius05 15:20, 29 November 2005

  • Comment. If the article will be deveoped further, state something on the talk page right away. Also, get a stub entry in place and maybe put a bullet list of notable information. Probably should have been built in a sandbox before posting. --StuffOfInterest 16:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. If the rulers were notable, there should be individual articles about them. -- Kjkolb 21:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Kjkolb hit the nail on the head. HackJandy 22:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the article is to be expanded with genuine notable information, then (as the submitter) I agree it could be kept. --StoatBringer 23:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've had a good think about this. There are notable families, such as the Kennedy family. I might even accept this article if it were about the ancestral rulers in Ireland (though I would imagine Galvin clan might be a better article title in that case). But it's stretching the definition of "family" too far to claim that everyone with the same surname is part of a single family that is per se encyclopedic because some of its members are. Any individual Galvins who are notable should have their own article, as some of them do. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The word family can and does mean 'A group of persons sharing common ancestry.' or 'Lineage' so actually the phraseology is correct. I have also expanded this article to include the notables, or the 'distinguised lineage'. As for the Notables, they are all proper and correct, and worthy of being notable. As 'notable' means 'Worthy of note or notice' and for those looking upon on FAMILY ancestory, they are notables, or for those just browsing Wikipedia in general. So, the arguements that this is vanity is incorrect, as it serves no egotistical purpose, but a insightful one. And if you look up to the bit I posted earlier as to what Wikipedia is about, some of you seem to have forgotten, as it is there help people "accquire knowledge" and thats what this article does. Not to serve as a vanity article, as vanity is pride in ones own accomplishments, and the accomplishments of Galvin ancestors are not my accomplishments, but theirs. Also, it does now contain notables and the phraseology within the article is perfectly correct and proper. EDITED Alexius05 12:25, 1 December 2005
  • Comment Considering every 'delete' comment here has been totally proved worthless and idiotic, I think it's been about time we close this discussion. Yes. unsigned comment by Alexius05
As stated on Wikipedia:Deletion policy, in the normal course of things this discussion should last five days, and it will be down to the administrator who closes the debate to decide on the worth or otherwise of the arguments here. "Vanity" - only mentioned as a reason for deletion by one person - is sometimes used as shorthand for "articles in which someone has a personal stake", such as someone writing about their own website, company, family, etc. And the fact that you had earlier created a (speedy deleted) article on Alex galvin probably didn't help matters. Had you actually bothered to engage with people rather than dismissing them as "idiotic", you might have got further (I nearly voted to keep this). --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as has been said, if there are notable members of this family, create articles about individuals. Barneyboo (Talk) 16:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - to the closing admin, please note that there is also an unsigned comment on the talk page. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to OpenToppedBus. I sincerely apologise, however, the sheer number of lamentable comments have aggravated me as all comments have been responded to and though they may have been useful, they are now outdated(referring to the comments such as StoatBringers) or are and were incorrect (such as Ifnords). As for the call for personal family member pages, from a variety of you, do you really think I'm going to start upon them when I get a veto upon the creatin of this page (designed to be the root of the member pages). The idea seems almost hypocritical at this moment in time. Also, despite this, there are already several notable pages linking the Galvin name, links which are on the page. Alexius05 13:22 3rd December, 2005.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Penny Orginization[edit]

Unverifiable (see WP:V), and does not contain an assertion of notability, since no activities or members other than the founder are mentioned. Chick Bowen 17:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unverifiable Ashibaka (tock) 19:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a real orginization, and I am part of it. Lets just stubify it.--Jakewater 03:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide some verification? A media reference, perhaps? Chick Bowen 03:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I find a pro-penny organization[36], that seems concerned about anti-penny groups. I didn't find an anti-penny org, but I'm sure one exists as I've heard their literature somewhere. I believe for a time Rush Limbaugh was a force in opposition to the penny which made it news in the early 90s. Although this group might be fraudulent, I don't know.--T. Anthony 12:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There was another called "Penny Love America", but it just seemed to indicate "people want to get rid of the penny" without any naming of any specific organization. It mostly just named pundits.--T. Anthony 12:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly though this article is mispelled, or so I presume. It should be "Organization" right?--T. Anthony 12:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'd like to suggest to the closing admin that this be relisted. It was listed during the (U.S.) Thanksgiving lull and got very little response. Chick Bowen 03:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Page relisted for lacking consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 13:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even correctly spelling "organization" does not bring up any reliable evidence of such a group (much less a notable one) - information about arguments against the continued production of pennies (e.g. "Ban The Penny") can go in the penny article. BD2412 T 13:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Note - I've now added a nice "Anti-penny efforts" section to the Penny (U.S. coin) article. BD2412 T 14:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 15:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable, if not an hoax. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:48, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IJLSA[edit]

Non-encyclopedic fancruft. At best should be merged with Spongebob Squarepants article, but my vote is for delete Zunaid 14:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This appeared in ONE episode...and if I recall correctly, it wasn't a very good one. Borisblue 21:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Relisting for lacking votes. Johnleemk | Talk 13:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spongecruft. --Apostrophe 17:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Why must Spongebob show up in so many AfDs?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manna haven[edit]

This article was originally called an advertisement, but I think it is basically an advertisement for a very local, minor event. Hence, AfD. Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 13:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Manna Haven is a not for profit event attended by hundreds of people every week and over the last year has had thousands of people come through. Many of these people want to know more about the event, why it occurs etc. -Primary Author Kingyj 20:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it reads like an advert. It doesn't matter that it's not for profit. If it is a recurring event please wikify this article - list its goals, makeup, significance, etc in an organized fashion. Make it encyclopaedic.

Joomba 23:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Relisting for lacking votes. Johnleemk | Talk 13:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, One non-wiki link on Google -- and it's for the organization website. I am sorry, Kingyj, but this just isn't verifiable outside of the organization URL. HackJandy 22:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK will try and 'wikify' and organise the article soon. I still do not get why people would want to remove a small article about a non profit organisation ? The name is not taken and is not causing anyone trouble. Its an article about a non-profit organisation that does a number of things for the community, including providinng a free meal every week to 300-400 people in need. One of the reasons why there are not links to this website from others is because the website hasn't been up for that long. Thx Kingyj 20:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People might feel that either a) there is no independent source to verify the article, or b) there subject is jus tnot big/important enough to be included in an article. —the preceding unsigned comment is by The Land (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 23:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Friend Ernest[edit]

No obvious evidence of notability--Blambot 04:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just goto the site, just check it out. - Hahnchen 16:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Relisting for lacking votes. Johnleemk | Talk 13:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable webcomic (a restrained criticism...). Makhnono! 20:41, 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 consensus to merge. Johnleemk | Talk 12:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moglinsters[edit]

Delete - I am staff for this game and even I consider this fancruft. There is no redeeming value in an article on every minor character in the game. Falerin 19:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Save - This is an interesting article on what moglins turn into. Other users are going to want to know what moglinsters are and will find what they need here instead of looking all over the internet for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.250.38.77 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: Relisting for lacking votes. Johnleemk | Talk 13:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to AdventureQuest. Ifnord 15:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect- This article should either have a page of it's own or at least be merged into moglins


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (not by me}. -Doc ask? 23:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel burns[edit]

Non-notable person, no sources prove this. Gary Kirk 13:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, or even Speedy delete. "Renounded" isn't even a word, and I've seen a lot of these "so-and-so is gay" pages.Bjones 13:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This sort of stuff is offensive. aliceinlampyland 14:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as attack page --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Simple attack article. --StuffOfInterest 16:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It probably means "renowned". It's not necessarily an attack page; "Peter Tatchell is gay" or "Elton John is a homosexual" are mere statements of fact, not attacks. Perhaps Daniel burns (sic) is in some way notable as someone who started the gay rights movement in the 1800s. However it's not possible to tell that from the article - it's devoid of useful content or context, and as such should be {{db-empty}} Speedy deleted, I'd say. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:07, 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 consensus to delete; no content merged due to copyright issues. Johnleemk | Talk 16:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Habbo Radio[edit]

See also Habbo rares (AfD discussion), Habbo Paper (AfD discussion), and Habbos (AfD discussion).

Seems to be a completely useless stub, that will probably never contain more than a few words. Should probably be deleted but maybe a redirect to SHOUTcast and a mention at Habbo Hotel is in order... Bornhj 11:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 16:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting in hopes of achieving a wider consensus than one entry. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 15:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete per nom. The Habbo Hotel environment is pervasive enough that it could probably have its own wiki, but not every facet of it is notable enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. I agree with Bornhj that any useful information in this article should be merged into Habbo Hotel. --Stephen Deken 17:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete per nom, conditional that such thing exists at all. mikka (t) 20:34, 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. Enochlau 23:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Moger[edit]

Hoax? zero google hits. No otherwise forseen method of verification. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. PJM 15:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-patent nonsense. Kreydon 00:46, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Habbo Net[edit]

See also Habbo rares (AfD discussion), Habbo Paper (AfD discussion), and Habbos (AfD discussion).

Doesn't meet WP:WEB and seems just to be a desperate attempt for the site to be mentioned on WP. Not notable, should be deleted. Bornhj 11:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


No discussion whatsoever in previous AfD nomination. Relisting in hopes of attaining some level of debate and consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The Habbo Hotel environment is pervasive enough that it could probably have its own wiki, but not every facet of it is notable enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. This is a small part of a small part of Habbo Hotel and doesn't need to have its own article. --Stephen Deken 17:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. mikka (t) 20:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, absolutely useless. --BigglesTheGreat 09:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PopText[edit]

Non-notable blog. Google turns up a lot of hits on the word "poptext", but only a comparative handful are about this blog. And the few direct google hits there are seem to be confined mainly to other blogs. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. 03:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep
a) Is it a problem that this blog is primarily significant only within a particular (albeit large) community?
b) Non-blog references to PopText:
c) Is Wikipedia really a slave to Google? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtmichcock (talk • contribs) 22:30, November 23, 2005

RELISTING in hopes of further debate and some sort of consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vanity, spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mike Rosoft; news articles are just general articles about Pop related blogs; if they were in depth or did more than just list it, I might feel differently. Peyna 15:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nn. mikka (t) 20:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, uncyclopedic. All the article states is that Poptext "is a blog". HackJandy 22:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just did a bit of a cleanup though it still needs some work. I think it's an important and notable mp3 blog that's gaining buckets of popularity with every passing day. It's been mentioned in the press (ok, just a tiny bit but it is something) and is a big part of the community. The word itself is interesting as well if its use kicks off. It's not quite as popular as something like Fluxblog but it's getting there. I'm slightly biased because I'm a reader (though don't know the author personally or anything like that) but I think it should stay if we're to have articles on mp3 blogs or other such websites at all. Jellypuzzle 18:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 19:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Australians Against Further Immigration[edit]

The page was created maliciously. When the offensive content was removed, the page was left devoid of content. aliceinlampyland 14:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense/attack, now empty per nom. Ifnord 15:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete now it appears empty. PJM 15:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known minor political party, despite not having seats. Stub created. JPD 16:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Was a speedy delete candidate originally, but now that it is here, it is on a very notable topic, and thus should be most definitely kept. Ambi 16:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; a page getting vandalised is no reason for a speedy delete, plus the party is legit. Peyna 16:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a legitimate political party. Agnte 16:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the quote can be confirmed, then add a citation link. --StuffOfInterest 16:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Listed on the Australian Electoral Commission's Register of Australian political parties see [37] and shown as having endorsed candidates in the 2004 Federal election. Also important as predecessors of the One Nation Party. Capitalistroadster 17:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 17:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Google search seems to show this is fairly noteable. HackJandy 22:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Capitalistroadster. Cnwb 22:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above pfctdayelise 22:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know what the article looked like when it was listed, but it's perfectly viable now. Sadly, even racists form a part of human knowledge. — Haeleth Talk 00:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously, despite the puerile garbage that formed the first revision of the article. --Stormie 01:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If only we didn't need this kind of article... ～J.K. 10:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Capitalistroadster. Sarah Ewart 23:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Writing an article on AAFI has been on my to-do list for a while. --Roisterer 08:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fishtail braid[edit]

WP is not an instruction manual (and is that pic nicked from Vogue?) Flapdragon 15:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 15:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Had the article been linked to from someplace like hair styles I might have considered otherwise. Plus, I forsee the photo getting dropped sooner rather than later. --StuffOfInterest 16:59, 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: speedily deleted by Bumm13. - Mike Rosoft 19:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-China Holocaust[edit]

POV content, the American military operations in Asia are (presumedly) appropriately dealt with in other articles, such as Vietnam war. Delete, possibly a candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 15:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Returns exactly 1 hit on Google, even if you omit the dash. Jtrost 15:24, 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 Speedy as patent nonsense --RoySmith 18:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

000[edit]

000

Article as it stands is nonsense, article as it was dealt with a non-notable electronic musician. Junjk 18:33, 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 merge with Union Jack. Chances are that I will be merging this to the completely wrong section of that article, so please clean up after me if I screw up. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4IM Campaign to update Union Jack[edit]

Non-notable campaign by a barely-notable group. Delete or possibly merge to 4IM. Stifle 14:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Possibly merge, but keep the information somewhere. I don't think the campaign can be dismissed.Bjones 14:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe merge, keep the information. Notable, I'd say. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 14:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Union Jack JoJan 14:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 4IM with appropriate entry and link on Union Jack . Tonywalton  | Talk 16:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with 4IM --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Union Jack. The issue does seem to be mentioned more often in Wales these days, though most people raising it have probably never heard of 4IM. Rhion 22:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Union Jack. Chalk me up as another Briton (not Welsh, but only by about 20 miles) who's well aware that controversy exists, but has never heard of 4IM. — Haeleth Talk 00:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 4IM with appropriate entry and link on Union Jack. Josh Parris 02:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 4IM per Josh Parris. This is too obscure to be included in the Union Jack article. Ground Zero | t 16:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 4IM as previously suggested. Iancaddy 19:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of conflicts[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not linked from anywhere. Were it I'd say to throw a stub on it and get some more development done. --StuffOfInterest 17:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Conflict. I'd say merge but the article 1) provides no basis for it's claim that these are the "three main causes of conflicts" and 2) limits it's scope to a small subset of the many types of Conflict. -- JLaTondre 03:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It has a kind of Zen charm to it, but it's not really a keeper Richfife 06:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete without any sources it is origonal researchSethie 02:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; editorial decision made to merge and redirect to MC Hammer. Johnleemk | Talk 13:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hammertime[edit]

This definition of Hammertime looks like an inside joke or hoax. I just graduated from NYU law, where this phrase is supposedly popular, and I never heard of it. "Hammertime" might eventually deserve a page, if someone feels like doing a doctoral thesis on M.C. Hammer or Super Mario's Hammer Brothers, but I don't think Wiki should cover something that's basically a blog entry. Mareino 16:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, I guess. I heard it from other 1L sections when I arrived at NYU Law. Supposedly it came from other schools, but I don't know which ones, so I said on the post its origins are unclear. Since it is a universal concept with no name, I thought it was worth posting it on here. Plus, I've heard it used in my own sections and it seems to be catching on quick. Thanks for the post. Wwjdd 02:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently a student at NYU law school and have heard the phrase "Hammertime" on several occasions, particularly right after (and sometimes during) the 120+ minute procedure class I'm taking that is scheduled to be 110 minutes long. I am not sure of the phrase's origins either, but have been told that it describes the extra time that a student (especially one who is being questioned as a class draws to a scheduled end) is on the spot as s/he is being "pounded" (or "hammered") with questions. This makes sense to me, as law schools in general are known for the use of socratic questioning. As far as it's popularity, I have noticed that the phrase is known mostly to students who have such professors, and the fact that a student (even one at NYU law) has gone through school without hearing it may simply mean that the student has not had such professors. I also have no idea when it started being used. Forgot to sign, sorry. Mp1639 03:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, that makes sense to me. I will withdraw my delete nomination and change it to cleanup. And, yes, I wholeheartedly admit that I was charmed as far as professors go. I recommend Helen Hershkoff and Diane Zimmerman. Mareino 15:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism, unless someone can come up with some evidence that this is in common usage anywhere except for a single law school. (Also, this AFD was orphaned due to a bad withdrawal, but I consider the re-listing totally acceptible.) -- Plutor 15:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Abstain per Plutor (was going to write the same thing, but your edit showed up after I clicked edit) Peyna 15:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge with MC Hammer. PJM 16:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dictionary definition at best and probably not notable enough for that. Durova 16:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. Squeaks over the notability threshold. Sources should be cited. Durova 20:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apologies to those that voted between 16:11 (UTC) and 20:40 (UTC); when I restored the AfD some content was lost and may have inadvertently affected your vote. Please review and reconsider. Peyna 19:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. mikka (t) 20:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People used to say this all the time in the early 90s... the article seems to have been updated to reflect this extremely lame but catchy phrase. Anyone seen the page for Cowabunga lately? HackJandy 22:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Oh man, I use this all the time, and I'm not American. "Hammer time". Dum dum de dum dum dum. "You Can't Touch This". Hammer time is when you get down and do something cool. MC Hammer didn't actually start it though - that's where he got his name from. He popularised it. I think it dates back a few decades before then too. I can vaguely remember MC Hammer being interviewed about how he came up with his name and he talked about it. Zordrac 23:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Streamline and merge with M.C. Hammer. The latter provides better context for the article. 147.70.242.21 23:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ... SchmuckyTheCat 00:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect to M.C. Hammer. btw the last place I worked, "Hammertime" meant the 3pm coffee break. I do not consider this fact to be of encyclopedic value, though. --Stormie 01:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect as per Stormie Pete.Hurd 04:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop! Keepertime! Suffers from being a wee bit dated, but still very notable. --badlydrawnjeff 14:22, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

InternationalSwede[edit]

notability, advertising too --Melaen 19:41, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Korea[edit]

Non-notable, apparently a message board. Stifle 14:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: nn, vanity. - mholland 14:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Intresting, leave up —preceding unsigned comment by 168.174.253.221 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC) who is the author of the article.[reply]
It is very interesting entry I say leave it. -Daystar —preceding unsigned comment by 64.12.116.201 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 23:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sneaky spam. Perhaps redirect to Korean DMZ just out of spite. To spam the AfD article from the same address as the original article with something like "Intresting, leave up" calls for it. --StuffOfInterest 17:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you do not understand what I am talking about? This is not intended as a joke. Middle Korea is an actual micronation. Just like all the others on the net? edit- I am also having trouble "wikifying" this page. A little help please?168.174.253.221 17:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can start by providing references and specific details as to location, population, capital, etc. Even a map would be worthwhile. Until (and unless) they can be provided, I agree with the people who are voting Delete. 147.70.242.21 21:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • too small and nonnotable yet. also prease see wikipedia:verifiability. mikka (t) 20:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: nn. mikka (t) 20:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was going to suggest keeping it because I thought it was a geographical location, but on discovering it is a micronation with 3 members, I don't think its notable. They've written letters to the UN, and, had the UN responded and recognised them as a soverign nation, then sure, have an article. But until that happens, delete. Zordrac 23:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vandal Warning: Note that the author of this page, 168.174.253.221 has a history of vandalism and has been warned and blocked. •DanMS 01:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per lots of things. JHMM13 07:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a vandal? I happen to be on a LAN with several thousand users. This is my first wikipedia article. 168.174.253.221 18:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. When you contribute to the Wikipedia anonymously (without signing in with a user name), the edit will be attributed to the IP address of the computer or server you are using. Unfortunately the users on the computer or LAN on which you are working have vandalized numerous articles on the Wikipedia. You can contribute under your own user name without fear of being accused of someone else’s vandalism by creating a user name and then signing in each time you contribute. It’s easy, it’s free, and takes about 30 seconds. Just click on the “sign in” link at the top of each page, think up a user name, and sign in. That’s all there is to it. •DanMS 01:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, with the reception I'm getting there's no way in bananna land that I'm going to stay around here. Thanks for the warm welcome folks. And leave my article alone, it's fixed now. 168.174.253.221 17:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. --DDG 19:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete; editorial decision made to redirect but not merge (article content was redundant). Johnleemk | Talk 12:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steroids in High School Athletics[edit]

was tagged as speedy but was not, so I sent to afd. abstain-- -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 22:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup some potential here. Youngamerican 15:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge per Peyna. PJM 15:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Anabolic steroid; but there isn't much right now that isn't already there. Peyna 15:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. As suggested above. It the section ever grows big enough, which is doubtful, then it could move to its own article. --StuffOfInterest 17:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I played with it some and once you take out all the warning lines, it has no substance, other then adding in ONE possible negative side effect for young takers. Sethie 02:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian settlemets in U.S. in early 1900's[edit]

Probable hoax. Article was created by an anonymous contributor during a spurt of other edits that were quickly reverted as inappropriate or vandalism. The article also makes several claims that appear dubious at first glance such as the settlements being safe havens against their members being burned for performing "dark magic" at a time when witchcraft was not typically illegal or that the settlements formed suburbs before the time when transportation advances made suburbs practical. Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are produced to verify the claims made in the article. --Allen3 talk 15:23, 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. Enochlau 02:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Beaches rail line, Sydney[edit]

Phantom railway line - possibly a new rail (or light rail) proposal, but the article speaks as if it already exists, and I can't find any sources. JPD 15:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Hoax. Ambi 16:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no northern beaches rail line. If you look at this map of Sydney rail services, you will see that there is no train service for the area. [38]. Possible speedy delete as silly vandalism. Capitalistroadster 17:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is absolutely definitely a hoax. --Stormie 01:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not actually a hoax but the station locations are all made up. The Government never decided on possible station locations. The NSW Government alluded to it in Action for Transport 2010 but there is no chance of it happening in the next 20 years. So there is little point including it. Steven Fitter 10:58, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deck Backlit Keyboards[edit]

This is a non-notable commercial product. Simesa 15:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete: a keyboard with LEDs backlight, only the fact that this is a desktop computer keyboard makes it different from a standard mobile keyboard. The article is also incorrect: as far as I can see from the photos in one review, keys do not have individual leds. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: NN and spammy. Chris the speller 01:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Consensus was unanimous except the anonymous author of the article. Friday (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew young[edit]

Apparent hoax. "Globex Financial Investment Consulting" appears not to exist and "Cyberpets Entertainment" returns 1-2 of 5 hits. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • In that case, his claim to fame appears to be from posting on the internet. Delete for lack of verifiability. Friday (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Globex Financial Investment Consulting" would be unlikely to be a bona fide company if its Editor-in-Chief was really only 14 (and simultaneously "President of Cyberpets Entertainment, a division of Global Systems"). Obvious fantasy/vanity/general silliness. Flapdragon 16:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a hoax, the guy is 16! --BadSeed 16:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A 16 y/o market watcher = a 16 y/o market spectator. Why would he link to pictures of websites instead of just the websites themselves? Hoax. JHMM13 16:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seem to remember Globex as the company which poached Homer Simpson away from the Springfield power plant. Delete hoaxex. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the originator of this version of this artice. Globex Financial Investment Consulting no longer exists. Its web site has been offline for more than a year. I noted its demise, and the same for Cyberpets (formerly located at http:/www.cyberpetshome.com and http://www.cyberpetshq.com, and now uploaded but not functional at http://www.sitesire.com). Cyberpets had thousands of active accounts in its peak. The original thing was making fun of him pretty much, and it was up for weeks, so I made it serious and talked about things he had done/ is doing when that got deleted. Maybe I shouldn't have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.36.139 (talk • contribs) 15:14, November 29, 2005
    • I hate to be cliché, but... "Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you." — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 20:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For all the reasons above Stephenb (Talk) 14:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I-steve.com[edit]

Vanity page about a college student's website. Non-notable. Mattley 16:07, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archive of sex related lists[edit]

Article is an oddly titled list of 3 sex-themed lists on WP (some of semi-rescent AfD fame but that's incidental). If this is an attempt at categorization, it's pretty strange and not really helpful. I can see no point to this article... but I don't think it fits under any of the CSD. --W.marsh 16:10, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shorthand-Aided Rapid Keyboarding[edit]

This article refers to the IBM name for a technology under development by many companies, a natural extension of predictive texting. The article is a stub, there is no guarantee that the finished product will carry that brand, and no guarantee that this will become the generic term. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 20:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep for now, and redirect to the generic term when one emerges. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting for a second run, not enough discussion. Titoxd(?!?) 05:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As WP:ISNOT a crystal ball says: Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Even the name of this is "future history". Tonywalton  | Talk 15:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting due to insufficient consensus. Please vote. - Mailer Diablo 16:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guy guessed it right: this system has changed name between development and release ShapeWriter. Move the rewritten version to the correct name. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used to work for an IBM business partner - nothing gets released without at least five name changes :-) Looks like this is still on the blocks, though - still a research project not a commercial product. My initial concerns stand: without a significant installed base to give balanced critical judgment, is this article original research? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a yet-to-be-released software product, I would say delete. However, I tend to consider this article as a description of a completed research project: the authors have published some papers on their system [39] (one of them has been presented at CHI 2003, which I think is an important conference in the field of Human-Computer Interaction). Actually, it's just a matter of point of view.
    By the way, do I understant it right that this article has been relisted 2 times (is it here for the third time?). Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with ShapeWriter (or whatever name it goes with) and also *Redirect page in case someone gets here by accident. Quite valid to list it as it seems to be topical enough to pass WP:WEB and WP:V. Zordrac 19:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the damn thing until we know what to call it. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:06, 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. Enochlau 23:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terminus (band)[edit]

non-notable Kuwaiti metal band that fails WP:MUSIC and has (according to their web page) no gigs lined up for the forseeable future. Delete.  RasputinAXP  T C 17:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete in the absence of info to the contrary. OK, so now we need two things: a NN band speedy criterion, and a band version of the {{importance}} template which references WP:NMG and makes clear what kind of evidence is needed (major label, sales, chart positions etc.). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rasputin has suggested a template, example User_talk:Just zis Guy, you know?#Template for musical importance you say?, looks good to me! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have posted a comment on the page's discussion page. To sum it up, the band does pass criteria #7 on WP:MUSIC since it is the leading local band in the Kuwait metal scene. Therefore, the page should be allowed to remain. Zer0fighta 03:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It says so in the article, but where else? PJM 16:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 16:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting due to insufficient consensus. Please vote. - Mailer Diablo 16:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: added music-importance template; but I have not yet seen any evidence of significance per WP:NMG Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 16:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It would be a shame to delete them if they were notable in Kuwait, but there's no evidence of that. --Last Malthusian 17:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless verifiability problems are solved. A "cult following to some degree", having played 8 gigs? Punkmorten 19:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Last Malthusian. --Sliggy 19:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. verifiability problem. mikka (t) 20:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, I created the article and I realize there's some problems with verifiability. I will probably try creating again this summer when I go back home and try to gather some evidence etc. Zer0fighta 21:04, 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. Enochlau 02:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bowsie[edit]

Pure dicdef, and not being from Dublin, Ireland, I cannot ascertain the level of notability. A Google search however, reveals little of interest beyond the definition already given. PeruvianLlama(spit) 09:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 22:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 16:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting due to insufficient consensus. Please vote. - Mailer Diablo 16:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dictionary with no supporting expansion of the context. --StuffOfInterest 17:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a largely correct dictdef but nonetheless a dictdef. 'Ya bowsie ya' is a commonplace Dublin phrase (a bit dated!) . Word is Middle English rather than Gaelic (e.g. boozy). Dlyons493 Talk 20:31, 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 as test page and at request of original author. Capitalistroadster 18:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MY WWE[edit]

I really don't understand the point of this article, and there might even be copyvio concerns. JHMM13 16:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article as a joke and my buddy put in online. Its' mereley a fabtasy article that is NOT true. You have my total vote of confidence to erase. It wasnt meant for this site to be considered as fact

Please use the sandbox to add jokes or make tests. Thanks. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as the author has given permission to do so. Didn't mean any harm.Bjones 17:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Speedy perhaps? I'm not clear on copyright law - is it technically a breach of copyright to post someone's work on Wikipedia without their permission, as the author claims? --Last Malthusian 17:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If above is true, then it is fault of the poster and not the author. --StuffOfInterest 17:19, 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. Enochlau 02:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic rebulic of the congo[edit]

Article exists already, of course. And there is no need to merge anything, no info here is revelant to the country or is already found in the legitimate article (along with much more). εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't suggest a redirect, because most people don't search countries with lowercase letters. lol. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Umm, in case nobody noticed, it is even mispelled! --StuffOfInterest 17:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, that's why it's not even worth a redirect. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per stuffofinterest. Youngamerican 17:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ahasuerus 20:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. 23skidoo 21:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. rodii 22:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as mis-spelling. Rebulic. Dammit, I guess they were drunk or something lol. Zordrac 23:26, 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. Enochlau 02:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Tuesday[edit]

nn neologism. Stifle 16:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per above reason ^demon 17:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 64.59.209.89 17:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a Cyber Monday but this one is total made up bull. --StuffOfInterest 17:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment please note that that Cyber Monday is currently a candidate for AfD as well. -^demon 18:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 18:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve Cyber Monday is shop.org's bull. Cyber Tuesday is actually based on facts.
    • Previous unsigned comment posted by Frankencow, the original author of the article. -^demon 19:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a fairly strong disparity between Google's interpretation of Cyber Tuesday and Cyber Monday. Regardless of Cyber Monday's AFD outcome, Cyber Tuesday is still NN. HackJandy 21:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (What does "approve" mean in this context?) rodii 22:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. (I'm not sure why "approve", but is anyone else puzzled that users voting to keep their own inappropriate articles never say "keep" - it's always "do not delete" or "retain" or something?) — Haeleth Talk 00:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - mainstream media is ignoring it in droves, unlike Cyber Monday. Can Cyber Wednesday be far behind? 147.70.242.21 22:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article makes it clear that the phenomenon does not exist, or does not exist yet, and is being promoted by the also-dubious Orange Party in order to make some unclear political point. Furthermore, an article without verifiable references is bad enough, but when an article contains a link entitled Click Here to read the source article, and I click on it, and it is not an article about the existence of "Cyber Tuesday" but merely an article about the non-existence of "Cyber Monday," I have to believe that whomever inserted that link is not being straightforward or reliable, casting doubt on the accuracy of the rest of the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:23, 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 Delete. Enochlau 02:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William Folchi[edit]

Notability unestablished, possibly a speedy under criteria A7. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete above reasons stated it all. ^demon 17:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Classic speedy: CSD A7. “Unremarkable people. An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance.” •DanMS 02:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I kinda of suspect some kids are making fun of him. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:10, 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 Delete. Enochlau 23:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orange_Party[edit]

Non noticable political party. Too recent. Stub. I only found it through the Cyber_Tuesday article, which is also under AfD ^demon 17:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Junk. Part of a triplet created by Frankencow, who will need some wiki-induction. --StuffOfInterest 17:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 17:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve Frankencow: Regardless of its connections to other articles, the declaration of the Orange Party's existence is valid and therefore deserves recognition. Frankencow 00:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Previous unsigned comment posted by Frankencow, the original author of the article. Also, I can't find any mention of this party's existance on Google, if there need be further proof. Most "Orange Party" results are relating to parties, food, etc. -^demon 19:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Yes, this is Frankencow. Sorry, I forgot to add my name earlier. This is a real political party but we do not have a website yet. However, we should have one up shortly. It is still in the grass roots stages of development. Is having a google article a requirement to be included in Wikipedia? Frankencow 00:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment No, but it is a good indicator of whether a subject is notable enough to warrent an article -^demon 00:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom + Frankencow's attempt to prop up his article without showing a little bit of WP:AFD etiquette (sign your comment, use the correct voting terms, state your relation to the article if you have one....) HackJandy 21:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Who could Michael Nicholas Peter Miller be, I wonder? rodii 22:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self-promoting, no candidacies, endorsements by other groups, and not even a website of their own. (Besides, it's a stupid name; to me "Orange Party" suggests some kind of anti-Catholic religious agenda.) Smerdis of Tlön 22:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Frankencow: How is Orange anti-Catholic? Actually, the founder of the Orange Party is practicing Roman Catholic. If I may further remind you to be patient with me as I am a newcomer, according to WP:AFD etiquette which states: Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility before making a recommendation as to whether the article should be deleted or not, or making a comment. Frankencow
      • When I think "Orange" and politics, the Orange Order is the first thing that comes to mind. AAR, noting this connection could not possibly be a "personal attack" unless the the article's author also came up with the name of the party. Smerdis of Tlön 04:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (political) start-up advertisement. --BillC 00:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since the party was started November 23, 2005 (last Wednesday), it hardly seems likely that it has achieved any level of notability. •DanMS 02:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also delete The Orange Party (note "The") , which is a duplicate article. Note to Frankencow: Do not create duplicate pages with similar titles. Make one article a redirect to the other. •DanMS 02:13, 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 speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 06:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Racism by proxy[edit]

This is one of a number of article started by a user with a history of neo-Nazi POV edits.

  • Reason for deletion: Non-notable. Fails "Google test" with only 250 results, which anyway give conflicting definition. I found no schollarship of any note on the topic. Charlotte Hobbs 15:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Charlotte Hobbs 15:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sounds like an invention. JFW | T@lk 17:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well, I've used this one, and its really a good way to describe racism. After all, nobody ever admits to being racist, do they? You don't go around the street screaming out "Yay, I'm racist and proud!". Nobody does. KKK don't think they are racist. Neo-Nazis don't either. Even Pauline Hanson doesn't think she's racist. This is a very good way of describing racism. At a bare minimum, Merge with Racism. Zordrac 23:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's as may be, but the question is, is it notable. Charlotte Hobbs 01:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Adjusted Google search (removing Wikipedia and mirrors) yields 155 hits, mostly blogs. Not-notable. Turnstep 02:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy A7. mikka (t) 20:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMMENSE[edit]

Poorly-written advertisement for a non-notable and unverifiable rapper. Quite possibly Google-proof, but I tried this and this to no avail. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per criteria A7. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO - not a speedy (makes claims of notability... as ridiculous as they are). PJM 17:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, speedy A7; key word: real person. Empty and verifiably false claims. It is not that such a guy or band exists but nonnotable; there is no evidence that any basic things mentioned in the article exist at all, with the exception of LA. mikka (t) 20:54, 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. Adding top of closed box, as the bottom was already placed. Mo0[talk] 06:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November_22nd,_2005[edit]

Useless. Mentions two other articles currently under AfD. Stub. ^demon 17:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Junk. Trying to prop up some other AfD articles. --StuffOfInterest 17:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 17:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense The Land 21:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. rodii 22:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - reads more like a call to action than an encyclopedia article. 147.70.242.21 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-article justification for two bad articles, the sooner the better. --Calton | Talk 01:53, 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 already speedy deleted. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Capps[edit]

Does not meet WP:MUSIC, does not assert notability. Possible vanity page. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:23, 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saxon=Joke Account[edit]

Poorly-written, orphaned article about a "fad" on a message board. This is not what Wikipedia is for! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:32, 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OJ Killed Elvis[edit]

Hoax, non-notable, you pick it. I've speedied the alleged "zine"'s editor, but this is not a person or a group of people. Delete. --Nlu 17:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. PJM 17:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though I like the idea of a "low financial statue". Tonywalton  | Talk 18:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete obvious hoax --Bachrach44 20:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with an article on the verifiable historical fact behind the name. No longer will OJ's supporters be able to cover up the terrible truth. — Haeleth Talk 00:35, 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 Delete. Enochlau 02:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Et hadi saputra[edit]

Vanity bio. 165.189.91.148 18:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete also looks to be spam. Mark K. Bilbo 19:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. mikka (t) 20:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Bio vanity. *drew 08:41, 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caile Hill[edit]

Lack of verifiability. User Sunfazed originally posted about his concerns about this claimed suburb of Wolverhampton on the Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard. A Google search for \"Caile Hill\" came up with nothing see [40]. Other users have tried Mapquest, the Royal Mail and the Wolverhampton City Council without result. Delete.Capitalistroadster 18:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverfiable probably hoax. Am unable to verify this online at least (tried MapQuest and Royal Mail as indicated above). Possible that this is because it's a district rather than a road, but it should show up somewhere. Am willing to change my position like lightning of this is merely obscure but real. -Splashtalk 19:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The World Wide Web tells me that the only remotely similarly named area of Wolverhampton that is near to the Beacon FM studios is Dunstall Hill, and that the studios themselves are in Newbridge. Unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 19:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Coldron000 11:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what reason? (Note this is the first edit by this account). -- Arwel (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unable to find any evidence backing up existence of this place. -- Arwel (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 11:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I have photos. --Rundono 12:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rundono appears to be a vandal. See Template:Mindspillage. EiE 12:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LAN Fraggers[edit]

LAN party group. Not encyclopedic. 165.189.91.148 19:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. and NN. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability provided for this one LAN party among many. •DanMS 02:42, 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 article found to be copyvio; listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Johnleemk | Talk 12:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Website need for xml files[edit]

Essay/marketing/how-to is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Nothing worth merging. 165.189.91.148 19:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This could be a copyright violation (which could make it a speedy I think), it's an essay found here [41] written by the owner of this [42] site. No idea if the owner has a clue whether the text has been uploaded here. Mark K. Bilbo 20:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, copyvio. from [43], © Copyright 2005 Anonymous 4467 (UN: angela4467 at Writing.Com) ∴ here…♠ 20:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - copyvio; also, Wikipedia is not a self-help manual. 147.70.242.21 22:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)'[reply]
  • Speedy Delete due to copyvio HackJandy 22:40, 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turning Leaf[edit]

Band vanity. 165.189.91.148 19:20, 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie E Paton[edit]

Lack of notability aka a vanity page. Ahasuerus 19:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Mark K. Bilbo 19:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I know for a fact that Jamie E Paton did not write this, so there for it is not a a vanity page. He has become a famous face around the east London, Essex areas, and i personally feel it will be an attack on him to bring it down. Jamie has achieved a lot in his short life and it will be a real shame to lose the page. I feel its only fair the rest of the world gets to read about the amazing achievements of this amazing determined person. Thanks User:Coolchris.cockram 20:39, 29 November 2005
      • Comment: As per Wikipedia:Vanity page, "vanity edits are edits about the editors themselves, their close relatives or their personal associates". The important criterion, though, is Wikipedia:Notability, which hasn't been demonstrated so far. Ahasuerus 21:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notability is not a deletion criterion. There is, however, an actual policy that applies: see my vote below. — Haeleth Talk 00:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Coolchris.cockram (who has all of ten edits, starting today, because he knows for a fact that Jamie E Paton did not write this. BD2412 T 20:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete insufficient notariety has been demonstrated. This article has the feel and appearance of vanity. 147.70.242.21 22:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Zero Google hits for "Albany Business and Enterprise Collage", and (more surprisingly) for "Albany Business and Enterprise College", make it difficult to verify that he won the award claimed; zero Google hits for "Jamie E Paton" make it difficult to verify that the person in question even exists. We need verifiable citations before we could even consider keeping this article. — Haeleth Talk 00:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coolchris.cockram 13:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per CSD:A7, or delete otherwise. Stifle 23:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Coolchris.cockram blanked the AfD message in this edit. Stifle 23:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: ok fair enough, I give permition for the site to be deleted

User:Coolchris.cockram 13:28, 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 Delete. Enochlau 02:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protein Cleaving Switch System[edit]

  • Delete. Original research. Neither Google nor PubMed contain the phrase "Protein Cleaving Switch System". The article states that the method was invented by Austen Heinz, the article was written by user:Ajh20, and the comment at [44] suggests that Ajh20 is Austen Heinz. The article's text contains the phrases "this proposal" and "proposed here", suggesting that this is a research proposal pasted into Wikipedia. AxelBoldt 20:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. mikka (t) 20:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The possible link between ajh20 and Austen Heinz is fairly damning as well. HackJandy 22:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also note PCS_system AFD by the same author. HackJandy 22:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:44, 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Caucasian Americans[edit]

Yet more pointless listcruft, impossible of maintenance, disputable as to usefulness and dubious of intent. Tonywalton  | Talk 19:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this version is just plain silly. A list for Americans whose ancestry traces back to the Caucasus region might be useful, but even that is doubtful. Caerwine 19:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this should have been speedy deleted anyhow, since its pretty obviously a list that would excessivly large. -- {Zaf} 19:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if you can find a criterion along those lines in WP:CSD you're looking harder than I did! Tonywalton  | Talk 20:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Absolutely *not* CSD... HackJandy 21:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (not to mention, who's got the disk space?). Mark K. Bilbo 19:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment When did disk space become a guideline of WP:AFD? HackJandy 03:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, if List of African Americans and List of Native Americans are here and are kept then why should this not be kept? Or is Wikipedia racist?Gateman1997 20:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. If it were a serious endeavor, it would have more than six names in the list. 147.70.242.21 22:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It should be noted that Gateman1997 is the original author of this article. HackJandy 20:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm working on it. This list has only been up for 7 hours.Gateman1997 00:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two mistakes don't make a correct decision. — Haeleth Talk 00:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ahasuerus 20:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a list that should gro to include 100,000,000 items. I think I can see where this might go wrong. --Bachrach44 20:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment please see my point below. The List of African Americans has a very manageable amount of names on it, and there are proportionally 6 Caucasian American to every African American in the US. For the list to have 100,000,000 names, one in every 2 white Americans would be noteable Wikipedia entries. HackJandy 08:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; contrary to nominator IMO there is the only one thisng dubious of intent: whether it is a joke or trolling, or even WP:POINT in response to failed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African Americans (2nd nomination). mikka (t) 20:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested to know what you meant there - I think a typo monster ate it. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is a Category:English Americans. I shouldn't be here, but I'll work on a kind of list from that.--T. Anthony 10:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

              • Problem with ALL of those groupings is that not every white person fits them. For instance take myself. I'm white... but I'm none of those sub classes. Granted my ancestors were English, Irish, German, French, Dutch, Belgian, Native American, and Scandinavian... but I don't identify with ANY of those groups as the blood is too diluted. I'm simply Caucasian(White).Gateman1997 19:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although on consideration we don't have a list of Americans based on ancestry from the Caucasus. There is no List of Armenian Americans, List of Georgian Americans, or List of Azeri Americans. If the list is limited to that it could be useful, albeit confusing.--T. Anthony 06:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. Probably WP:POINT, but Gateman1997 says it best. Either keep them all or delete them all for consistency. HackJandy 21:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC) * I am a major contributor to this page now. Striking my vote HackJandy 11:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • a wise man say pointless consistency is a trait of a limited mind. mikka (t) 21:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson.
  • Weak delete on the basis that this is simply too broad a category that is unmaintainable, and potentially could have hundreds of millions of names. And do you include caucasians who immigrate to the US from Canada? The UK? What's the criteria. Forget it -- too, too broad. If one wants to split it up into less broad categories -- and if similar categories have been OK'd for other races -- then fine. 23skidoo 21:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And what of African Candians who have moved for the US? Would you have issue placing them in the List of African Americans? Would a Jewish Canadian who became a citizen of the US not belong on List of Jewish Americans? There are proportionally 6 times as many people who consider themselves "White" than "Black" according to the 2000 US census. The List of African Americans seems quite managemeable in its current state, and a list six times that size would certainly not contain "hundreds of millions of names. In fact, there are only 200M Cuacasians living in the US today. The fact is only a very small fraction of a percent are noteable. HackJandy 08:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice - an overly broad category with only five people in the list? It comes across as a joke page, or possibly an attempt at satire. 147.70.242.21 22:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and stub. No matter how you personally might think, if we have a list of african americans etc, then we cannot deny a list of caucasian americans, or else we are being racist. Yes, the list is small, but articles are rarely complete when they are first made. Zordrac 23:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As stated above, if we have a list of African Americans then we should have a list of Caucasian Americans. Deleting this article and keeping the African one would be racist. Jtrost 23:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit with exteme prejudice limiting the list to notable Americans who actually trace ancestry to the Caucasus region. Durova 00:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If that's not done Delete as redundant. I mean really these "Lists of Americans" cover "Caucasian America", in the sense of white America, as well as seems reasonable. Maybe more then seems reasonable even.--T. Anthony 12:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I voted delete, but does this mean a List of Caucasian Africans would work?--T. Anthony 15:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I do think the artcile is frivoulous, but all the same I don't know what ground for deletion this should be deleted on. This could be a useful article. How so? It could be a disambig (sorta) page that listed the lists of the sub-categories e.g. List of Jewish-Americans and List of Irish-Americans - you see? jucifer 17:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 72.144.183.24 19:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The unregistered user above has an activity log after the AFD was proposed ([url]), and is also an active contributor on the List of Jewish Americans. He or she may be a sock puppet. HackJandy 07:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic delete - this (and similarly-named) list is a meaningless exercise in futility. It fails on several fronts:

1) The definition of the "races" is dubious at best (we all have descended from Africans. Some came to the US after Europe, after Asia, etc.). In many contexts, it is a political, not a social or genetic, difference.

2) The distinction between races is also arbitrary at best. As late as the 1980s (maybe later, but I'm not sure), Louisiana State law required a placement of "Black" on a person's driver's license - regardless of appearance - if the person is at least 1/32 black. Do Paula Abdul, Mariah Carey, and Halle Berry make this article? All have ancestors who lived in Europe.

3) The name of the article - List of Caucasian Americans - is much too vague. Who is going to visit the hospitals on an hourly basis to keep the list up to date?

4) And if you think my question in #3 is silly, so is the idea of having even a Partial list of Caucasian Americans... and I also extend that argument to any "List of **** Americans" on Wikipedia for that same reason. Adding "notable" or "famous" might not make it better, but the title should mention why the individuals on the list deserve to be singled out on Wikipedia besides their so-called race.

5) As far as I am concerned, there is only one race of people on Earth: the human race.

B.Wind 00:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • 1) Your feelings on race are irrelevant in the eyes of most governments on the face of this planet. I agree we're all humans when it comes down to it... but that's not the way our governments see it. 2) And the distinction is ambiguous to a point, however as you point out there are limits placed on what constitutes a race for a person. However for the sake of this list Hallie Berry could make a case for being put on it. 3) The name of the list is also just as it should be. To be on Wikipedia a person has to be notable per WP:BIO so to make the list it is implied a person is notable. 4)Point three isn't silly, just misinformed. 5) As I said in point one, the US, Canadian, UK, French, Russian, South African, etc, etc... governments disagree with you.Gateman1997 06:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment B.Wind, with regard to number 2. Paula Abdul is 1/2 of Jewish American. Mariah Carey is 1/2 Irish American. Halle Berry is 1/2 English American. Race, just like religion, seems to be in the eye of the beholder. Halle Berry, for example, would probably take issue being called Caucasian even if she is 1/2 white (url). On the other hand, why would it matter if she is labeled on both the Caucasian page and African American page anyway? Both are correct. HackJandy 08:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on above. While I've already voted to delete, I have to take issue with #3 and #4: Wikipedia already spells out that lists do not need to be named "List of famous ...", it is implied by being here that the list is of notable people (e.g. List of vegetarians) Turnstep 03:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete; kept. Johnleemk | Talk 12:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Vaughan[edit]

This article is in substance the same as the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Bristow, in that its subject's sole claim to notability is that he is Chairman of Conservative Future. This is not notable to warrant an independent encyclopedia article, while that salient fact is already covered at Conservative Future.

  • Delete per nomination. The Land 19:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he's still notable, being the Chairman of Conserative Future makes you notable. If this isn't notable enough for you, then you better look at every single stub, see if they all warrant their own articles. Quentin Pierce 19:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    As I say, the fact he's in that position is covered in the Conservative Future article The Land 19:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I'd like to see this article expanded to explain why this person is notable. However, as far as I am aware all Chairmen and executives are notable people. Jtrost 23:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is high turnover in these types of positions, and I don't see this position being enough to justify his own article. I notice that the national officers of the Young Republicans don't have their own articles, except for one who also holds elective office. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Conservative Future. Two sentences don't make a stub - they make a seed. B.Wind 04:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Vanity. This is a pure ego booster: plain and simple. The National Chairman of CF is not important. Look how much else he has to say about himself! His name is already included on the CF Page, so it doesn't need merging.
  • Keep - this guy is the elected head of a 10'000 member organisation and an up and coming British politician. David 09:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The turnover is not high, it's once ever year or two years. He plays a major role in the Conservative party. It should stay User:Liney 16:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This seems to be a badly-signed comment by User:83.104.57.114, who has made no other contributions so far. The Land 16:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Liney is his girlfriend - hardly surprising she wants him to keep his vanity page. The role is paid lip service by the Conservative Party.
  • Delete: Vanity. God this guy loves himself. Get rid of the damned thing. Totally pointless - as his achievements suggest. CF National Chairman is no big deal - unless we're gonna start including scout leaders too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.229.7 (talk • contribs)
  • DELETE NOW - rubbish, throw it out! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.184.94 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was consensus to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew D. Hamilton[edit]

Delete Provost isn't a policy making position, like President would be, and as notable as Yale is, it would be ludicrous to claim that every one who works there is encyclopedic. Possibly he may have done other things making him to be worthy of inclusion in a general encyclopedia, but being a university provost isn't. Caerwine 19:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nonnotable. mikka (t) 21:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonnotable. (Contra Caerwine, provost is usually a policy-making position, but that seems like a non-sequitur anyway. What does the ability to make policy have to do with wikipedia-worthiness?) rodii 23:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment More like policy proposing or implementing, but that is a minor point. The point is a provost is not likely going to be someone who is going to be memorable fifty years later, have building named after him, or whatever, and if he is, it likely will be for some reason other than fulfilling the duties of a provost. Caerwine 00:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC) - Withdrawing vote. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PROF. The provost is the #2 educational and administrative officer at Yale [45]. All the deans report to the provost. A provost at Yale would seem to be a lot more notable than the average professor. (By the way, Hamilton is a professor, so the average professor test applies to him.) --Metropolitan90 03:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PROF]. I can add to Mr. Hamilton's info. He has had an integral part in some notable situations at Yale and New Haven. I'll write it soon, hopefully before this is put in front of the admins. CoolGuy 03:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, hoping CoolGuy will expand the article. Hamilton is also "Irénée du Pont Professor" of Chemistry at Yale.[46] A (full) professor at a good university is more notable than many other people we include around here (such as the absolute majority of professional baseball players or footballers). u p p l a n d 07:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Holds an endowed chair at Yale, numerous honors, definitely meets WP:PROF. Article in dire need of expansion, however. -- DS1953 23:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PCS system[edit]

Delete. Original research. This is a copy of Protein Cleaving Switch System. Neither Google nor PubMed contain the phrase "PCS system" in the article's meaning. The article states that the method was invented by Austen Heinz, the article was written by user:Ajh20, and the comment at [47] suggests that Ajh20 is Austen Heinz. AxelBoldt 19:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, OR and the possible link between Ajh20 and Austen Heinz does not bode well either. HackJandy 21:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OP OR. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:39, 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 Speedy as patent nonsense

Oddball Fancomics[edit]

nonsense Harvestdancer 19:35, 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Schwhoa[edit]

Completely non-notable. Just a made up word, used by some people, but not enough to warrant an urbandictionary.com definition, let alone an article in an encyclopedia. Also talks about creators, and is basically just nothing at all. If it should be speedied just say so.

  • Delete per nom. Quentin Pierce 19:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and looks like vanity page also. Mark K. Bilbo 19:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete this! This word "schwhoa" could possibly become an official word. The English language needs to be expanded beyond what we have at the time. Creative adjectives are in dire need and in demand from the American population. Thankyou for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.70.17.6 (talk • contribs) 15:33, November 29, 2005
  • Hey, schwhoa is like the mostest awesomest word ever. I tottaly dig the Shakespear thing. I love a man who knows his shakespear. What is Saudi_Lumberjacks number? I use schwhoa like almost everyday. Schwhoa, that is a lot!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.70.17.6 (talk • contribs) 15:33, November 29, 2005
  • Delete per the above two posts. BD2412 T 20:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and is not the place to expand the English language. If and when this word gains more usage it might be appropriate for Wiktionary. Peyna 21:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, duh. rodii 23:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I use this all the time. Fwhoa, whoa and schwhoa have 3 entirely different meanings. Whoa is like oh wow, Fwhoa is like oh fucking wow, and schwhoa is like oh sexy wow. Usually used when perving on someone. Sheesh. You guys never use this? Zordrac 23:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Your recent votes on several of these AfDs today makes me wonder how serious to take any of your votes, this one included. You seem to just go around voting Keep and then making up some kind of BS rationale for it. If you're going to turn into a hard-lined inclusionist like Kappa just come out and admit it and don't bother with the sarcasm. Peyna 00:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi. Oh the whole Vfd thing was bringing me down. For the record, I really do say Schwhoa. Sometimes its nice to bring in a perspective there. I know, its not enough reason for it to stay, but I hate to see things be unanimously deleted when they were good faith. I have been trying to think which philosophy most describes me. I was looking at the different ones. I was going to say inclusionist, but not really. I've been voting 50/50, and some articles really annoy me, and I often vote delete when everyone else votes keep. I guess I tend to like to disprove common misconceptions. i.e. if everyone is voting keep, I am more likely to want to vote delete, and vice versa. Of course, that doesn't mean I will go against everyone. I was spending ages on these votes, and I got too tired. Its tiring to do research on every single damn vote. That Asgaard one should stay there, no question in my mind over that one. But this one, well, who cares. I presume you are referring to Hammertime as the other one. Similar kind of vote to this one. I wasn't lying, but you're right, I wasn't researching things like I normally do. Sometimes this is just so tiring, you know? Zordrac 05:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I've done An analysis of which Wikipedia to use on my talk page, and I can summarise it. I am Darwikinist, Delusionist, Eventualist and Inclusionist. There you go. Trying to decide which bit I am more like, but its hard to say. They all seem equally fitting. Zordrac 05:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey now! No need for potshots at Kappa - his voting has shown a lot more balance of late, and he has always presented a serious reason for voting to keep. BD2412 T 01:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
        • It was more just a remark at his > 90% keep voting rate; but I withdraw that part of my comment as it was unnecessary. Peyna 01:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologisms made up by people who don't know as much about Shakespearean England as they think they do. — Haeleth Talk 01:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is an undisguised attempt to mis-use Wikipedia as a soapbox for promoting a protologism. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It's an encyclopaedia. Delete. Uncle G 02:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism. *drew 08:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Izehar 23:56, 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 Delete. --JoanneB 16:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Roberts[edit]

Vanity, strategically injected with outlandish assertions of notability, in order to avoid speedy deletion, then peppered with links to blogs and stuff. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 19:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the vanity spammage! Mark K. Bilbo 19:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, the guidelines at WP:DVAIN and WP:CSD say if there's controversy take it to AfD. I think this one qualifies for a speedy. Mark K. Bilbo 19:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: That would make me happier, so speedy if permissible. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 20:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd love to but don't know how to change from one to the other. Wonder if we could flag down an admin... Mark K. Bilbo 20:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Well techically it says take it to VfD... but we are just splitting hairs :) HackJandy 21:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Self-proclaimed vanity autobiography that admits at least one piece of erroneous information. — RJH 19:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - zero indicia of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 20:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - fills reqs for speedy. HackJandy 21:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to print a page on my zine (Black Heart), you might as well let me print a page on the creator of the zine. I don't see how one qualifies whereas the other is just considered "vanity." User:blackheartmagazine
  • Delete per above. Herostratus 06:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity nn bio. *drew 08:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity David D. (Talk) 17:44, 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 Delete. Enochlau 02:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cebo Campbell[edit]

Vanity bio. Author with only one work, published by a vanity press. 165.189.91.148 20:09, 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thirdrumstick[edit]

Band vanity. Does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC guidlines. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 20:07, 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. Enochlau 02:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nino Brown[edit]

Some fictional film characters are interesting and notable enough for individual articles, but not this. The fact it hasn't been expanded beyond a substub suggests that even the creator doesn't think it's that interesting! The JPS 20:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Izehar 23:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering whether this article has been made ready for deletion because of the popularity that the fictional character has, as it resemble Ken McGriff, who has an upcoming federal trial? Anyways the movie is a cornerstone in the African-American community and I would differ to laziness in creation of an article rather than lack of interest in the figure, who is often referenced in the black community! User:poppie 12:53, 4 December 2005 (EST) User:poppie does not exist. Preceeding comment by 141.156.242.77 (talk · contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kaos endemico[edit]

Does not meet WP:MUSIC, 22 google hits, link advertisement Punkmorten 20:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. And a photo that doesn't show their faces. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 23:56, 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 nomination withdrawn. Johnleemk | Talk 13:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mende Nazer[edit]

Avoids speedy by a hair's breadth but still not notable. Stifle 20:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Update: expansion is appreciated. I've had a lot of thought about it, and while I personally think she's not notable, she does appear to have a book with an audience of over 5000. Therefore, the nomination is withdrawn. Stifle 15:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The article is pitifully sparse, but "Mende Nazer" gets 26,800 hits on Google, and she has a book out, Slave. I would say she does deserve an article. I'll see if I can take a whack at it. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have expanded this article and added references. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 16:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese logs of death[edit]

Was listed for speedy deletion - while tempting, it's not a candidate. Anyway, this looks like a nonnotable vanity entry, and may well be unverifiable too.. CDC (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity, NN. HackJandy 21:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity, despite the alluring title. Her Pegship 00:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, Zero hits on Google, whcih doesn't jib with it having "exploded onto the college scene". -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 23:55, 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 consensus to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

North Slavic languages[edit]

del insufficiently notable linguistic exercise. Wikipedia is not a vehicle of its popularization. mikka (t) 20:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete unsubstantiated speculation and original research. --Ghirlandajo 20:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per Ghirlandajo 22:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Bakharev (talk • contribs) 2005-11-29 22:13:13 (UTC)
  • Keep. I could really do without the conlang stuff, but if linguists (of whom I am one, but not a Slavicist) use North Slavic (and they do, as a google search will confirm), then it's a legitimate article, although one that could stand some improvement. rodii 23:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My google search for "north Slavic language", ""North Slavonic language"" & variants confirmed that this is an extremely marginal term, of which the majority are Vozgan &Co. Solid references, please. mikka (t) 09:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have never said that the term is in common use! It ís, however, used by some, and even Google is sufficient to confirm that. You might want to google for "North Slav(on)ic" instead, because if often refers not only to language but to Slavic culture in general. Besides, have you googled for "East Slav(on)ic language"? Not thát many hits either! --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 09:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't understand this nomination: did mikka not see that the article discusses a genuine linguistic grouping as well as some fictional languages, and even cites what appears, insofar as my German takes me, to be a perfectly valid reference? — Haeleth Talk 01:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: there are even three interwiki links. The Dutch one is the source for this article, which is a straightforward translation of a text that our Dutch comrades appear to consider unobjectionable. The Czech Wikipedia appears only to discuss the conlangs; the Polish Wikipedia article linked to here is on the conlangs, but it has what I'm 90% certain is a stub on the real language group at pl:Języki północnosłowiańskie. — Haeleth Talk 01:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. Easy for me to say that, since I wrote it. In this article, I was merely trying to describe a phenomenon: the fact that the term "North Slavic" is used for three different phenomena - the grouping of East and West Slavic together under the header "North Slavic" (you don't believe me? Google for it), the fact that there are scientists who believe a North Slavic branch does exist, or has existed (I'll look for sources), and a group of conlangs based on that last premise. As for the conlangs: I agree that the languages mentioned there are not notable enough to warrant articles on their own (viz. wikipedia.pl, which has individual articles about no less than six of them!). We've had many discussions already about merging articles like that into one, and in this case I simply decided to do that in advance. While the languages mentioned may not be notable enough on their own, they certainly are as a group. That has nothing to do with "wikipedia being a vehicle for their promotion". BTW, the languages in question are all artlangs, so there's really nothing to promote here. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 08:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I googled. No kidding. Why do you think I nominated? Miniscule hit count for "North Slavic". It is not like refs to unknown zimbabwe tribe. Who of notable scientists maintain this classification? Solid references, please. mikka (t) 09:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - IJzeren Jan is a very trustworthy member of the nl. community. he wouldn't write anything questionable. (unsigned contribution by Waerth) Waerth 10:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If he is a prominent member, he must know the tradition here in English wikipedia: notability. mikka (t) 09:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very well aware of that tradition. I am also very well aware of the fact that notability is by no means a commonly accepted criterion. But like I said, I do personally believe that it should be a factor. And therefore, I have explicitly not created articles about individual languages, nor do I intend to. But as a conlang subgroup, ánd as a scientific phenomenon (albeit a slightly marginal one) it most certainly has a certain amount a notability. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I am terribly sorry but the traditions on nl: differ greatly from en: . I do not see why it should be a requirement for someone to know about en: wikipedia traditions if he edits here only irregularly? Or is knowing english wikipedia traditions a requirement to be allowed to edit? If so start banning me. Waerth 10:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Bogus argument - "notability" is not a deletion reason. That's an English AFD "tradition", and AFD's "traditions" are getting close attention and being greatly questioned both inside and outside Wikipedia - David Gerard 13:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - AFD nomination from personal ignorance - David Gerard 13:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The term North Slavic is definitely used sometimes to combine West and East Slavic (as opposed to South Slavic). This makes sense both linguistically and geographically since the North and South Slavic speaking regions are not adjacent. Xyboi 14:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Then say so. The current version of the article explains the meaning of the term otherwise. --Ghirlandajo 14:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I'm mistaken, it is said that way in the article. But English is not my native language, so I may have been formulating badly. Anyway, feel free to edit the article. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 14:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Not otherwise, but in different ways as well. Anyway, I didn't write this article and I don't know much about the other meanings presented in this article, but this is no reason for deletion. Xyboi 14:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --PeteBleackley 14:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete um, AFAIK there are no North Slavs...  Grue  16:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Even if that would be true, which it isn't, should I, as an unbelieving person, take that as an invitation to submit God, Zeus, Aliens, Gnomes and other members of the same family for deletion too, then? ----IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 20:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm slightly surprised that the question of references was not initially raised on the talk page…shades of "shoot first and ask questions after". There seem to be some useful references below: who's going to add them? —Phil | Talk 08:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I just added them. I'll leave it to others to remove the {{accuracy}} tag. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 09:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Miaow Miaow 15:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I am surprized why people keep ignoring that the main issue with wikipedia is wikipedia:Verifiability. I am not at all against fringe theories here, but the more obscure subject is covered, the better it must be referenced.

We have plenty of trolls here to invent nations and languages. For example not long time ago Black Ruthenian language was created several times. (and BTW the waves of this hoax are still on net; e.g. at a website that sells cars: Black_Ruthenian_language). I suggest you to take a look at it and see that this one was written with love and care, much better that the article we are discussing.

Threfore rather than poking at my ignorance you better provide solid references. I tried to search web, but the traces of the term (in non-toy usage) were very weak to convince me in its notability. mikka (t) 20:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprized that, when searching the web, you didn't find this or this publication by prof. Kortlandt, who does use the term North Slavic. Kortlandt can hardly be viewed as a marginal reference. The former reference was on the first google page when I searched for "North Slavic". Xyboi 20:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Kortlandt is one of the sources I had in mind. And here's another reference (regarding the use of "North Slavic" vs. for "East ánd West Slavic" vs. "South Slavic"):
Bernard Comrie & Greville G. Corbett, The Slavonic languages (London, 1993), p. 75, pp. 115-119 and several other places in the same book. An authoritative source, if I may say so.
The existence of the North Slavic constructed languages is obvious enough and needs not to be proven here. If the many references on the web are not good enough for you, the article written by Prof. Tilman Berger definitely should be!
As for the alledged North Slavic background of the Novgorod dialect: I know there are sources for that too, but I can't recall them offhand now. I'll look into that.
Satisfied now? Instead of displaying such a condescending attitude, you might as well have asked these questions before issuing a VFD against the article. I'm not exactly a newbie in wikiland, but let me tell you this: if this is the way potentially prolific new wikipedians are normally dealt with after they write their first or second article, there's a huge chance you'll lose them forever! --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 20:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My "condescending attitude" is in my nomination: "insufficiently notable linguistic exercise. Wikipedia is not a vehicle of its popularization" and related to toy-languages. It is a modern development, played on web. Still, miserable visibility hence notability. The actual linguistic discussion is secondary importance here. If this article survives, it must be renamed into Constructed North Slavic languages. If there was a serious theory about "real" N-Slavic langs, it must be presented under this title, with proper references, for verification. Kortlan's use of the term proves nothing; for all I saw, it is just a matter of convenience. In any case, this if way far from mainstream. As for my attitude, we live in real world. There are muggers and killers and trolls, and me. As you see, nothing terrible happened. Your opinion prevailed. No need to panic. I am not going to fight tooth and claw. mikka (t) 21:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Mikkalai, I'm not trying to popularise anything; I notice a certain phenomenon and I try to describe it, that's all. If you don't care for "toy-languages", that's fine. So leave people alone who do. As far as I am concerned, constructed languages are an art form just like any other art form.
Next: first you claim nothing of what's written can be proven and ask for references, then you get your references, and next you say that "the actual linguistic discussion is of secondary importance". Now, have I missed something?
About renaming the article: no. North Slavic languages are an existing phenomenon, whether you like it or not. And there are two different meanings for it, both given in the article, plus the constructed languages that are based on the premise of one of those. I see no reason for splitting it in two (or three) until the size of the article would demand it. And FYI: Kortlandt is one of the best-esteemed authorities in the field.
And at last, keep your allusions to trolls and the like to yourself, please. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 21:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"And at last": the sentence read "... trolls and me", i.e., I was putting myself in this list not you, hinting that you must deal with these phenomena without panic. IMO wikipedia today no longer especially lacks "prolific" cntributors, but really needs those who can substantiate their work by fact, not by snobish refernce to someone's ignorance. I still don't see solid references in your article. mikka (t) 21:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I haven't said a word about your ignorance. But to be very honest, I am very unpleasantly surprised about the unfriendly tone of this discussion. Anyway, schwamm drüber. How do you want those references placed in the article? References to the very existence of a phenomenon surely shouldn't be placed in the "external links" section? Frankly, instead of complaining, I don't understand why you don't place those footnotes yourself, if you care so much for them. Best regards, --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 22:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I voted keep above already. I'd like to inject some cites, but it's hard to know where to fit them in this flamewar. However: this article could use a little fixup, yes. North Slavic is somewhat tenuous as a language family; it's more often considered an areal pheonomenon, or a dialect continuum including East and West Slavic. I agree the article could stand some more depth and some better sourcing. To me that indicates the article should be improved, not deleted. Some links, though (via google): [48] [49] and
  • Andrii Danylenko. "The 'Greek Accusative' vs. the 'New Slavic Accusative' in the Impersonal Environment: an Areal or Structural Discrepancy?", from the ICHL Indo-European Workshop, August 2005.
  • Tommola, Hannu. 2000. "On the Perfect in North Slavic." Östen Dahl (ed.), Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 441-478.
  • Hult, Arne. "On the verbal morphology of the South Slavic languages (in comparison with the North Slavic languages, especially Russian", Papers from First Conference on Formal Approaches to South Slavic Languages. Plovdiv October 1995. Dragvoll, University of Trondheim, Linguistics Department (= University of Trondheim. Working Papers in Linguistics 28), ss. 105-35. (23)
  • Timberlake, Alan. 1978. On the History of the Velar Phonemes in North Slavic [in Russian with English synopsis]. In Henrik Birnbaum, ed., American Contributions to the Eighth International Congress of Slavists, vol. 1, Linguistics and Poetics. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers.
North Slavic is a real linguistic concept. It's not particularly obscure. Comrie, Timberlake, Hult, Rappaport, and Tommola are all well-known and respected academic linguists with substantial publication records, not hobbyists or amateurs. I repeat, if Mikka thinks that the conlangs aspect of this article is bogus, he should edit the page or take his case to the talk page, not try to do this via AfD. And yes, the vitriolic tone of this discussion has been surprising. Keep your chin up, IJzeren Jan. rodii 00:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Honestly, I do agree with you that the article could do with some more depth. I sincerely hope that people more knowledgeable than me will take care of that, because unlike some others here, I am not a real expert in the field, merely a well-informed amateur. But I'm still not sure you to go about the "cite your sources" thingy. It appears to me that a footnote would be inappropriate if the book(s) in question only prove that a certain word is indeed used in a certain meaning. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 06:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Vozgian is a great article possibility. Unlike some of the constructed languages that get written about here, this is one I've actually heard of. Sevorian is good too. Wiwaxia 06:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ceqli[edit]

I know this page has been previously nominated, deleted, undeleted etc., but a good amount of time has passed this is a nn made up (in 1996) nonsense language and is inappropriate for Wikipedia in my OP. I bet I'll lose this one, but I know there is at least some belief out there that this should be deleted even though some work has been put into it and even though it has been around for some time (with rare editing) Gator (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.Gator (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I don't really like conlangs, but I do a fair amount of work on languages on Wikipedia. This one has two ISO 639-3 codes, which indicates that it has a degree of recognition (even though those codes are in draft form, and it's likely to lose one of them). Ceqli is a fairly important engineered language, and enginerred languages are useful scientific tools for the study of language and logic. It is not a nonsense language. Indeed, I think you would be hard pressed to define such a phenomenon. --Gareth Hughes 20:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can someone provide links for the original delete/undelete discussions so we're not just repeating the same arguments? Peyna 21:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable under ISO recognition and formidable article. --Bchociej 21:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — the article has improved much since, but here is the old debate: votes for deletion/Ceqli language. --Gareth Hughes 21:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I too dislike conlangs and their prominence on Wikipedia, but it's a legitimate example of the type. rodii 23:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What a nonsense! If you don't like conlangs, then just don't pay attention to them. Personally, I don't like pop music, but as for now that has never been a reason for me to have any of it deleted here. Anyway, definitely a notable language, and the reasons for including it are too many even to mention it here. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 08:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, mention a couple. :) DenisMoskowitz 18:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ceqli is a serious experiment with the structure of language, not a "made-up nonsense language". --PeteBleackley 12:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ceqli is well-known and long-standing in the conlanging community. As a response to Lojban emphasizing a world-spanning vocabulary, it's notable as more than "just another conlang". DenisMoskowitz 18:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Izehar 23:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 81.15.146.91 23:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. If it's recognized by ISO, and we already have a decent article about it, I don't see any reason for deletion. narkisto 10:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Son of Hsi[edit]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is an instruction manual, which is unencyclopedic. Dentarthurdent 20:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Delete. How to guide. D-Rock 20:52, 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. --JoanneB 16:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Facts! ! ! ![edit]

Simply non-encyclopedic. Punkmorten 20:39, 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. Enochlau 02:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific-9 League[edit]

Non-notable list of non-notable schools, eight out of nine of which are red links. Stifle 20:42, 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 to delete; kept by default. Johnleemk | Talk 13:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beheading video[edit]

Not a real term and no sources given. No meaning beyond that of the two words put together. 165.189.91.148 20:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not even a colliquialism, let alone a notable one; anything that it could be developed into is probably covered elsewhere Peyna 21:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to decapitation which discusses many of the "beheading video" cases. I wouldn't say this is a colloquial term, but it is safe to say that it is something of a trend. Not enough to justify its own article, but I think the redirect has some potential usefulness though someone is more likely to go straight to Nicholas Berg et al. 23skidoo 21:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If rewritten to include references, Merge with War on Terror; if the references cannot be provided, delete as a neologism. 147.70.242.21 22:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - commonly used term, well known. At minimum Redirect to decapitation, but is used in its own right in relation to recent conflicts. Zordrac 23:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Could you please cite some sources for this. Sorry, but your say-so does not count as verification of popularity. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as saith zordrac. SchmuckyTheCat 00:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 23:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources have been included and if this is merged into decapitation, then I will suggest that car bomb be merged into explosives. Beheading videos are a psy-ops war tactic in their own right at this point. Pozole 01:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment. This user created, and has been the sole editor of, this article. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying tht I am being less than honest? Yes I initiated and have ben the sole editor of this entry. So when can we start merging car bomb and suicide bombing into bomb? I'd also like to see water torture to be deleted and merged into torture, if possible. Pozole 16:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment I'm not implying anything. WP:AFD says, "If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, and clearly base your recommendations on the deletion policy." I didn't see that acknowledgment in your comment. -- Dalbury(Talk) 19:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The changing landscape of career and technical education[edit]

Original research/essay. Delete, or possibly merge useful content (if any) somewhere. - Mike Rosoft 20:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It can be salvaged if someone is willing to rewrite (shorten) it, Wikify it, and provide the references so it could be merged with vocational education. If no references can be provided, then delete as original research/essay. 147.70.242.21 22:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research, not wikified, useless title for searching. rodii 23:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too long a title to be useful. Its the title for an essay. If you can be bothered, merge useful bits to education and career. Zordrac 23:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 23:53, 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 Delete. Enochlau 02:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whitix[edit]

NN "command line operating system" (whatever that may be). Google hit on http://c9online.l2p.net/index.php – "the home of Whitix" – is a dead link. Other Google hits seem to be in Malaysian or something, but I suspect that that "Whitix" is a game character. Creator of Whitix, Matthew Whitworth has been A7 speedied.. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A command line operating system is an OS that uses a prompt (like the old DOS, and most unix varieties), but as far as I can tell Whitix has only one user. The homepage is dead, and the only place it's mentioned in google (in english) is one person's sig file on one message board. Completely NN. --Bachrach44 21:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not really: an operating system doesn't care about command lines or whatever. Unix is an operating system, and happily talks either to a command line or to a windowing environment (X11 on Solaris, Quartz on Mac OS X, for example). The term "command line OS" sort of says to me that Master Whitworth maybe isn't quite as au fait as he thinks he is… Whatever. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Matthew Whitworth here. I wasn't aware of this article on Wikipedia before now, and it was not started by me - by a user called Bakie (I'm not responsible for the vanity :)) - who might not be well-versed in operating systems. Yes, the homepage is dead, but that's because I haven't been able to keep it going. CloudNine
  • Delete NN, vanity. Key phrases like "Matthew is a very talented programmer and has a good future ahead of him." seem to indicate this could even be speedied. HackJandy 22:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 23:53, 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 Delete. Enochlau 12:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion of Thinking and Fashion of thinking[edit]

I've actually spent a long time thinking about this one before I nominated it as I think it's a more complex issue than meets the eye. Google comes up with only ~400 hits for "fashion of thinking" and "fashion of thought", a decent number of which stem from wikipedia and pages that pull from wp. There is only one page in wp which links to this page (despite the fact that this page has been here for months), and that page (thought), doesn't really need the link. The author seems to claim that it's a phrase, but I honestly don't see it. It's simply a less common use of the word fashion. Is "make a left hand turn" worthy of a wp entry? It has 100 times the results of this phrase, and it has about the same claim to notability or uniqueness. --Bachrach44 20:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Bachrach44 20:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good nomination, really good. But you don't have to then put yourself one line down as delete. The closing admin will understand that is what you mean in all but the most extreme cases, and since it's not a vote nothing is gained by it. Still, good nomination.
      brenneman(t)(c) 07:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete colloquialism and dicdif; maybe transwiki Peyna 21:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 23:53, 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 Delete. Enochlau 12:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Sims Mafia[edit]

BJAODN material about a conspiracy in the Sims Online. 165.189.91.148 21:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia articles are never written in the first person. 147.70.242.21 22:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. I didn't read the whole thing. Its massively long, badly written, no references. Worth keeping in the jokes page though. Zordrac 23:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Flapdragon 01:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 23:52, 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 Delete. Enochlau 12:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who i am[edit]

Unverifiable/not notable. Can't find it on IMDB, or a quick google search. The JPS 21:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The stub article is about three months old. Certainly it would have been fleshed out by now. Many more details will need to be provided if this article is to survive. Referencing will definitely help, as would an actor list and a synopsis of the plot. Withholding vote until/unless these issues are addressed. 147.70.242.21 23:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Strong Delete - if/when the author has the references to the article in question he/she can start anew and write a superior article that could survive on Wikipedia. 147.70.242.21 23:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sounds like a cool name for a movie though. I'd watch it if it came out. Zordrac 23:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No entry on IMDb. *drew 08:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 23:52, 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 Delete. Enochlau 02:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aquatic (demogroup)[edit]

I can't find any evidence of notability in the article or through Google. Also vanity. Punkmorten 21:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I wish I could figure out what they do. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 23:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To Dalbury: they make demos. But there's no claim of notability. - Bobet 19:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks for the clarification. -- Dalbury(Talk) 20:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 12:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryne's Theory[edit]

It is original research as defined by AFDP, Section 3 --Bchociej 21:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete yep, non verifyable for either Ryne's Theory or Ryne Hess on the oracle of the modern age, Google. --Syrthiss 21:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Changing vote to Speedy Delete G3 (pure vandalism) based on the user's other contributions (past and today). --Syrthiss 21:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am the originator of the theory. I dont not understand how it cannot be a theory? Also, I made this page at school so I am not the one who has edited and added bogus material to other pages, ever computer at school has same IP.

Wikipedia has a policy of no original research, so this material is not appropriate as an article here. In addition, I find it dubious that you are the creator of the article as (1) your ip is different than the article creator's and (2) they aren't even in the same range. The article was created by someone on cox.net, and you are on US West Internet. --Syrthiss 22:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The IP addresses don't prove a lot. This is me 86.137.204.73 00:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And this is me, too. 192.18.1.5 00:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just shows that unregistered users can be confusing... (this is also me). As for the article, unless the author can produce some verifiable evidence of these "people all over the world" who are "fiercely debating" what looks like an aspect of multiverse theory, Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article at school and submitted it 10 minutes before the bell rang. I am now at home.

  • Speedy delete - the anonymous poster (who should sign his entries on Talk pages) admitted that it was his original "theory" (actually in scientific terms, it is a hypothesis or conjecture, not a theory, until it has been tested). I doubt that the "theory" has been peer reviewed in any scientific periodical; the lack of attributions (there wouldn't be any for an original conjecture) and lack of Wikification do not help the cause here. If the anonymous poster didn't create the hypothesis, the article should be deleted as fiction. 147.70.242.21 23:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - This is just silliness really. Kreydon 00:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is not speedyable. It is, however, deletable. So delete. Denni ☯ 05:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --pgk(talk) 20:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Im at my university now, should be same IP as the original article

  • Delete per nom. Izehar 23:51, 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, so article kept. Johnleemk | Talk 12:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IsraPundit[edit]

Delete random blog with an opinion about Israel. The one and only Google hit is the website itself, thus is is completely non-verifiable in anything other than its mere existence. Alexa rank 111,000th or so. (PS. It was listed in XD2, but that isn't a real thing and we should just do away with this kind of article.) -Splashtalk 21:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • [50] I got 732,000 Google hits for this blog. Accredited Google News source see [51] so notable enough for mine. Google checks out each of its Google News sources before it includes them so that adds third party credibility. Keep.Capitalistroadster 22:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did include the .com in my search, which was a mistake. However, those thousands are victim to the usual effects. Only 50 of them are useful. -Splashtalk 23:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete few visitors, unverfiable Lotsofissues 06:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not much of an article, but the blog is notable, perhaps one of the most notable Israel blogs. --Daniel11 04:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listology[edit]

Delete a website blurb. It is "comprised of several hundred members", and so are billions upon billions of other fora etc etc. Alexa rank 137,000th and only Google hit is the site itself so it is far far below the threshold of any kind of reliable, third-party verification beyond the mere fact of its existence. (PS: It was listed in XD2, but we really should just get rid of it properly.) -Splashtalk 21:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete clearly does not fullfill any of the suggested guidelines in WP:WEB. Even if they are just suggetions, this is NN. HackJandy 22:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Izehar 23:50, 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 consensus to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baptism by desire[edit]

Merge into Baptism? Just doesn't seem broad enough a topic to stand on its own.-- Syrthiss 21:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm leaning towards keep with the revisions, especially after looking at how large Baptism is.--Syrthiss 16:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per nom. Changing vote to Keep, I've changed my mind. This is apparently a major theological point, article has more than enough material to stand on its own now. -- Saikiri 21:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a valid stub on an important topic, with wider implications than you might think. Smerdis of Tlön 22:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom in its present form., Perhaps Smerdis of Tlön would care to flesh out the article with some verifiable encyclopædic facts as to these "wider implications", rather than just asserting their existence. I've cleaned up the more obvious typos. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've expanded the article, with references to related parts of the Catechism to try to put it in context, and contrasted it with a position held by many Protestants. Not sure what the Eastern Orthodox churches say about this. Smerdis of Tlön 16:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following expansion by Smerdis of Tlön. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep or rename(?) to baptismus flaminis, as it is a major idea in Catholicism. Also note the google hit count of over 10 thousand. Smmurphy 00:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Google test is irrelevant since almost no one seems to want to delete the info, since it's obviously notable in an obscure way. This topic is already covered in Baptism; why make it a separate article? Redirect; no merge necessary. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as expanded —Wahoofive (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't including the google link to assert the relevance of mentioning the topic, but rather to let you take a look at the amount of depth and histiry that articles like this one. I appreciate Tony's criticism, and I hope someone (maybe me?) will have the time tomorrow to flesh out the article. Smmurphy 06:22, 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 Delete. Enochlau 12:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Violet blood[edit]

Band vanity. Only recording is a demo. 165.189.91.148 21:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails to meet notability criteria set out in WP:MUSIC. --Stormie 01:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 00:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 12:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Burr Oak Tool and Gauge[edit]

An editor removed the copyvio portion of the article, the author admitted most of the rest was a hoax. What is left is about a real company so should be thought about here. I think they're just your Joe Random Company Limited. This was blanked by the not-very-experimental WP:XD scheme. -Splashtalk 21:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect into Sturgis, Michigan. They're the largest local company with 325 employees. — RJH 15:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect as per RJH (if it's worth it for one sentence of trivia) Pete.Hurd 00:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete 0/4/1(see talk page) karmafist 20:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Condorcet Instant Runoff Voting[edit]

This was blanked by an WP:XD-er, with a somewhat dismissive edit summary questioning the method's existence. Google would seem to have similar problems with it. Delete invented voting scheme. Can I use the word voting for a change? -Splashtalk 22:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Can I use the word voting for a change?" How nostalgic! HackJandy 22:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it can be documented with references, it should be kept; if not, delete. It appears to be a variant of two widely-used voting methods, neither of which is done here. 147.70.242.21 23:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is here? Peyna 00:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Last time I checked, this is a page for voting for/against deleting an article about a voting method. B.Wind 04:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps 147.70.242.21 was referring to the place he was at when he wrote that message. Therefore, all we can be certain of is that at 147.70.242.21's house they don't use a Condorcet or Instant Runoff Voting. Either way, it was a pretty ambiguous statement and I refuse to believe he was merely referring to AfD. Peyna 04:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Condorcet method, if this info is not already there, and if someone can cite a source. There is a Condorcet-Smith system, of which this seems to be a modification. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - normally I'd say merge or keep but four Google hits including this one indicates either original research or a very substantial verifiability problem. Or maybe a neologism. Or a hoax. Or something else that WP:ISNOT. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 16:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Condorcet Approval Instant Runoff Voting. BD2412 T 18:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zach_Grooten[edit]

Vanity page or misplaced user page. Sanbeg 16:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete* - the whole way it is written is like a user page. Zordrac 23:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Flapdragon 00:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 23:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep THIS PAGE !!!!!THIS PAGE IS AWESOME I DONT KNOW WHAT U GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!

IT ROXORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT ROXORS comment by 70.118.250.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who also vandalized this AfD page by erasing all other votes.

The page should be kept, it does no harm to anybody and does not inhibit viewing of any other article. If you disagree and wish that it be removed, you should realize that you could just avoid going to it entirely. I say keep the page because it is not detrimental to anything.

  • delete as per nom. Previous commentator (68.205.81.26) is politely encouraged to go read up on Wikipedia's policies, aims, etc. Pete.Hurd 23:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 12:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technoligarchy[edit]

A Google search only turns up 24 hits; doesn't seem very notable, if it even is a word at that. Delete --Spring Rubber 22:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Funnily enough, the first result on Google was one debating its merits as a word. Delete as possible original research and sketchy notability. Deltabeignet 22:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Only 3 valid refs. [52], [53] and [54]. At *ABSOLUTE* best, its a dic def. But those 3 don't seem to be very valid, as all 3 are blogs. Most likely a made up word or mis-spelling. Zordrac 23:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 23:49, 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 Delete. Enochlau 12:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dana ste.claire[edit]

This was another XD'd page. It was originally vanity by the subject's wife or daughter. I've completely rewritten it as a stub. However, he is so off-the-radar that the source I cite claims 3 books, only lists 2 of which he is the author of only 1 (the editor of the other). Amazon can't find his 3rd work, either. The positions he holds are of strictly local consequence, and all his links are red. Delete fairly normal human being. -Splashtalk 22:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I didn't realise that WP:XD was now a real policy. I thought it was still just a theory. Zordrac 23:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm, it is still only experimental. Unfortunately, the participants have not been cleaning up after their experiments. -Splashtalk 23:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just give them a good ol' {{subst:blank2}} when they do that. Peyna 00:42, 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 Delete. Enochlau 12:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Annabelle Hegedus[edit]

Borderline speedy... claim to fame is being a writer, but I see no evidence that anything she's written has actually been published. She also apparently wrote this article (the authur User:Akh984 shares a username with the AIM/Yahoo identities [55] of the article's subject). At any rate Wikipedia is not self promotion. --W.marsh 23:10, 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 consensus to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Francis Ward[edit]

Fails google test --Dangherous 23:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I am abstaining for now. The article itself clearly establishes notability alright, having held a seat in the Irish parliament is good enough for that. My worry is the verifiablility of this, because no sources have been cited, and I am having trouble finding any information on this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for my oversight, references have been added. Just to clarify, Ward's seat was not in the Irish parliament, but rather in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom Parliament at Westminster. Gustavus 15:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - would it be possible for you to upload those texts to Wikisource? I was unable to access them from The Times website (not surprising because of their dates). Furthermore, I wasn't able to retrieve lists of MPs from either the Parliament website or the History of Parliament website to confirm the information. The Parliament website suggested that UK denizens may be able to retrieve historical lists, though. --Syrthiss 15:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • An online digital archive of the London Times from 1785 to 1985 is available via the Thomson Gale detabases (subscription required). My understanding it that uploading the articles themselves would be a breach of copyright. I do recall that there is a publication entitled "Who's Who of British Members of Parliament", which might be of use for verification purposes, but I don't know what periods it covers; the standard "Who's Who" starts, I think, sometime in the 1890's. I have to agree that the UK Parliament is quite poor in terms of the extent of the historical information it provides online. Gustavus 17:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. He is listed as an MP at [56]. -- Dalbury(Talk) 18:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In light of the above link from Dalbury, I'll vote Keep. And thanks Gustavus for your comment above. You might be able to upload that information depending on what the copyright laws are in the UK. In the US, most material published before 1923 is considered public domain...but I'll add this link to the sources in any case to help verifiability. --Syrthiss 18:53, 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 Delete. Enochlau 12:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wired-Eyes[edit]

Delete websitedesigncompanycruft. -Splashtalk 23:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nothing in the article establishes notariety. Possible advertising. 147.70.242.21 23:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN, ad. -- Dalbury(Talk) 18:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Izehar 23:48, 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 Delete. Enochlau 02:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yakov Newman[edit]

Non-notable bio & advertising. Perhaps could be speedied? -202.156.6.54 23:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - Yakov's claim to fame is......? 147.70.242.21 23:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might His life has been filled with wonderful accomplishments and exquisite sufferings be a claim to notability? Looks pretty much a {{nn-bio}} speedy delete candidate to me. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slowly as some claims to fame but falls well short of WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 00:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Flapdragon 00:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - being a "a Talmudic scholar, genius, social activist, and poet" does not establish notability. Neither does being a "hippie scholar." B.Wind 05:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Please give me (I am the original author) and others time to make the case. Mr. Newman possesses identifiable expertise in his field and he is engaged in important scholarship that is recognized by his peers. Thank you! Redtopusa 20:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC) Please also see the following discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Yakov_Newman[reply]
  • Clean it up, but keep it! Yakov deals with some pretty esoteric stuff, but he is an expert and his work is important. Unfortunately, his colleagues are more likely to be praying in front of a certain wall in Jerusalem than to be editing Wiki's. It's going to be hard to find legitimate peers to contribute, he runs in some fairly elite circles. Most people have no idea his world even exists. bluezionlion 30 November 2005
  • Comment. The last two comments/votes are from the two editors who have worked on the article. Check their histories and the history of the article in question - if this isn't sockpuppetry, it's an interesting coincidence. B.Wind 04:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. There is no such thing as a coincidence. I was alerted to the situation, and I have been transparently advocating and contributing. (I have been trying to clean up the previous work in an attempt to make it more acceptable, and I invite you to do the same.) Hopefully, there is no need for conspiracy theories, the trail has been well marked and is still quite warm. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. bluezionlion 30 November 2005
    • Bluezionlion, it would be most appreciated if you don't delete or revert votes when you edit this page. The deleted vote has been restored above. B.Wind 05:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • B.Wind, Please go back and review the log. At no time have I deleted any vote! You owe me an apology, I hope you are an individual of sufficient quality to actually set the record straight. Perhaps the phenomenon you reference was due to our simultaneously posting, or to my editing my own grammar. I never altered your or anyone else's vote. bluezionlion 30 November 2005
    • B.Wind, I am tired and going to retire. If you post anything directed toward me, please be patient. I will attempt to respond to you tomorrow. bluezionlion 30 November 2005
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 18:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 23:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dalbury & Izehar, What can I do to keep this thing from going under? Can you help me? Please edit out the stuff that is getting me in trouble, or tell me what I need to add. Thanks! Redtopusa 00:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I've already responded to your message on my talk page. Basically, you have to prove to us he meets WP:BIO. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Dalbury, Thank you very much for getting back to me. I really appreciate it. I believe there is place in Wikipedia for the Newman article based upon the criteria given within the following excerpts of the WP:BIO:
          "Biographies on the following people may be included in Wikipedia. This list is not all-inclusive. There are numerous biographies on Wikipedia on people who do not fall under any of these categories, but there is no intention to delete them all. . . . Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field. Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. . . ." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BIO#People_still_alive)
        • Mr. Newman obtained his Talmudic expertise in the Yeshiva world of Jerusalem, and he excels in the field because of his genius. Unfortunately, it is difficult for an outsider to have that sufficiently documented or quantified. It's kind of an insider thing--the people who know are able to recognize the people who know. Yakov is unique, though, in that he is able to add to that rich background considerable expertise in philosophy and the hard sciences. He is also able to bring a wealth of colorful life experiences and adventures obtained while traveling the world. He really is someone odd and wonderful--a treasure. I want to share him, but I don't know how to get it across who he is. Hopefully, I am can make enough progress to save the article. Again, I really appreciate you helping me. Thanks! Redtopusa 09:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, text and pic come from http://www.danishgrove.com/newman/biography.html. Flapdragon 14:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Dalbury & Flapdragon, I am very thankful for your time and your responses. I would like to continue to draw on the feedback I have received from you and others to refine this thing until it ultimately works. (How does the Dylan Thomas poem go? "Do not go gentle into that good night...")

Of course, my primary ambition is to document the fact that Yakov Newman is a notable Talmudic scholar and expert on Judaica. But, that is extremely difficult to do. Most of us are accustomed to the system of degrees, peer review, and publishing used within Western Academia to establish credibility. The Yeshiva world works a little differently than that. The sages there do not spend too much time worrying about being accepted as an expert by those who are not of that world, so I have had to struggle for outside material. To this point I have found documentation for him being cited by the author of a Kabbala manual. And, I have found a Conference program listing him as being a presenter on Jewish/Christian history. That is not much, I know, but I hope that it will be seen as evidence that he is regarded in certain circles as being an authority.

Regarding Mr. Newman's poetry, that really isn't a priority for me. He is a talented poet, but that is primarily only going to be known by a few folks along the coffee shop circuit between Boston and Berkley, so I am willing to remove such a claim if it presents a problem.

As for Mr. Newman being a genius, I present the following evidence: The Wiktionary defines genius as meaning "someone possessing extraordinary intelligence or skill." (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/genius) According to the official Mensa International website, "membership in Mensa is open to persons who have attained a score within the upper two percent of the general population on an approved intelligence test that has been properly administered and supervised." (http://www.mensa.org/index0.php?page=10) The official Utah Mensa website identifies Yakov Newman as being the Deputy "LocSec" (Local Secretary) for Utah (Region 9, Group 840) in May of 2002. (http://www.geocities.com/utahmensa/may01.htm) I believe the preceding sufficiently establishes the fact that Mr. Newman is a genius. But, I will remove that term if it sounds like hyperbole.

As for Mr. Newman being a notable, one of the criteria given in the [WP:BIO] is that of being someone in the news: On March 18, 2003, the Deseret Morning News reported under the headline "Peace protest ends in arrests" (page B-2) that Yakov Newman and nine other members of "Utah Citizens for Peace entered [U.S. Congressman, Jim] Matheson's office Monday and demanded he change his stand on the pending [Iraq] war. They refused to leave his office if that stand didn't change — even if it meant some arrests..." Accompanying the article is a photograph of Yakov reading a prayer book while he and another protester are being arrested. (See Deseret Morning News Archives)

This incident is also documented on the following websites:

As for the biography, it actually originates with a public domain media kit that Mr. Newman supplies to organizations that he addresses. The first time I saw it was on the Utah Atheist website some years back. They posted it after they had invited him to address their organization. Since then it has bounced around the web in various incarnations.

So, what do you think? Am I making any progress? Thanks! Redtopusa 01:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • I repeat: without a filibuster (preferably in three sentences or less), what is his claim to fame and what separates him from other scholars? Both the article and posts from Retopusa and Bluezionlion indicated more an essay of idol worship rather than an encyclopedic article. With all the words going on, what would make Mr. Newman noteworthy to the average Joe Blow in Peoria (or Manchester)? 147.70.242.21 19:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • (1) Yakov Newman's claim to fame is that he is a news-making public figure and a rare authority in Talmudic studies.
      • (2) What separates him from other scholars is his genius and pioneering efforts within the discipline.
      • (3) He is noteworthy to the average person because he represents one of the few sources accessible to such an individual for traditional Talmudic learning. Redtopusa 22:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Redtopusa, none of those contentions make him rise to meet the notability criteria:

1)"News making public figure" -- being part of a group who had a sit-in, for example -- wouldn't be sufficient in that it doesn't separate himself from the others in the activity. The term "news making public figure" is an exceptionally vague term -- a county commissioner making the news when he bowled a perfect 300 game, for example, wouldn't in itself merit inclusion in Wikipedia.

2)The fact that he is a "rare authority on Talmudic studies" (by whose objective standards? That would have to be referenced, too... but I digress) is not notable to anybody outside the field. If that were the case, we'd have to include "premier authorities" of every possible field of Academia... and that is most highly POV at best.

3)Genius is not noteworthiness in itself - there are over 6 million geniuses in the United States alone - and "pioneering efforts within the discipline" harkens back to my comment #2 above.

4)And your #3 ("He represents one of the few sources accessible to such an individual for traditional Talmudic learning") is essentially a restatement of "rare authority on Talmudic studies," and until/unless Talmudic studies get more mainstream attention, it cannot be notable enough for a general-purpose reference.

While I am sympathetic to your (and Bluezionlion's) passion for Mr. Newman (and I know you are doing this in good faith - coincidence aside (per B.Wind)), there are more appropriate places and resources for your project at this time. Until Mr. Newman gets much more national notice, I cannot see this endeavor succeeding here, and I must maintain my advocacy for deletion. 147.70.242.21 23:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Version: I have greatly reduced the article to include only what I felt I could document. I wish it were better, but I think it is the best I can do. If it still fails to meet the necessary criteria, please delete it with my blessing. Thanks to everyone who worked with me on this. It has been fun. May you and your loved ones be blessed! Redtopusa 00:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redtopusa, though I feel you have had trouble relating to the Wikipedia concept, I for one salute your passion, persistence, good faith and courtesy. I feel sure there will be things you can contribute to articles such as Talmud, Yeshiva, Judaica etc. The essential thing is to make sure what you add is objective, verifiable, neutrally expressed and genuinely notable. Best wishes, Flapdragon 02:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree. I think that it was simply too early for this article. The notoriety of Yakov Newman needs to be established to a much wider audience. One useful way is to "work your way" down from general to specific (for example, while a particular actor in himself might not be notable, he could be mentioned in an article covering a motion picture or television series in which he appeared). Redtopusa, please don't let a stumble dissuade you from writing great articles - just about all of us get into similar situations at one time or another, and not necessarily at Wikipedia. B.Wind 00:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Daily Show correspondent titles[edit]

Delete Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Minor trivia that is not useful. ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:37, 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. Enochlau 02:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lightfoot[edit]

Halls of residence are not notable StoatBringer 23:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be in accordance with the knowledge as Lightfoot house. I am in postion to know this, as i am currnetly an undergraduate at St.chads college (unsigned article by 129.234.4.76, 23:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete per nom. 147.70.242.21 00:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 18:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 23:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that this is highly useful information, especially for prospective undergraduates at Durham Univerity.
  • Delete, pointless. Not-notable. ♠PMC♠ 00:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lightfoot Golf Academy[edit]

Non-notable college game organisation StoatBringer 23:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. And that is exactly what this is. Yet another group of university students has made up a game. There are no sources on the subject. Unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 03:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — No hits in google. No evidence of notability. Future indoor golf champions? ROFLMAO... — RJH 15:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe they play on simulators. -- Dalbury(Talk) 18:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 23:47, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_29&oldid=1081093235"