Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 11 February 13 >

Purge server cache

February 12[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. – Sceptre (Talk) 12:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil 4 (film)[edit]

  • "Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled", like it says in the tag, okay? --Calton | Talk 05:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No. They never officially announced a fourth film, only the possibility of doing one. There's no concrete plans on doing a fourth film and everything in this article is nothing but speculation and gossip. It's the same reason why every single article on Batman Begins 2 gets deleted. Jonny2x4 20:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even in the absence of an official announcement, it seems fairly clear that there are well-established and credible plans and expectations for this movie to be done. The article states (I'm assuming truthfully, until someone changes it) that "Producer Paul W. S. Anderson has signed onto the project and may write the script", so obviously there is at least a hypothetical project within the studio for him to sign onto. And if nothing else, it appears that the plans themselves for this movie are notable enough for an article (i.e., the article can be about present plans and verifiable reports instead of about a nonexistent future movie). –Sommers (Talk) 21:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even in the absence of an official announcement... Bzzt. Game over: unverfied crystal-ballism. --Calton | Talk 05:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball."
  • Delete Crystal ballage --Ruby 23:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep anounced films to do not fall under "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". savidan(talk) (e@) 00:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The crystal ball objection is not for the announced film, but for if and when it will be announced. --Ruby 04:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sounds notable. --Terence Ong 05:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure crystal-ball: in Hollywood, nothing is settled until the cameras begin rolling and sometimes not even then. See Development hell. --Calton | Talk 05:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If they haven't even confirmed if they'll make the film, that's crystal ballery at its finest. --Kinu t/c 06:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sonys has confirmed possible creation of the film as the script details of Extinction still stand to lead into the forth film. If the plot details have changed for the third film somebody please provide a source, otherwise the film is still in early pre-production stages. P.S. why was this article was nominated twice for deletion when you cant even prove the film wont be made? Empty2005 08:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...when you cant even prove the film wont be made? You've got it precisely backwards: you need to prove it IS being made. And your use of weasel words isn't doing that. --Calton | Talk 08:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Twigger[edit]

Delete, non-notable, minor student activist and local official. Mtiedemann 00:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • remove - seems to be personal ad. (by User:Tawker)
  • delete as an un notable--Cr0w bar 00:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity article. Deserves speedy delete --Mecanismo | Talk 00:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. moink 00:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He doesn't meet WP:BIO. Student politician. However, article does assrt notability so it can't be speedied. Capitalistroadster 00:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sort of asserts notability, but only sort of. --Allen 00:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hardly notable. List of links make no mention of this minor bureaucrat. Camillus (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. vanity article, I don't even know this person...--IAMTHEEGGMAN (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity & nn. Mikker ... 02:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. --Terence Ong 02:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable vanity. --Kinu 02:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn bio per nom Ruby 02:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, WP:BIO. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 03:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NN. VegaDark 04:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn bio. Royal Blue 05:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:BIO. --Siva1979Talk to me06:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity spam. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 18:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per Siva1979 and Mikkerpikker. Not notable, does not meet required standards. Thor Malmjursson 18:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete personal ad. Yamaguchi先生 01:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 03:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge with Factory Records. Babajobu 17:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factory Benelux[edit]

I don't find this notable at all, not article really--Cr0w bar 00:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity article, void of any encyclopedic value --Mecanismo | Talk 00:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it can be verified, Merge with Factory Records - not enough for an article about a subsiduary which ceased to exist 18 years ago. Camillus (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RadioRevista.com[edit]

A website that has only a not too active forum. Alexa rank 3,628,487. Not-notable.


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

The result of the debate was keep -- Curps 06:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rancocas Valley Regional High School[edit]

Not notable at all, clearly not ever going to be more than stub, should delete--Cr0w bar 00:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It looks like a lot of work went into it - it's not a stub. It should be improved, but not deleted entirely. --Tony (Talk), Vandalism Ninja 00:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, reads like the school's site. Completely void of encyclopedic value --Mecanismo | Talk 00:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My understanding of current consensus is that high schools are usually notable. Please point me somewhere if I'm wrong. --Allen 00:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - see Wikipedia:Schools. However, article needs to have POV written out of it, and phrases like "our" and "we" taken out, also WP:Schools suggests that only the principal should be mentioned. Camillus (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All schools deserve a spot on wikipedia, just because it's a stub doesn't mean it should be deleted. Always has the potential to be expanded. --lightdarkness (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Schools are more notable than subway stations, and subways stations are considered notable per se. Monicasdude 01:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but tidy, as per above. -- 9cds(talk) 01:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a stub but a useful one. Could be expanded. Mikker ... 02:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, all schools are notable. --Terence Ong 02:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I have no idea who submitted this AfD, or why, but a cursory review of the article demonstrates that it meets all of the criteria for retention per WP:SCH. This battle has been fought on high school articles dozens of times with AfD's failing 99.9% of the time, even with articles that had far less content. The article was also been created as part of Wikiproject New Jersey, which is expanding many articles related to the state of New Jersey, with a particular emphasis on education. Furthermore, as the school is a regional high school, serving students from multiple municipalities, the text cannot be simply merged into one article. Clearly the article will benefit improvement and expansion. But the user who created this AfD has been on Wikipedia for barely 12 hours and has already submitted several AfDs without clear justification. I fail to see any reason that a Speedy Keep should not be the result. Alansohn 04:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All verifiable schools are notable. Carioca 05:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rid of the POV. Royal Blue 05:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable. --Siva1979Talk to me06:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep -- Curps 06:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unschooling[edit]

Does not seem like word?--Cr0w bar 00:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's a neologism, but it's a hot topic lately. --Allen 00:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely a real phenomenon, and a belief system. moink 00:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - er, this is getting to be a pattern, CrOw bar... Perfectly suitable article, I've heard of this idea a lot. Lots of references in article. Camillus (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Invalid reason for deletion. SYCTHOStalk 01:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep neologism, sure, but most articles in this encyc. were once neologisms... Mikker ... 02:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete unless it can be demonstrated that this is actually a term-of-art in the references cited. Otherwise its notability has not yet been established. Savidan 02:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 03:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Remohol 03:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible speediest keep evar. Most definitely legit. Coined by John Caldwell Holt, a world-renowned educational theorist (that may be a neologism right there, but it sounds cool). In fact, I actually unschool myself. --Rory096 05:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - valid article, I don't get why it's up for deletion -- Tawker 06:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, has been around forever. Daniel Case 06:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep --Siva1979Talk to me06:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was 'Speedy Keep'. Jaranda wat's sup 06:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norma Candal[edit]

not notable? or is--Cr0w bar 00:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Perfectly notable, IMDB entry etc. etc. Camillus (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article makes notability clear. --Allen 00:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - IMDB asserts enough notability for me :-) --lightdarkness (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. What's the issue? Monicasdude 01:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Camillus. Mikker ... 02:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per above. Savidan 02:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Camillus Ruby 02:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an IMDB entry is considered notable. --Terence Ong 03:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as clearly notable. Note that somebody removed the AfD tag with the reason "The deletion tag was posted by an anon who has no notion of what he or she is doing." --Rory096 03:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Norma Candal is beloved by milloins of Puerto Ricans and it is an insult to nominate this page for deletion on the week that she passed away. This anon is new and does not understand how Wiki works. Tony the Marine 04:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Above Joelito 04:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just lol'ed in real life. —Joseph | Talk 04:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Cjrs 79 05:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - McNeight 05:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Everyking 05:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Notability is more than sufficient. --Vizcarra 05:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: this is key Puerto Rican figure...no reason at all for it's deletion<<Coburn_Pharr>> 05:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: I remember "Doña Tere" on television

Antonio Not NormaL Martin

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Potts[edit]

Delete, non-notable, possible vanity. Mtiedemann 00:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sounds very un notable please delete it--Cr0w bar 00:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete imagine we had an article on every single political party activist. Not notable enough, I'm afraid. Camillus (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn & vanity. Mikker ... 02:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete minor political functionary Ruby 02:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. --Terence Ong 03:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn/vanity. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 03:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Richard F. 04:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. Car salesman 14:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Vanity article, does not merit inclusion or meet WP:BIO. Thor Malmjursson 18:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete seems nn, but maybe this guy actually consulted for someone famous? The current article doesn't mention any such work so I would delete. If kept, it needs serious cleanup in terms of spelling/grammar. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 18:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am actually a member of the Liberal Democrat party, and I've never heard of him! Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definetly vanity --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 00:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn vanity. Blnguyen 03:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep -- Curps 06:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Car Free Days[edit]

No event of this name?--Cr0w bar 00:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - detailed article provides many, many examples of these events, with external links and everything. CDC (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - you're joking aren't you? World renown, as proved by links in article. Camillus (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as above. moink 00:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Clearly a real event, and notable. --Allen 00:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable, per above. --lightdarkness (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Invalid reason for deletion. SYCTHOStalk 01:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep events are real and significant. Bad ideas 01:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep def. a real event (one happens early in South Africa). Mikker ... 02:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable event. --Terence Ong 03:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, These are copyrite infingments. --Terence Ong 03:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the above comment was actually posted by User:68.225.228.111, with what appears to be a copied signature. moink 05:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep StarTrek 06:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 00:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alasdair Fraser[edit]

Not notable- done nothing notable. waste of a page -- delete--Light current 01:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems harsh. Plenty of folks pay to get in to the rooms he plays, and he fills those rooms pretty well, that I've seen. Discography. Has written at least one tune that made it into a standard tune collection: Tommy's Tarboukas in the Portland book. -- keep -- Just plain Bill 03:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep: He has a whole collection of albums at Amazon listed here. This goes far beyond meeting WP:BAND. And this Afd is messed up. Both steps 2 and 3 were not followed correctly. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Definitely notable. --Allen 00:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand as per Wknight94. Capitalistroadster 00:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep What is wrong with this article, other than it could be expanded? Camillus (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Per WKnight94 --lightdarkness (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as per Wknight94. Monicasdude 01:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Wknight94. --Terence Ong 03:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep StarTrek 06:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone but nom. Definitely worth a cleanup and expansion as well. --Kinu 06:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Instead of deleting it, list it as a stub, and seek expansion. Thor Malmjursson 18:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no opinion about the page, but the nomination is dreadful! "Done nothing waste of a page!"?? JeezJcuk 19:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 37,000 Googles for a folk musician is extraordinary. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks notable, just expand --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 00:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep no need to insult the subject of any article during discussion. Yamaguchi先生 01:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs expansion and cleanup, but there's no question that he merits a Wikipedia listing. Dsreyn 20:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Poor nomination. Merchbow 23:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as per WP:BAND. --Craig Stuntz 15:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep -- Curps 06:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Peace[edit]

made up? not really of note? too much like war and peace used to make un-notable person sound farmiliar notable?--Cr0w bar 00:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - not made up at all. I remember him from his Bowie days. Credited on Bowie albums. Camillus (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is well referenced and supported by Allmusic.com [1].

Capitalistroadster 00:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above. SYCTHOStalk 01:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Minimally but unquestionably notable. Monicasdude 01:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, all of the AFDs nominated by this user, are bad faith ones. --Terence Ong 04:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all the reasons stated above. Richard F. 05:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. I see the nominator has been blocked for trolling as well. None too soon. --Kinu 06:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 19:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Victimization of Native American Women[edit]

Delete. I'm not disagreeing that the phenomenon exists. I'm just not sure it should have a page. This article leads with THREE (now four, actually) boxes: a POV tag, a cleanup tag, and an original research tag. And I think the POV and original research may be inherent problems with the topic. Some of the text can be included in rape or sexual assault or Native American, and the rest should be deleted. moink 00:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Assuming it's not entirely original research, I'd merge what's salvageable into Native American. Chairman S. 01:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep problems with POV, yes, but I think there is enough material for this to become an article in its own right. Mikker ... 02:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with sexual violence as linked in the article Ruby 02:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with sexual violence as linked in article. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 03:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to those voting merge: Sexual violence redirects to rape. moink 04:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the title itself is POV. Paul Carpenter 11:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, essay dumped on WP. Pavel Vozenilek 12:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a soapbox. Daniel Case 14:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but make it NPOV and wikify/cleanup. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 18:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Heavily POV, should be NPOV'd and dealt with accordingly, could be made into a valid article. Thor Malmjursson 18:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup including title if needs be Jcuk 19:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge although not quite sure where to: the article (now) makes a good case for this being a documented problem, but it should be covered together with other ethnic groups and other socio-economic groups for context, since it's far from clear that the problem is inherently one of Native Americans, rather than one of poor folks. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References are there so I don't think it's original research but it could be NPOV'ed --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 00:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with pages pertaining to native americans, or sexual abuse, as it is highly inherently POV titlea as it stands.Blnguyen 03:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is contaminated from start to finish with a unitary, non-neutral POV. Furthermore, it's been tagged for cleanup for nearly 3 months and it's no better than it was. In addition, the sourcing is general (works listed at end, no footnotes, no page numbers), making the task of verifying the sourcing and rewriting the article nearly impossible to perform in good faith. To the folks above who are advocating merge, or keep but rewrite: would you like fries with that? How about a pony? A magic pony that flies and belches stingless bumblebees? -ikkyu2 (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 00:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A rising tide lifts all boats[edit]

too short to be article or stub? what is an "all" and how does it mean?--Cr0w bar 00:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep a fairly good, clear stub for a widely-used term in United States political discourse. CDC (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per cdc. Bad ideas 01:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep famous phrase that could be expanded. Mikker ... 02:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. As notable a term as "irrational exuberance." --Kinu 02:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, but are you sure there isn't another term for this. Its possible that this needs to be merged into another economics article but I don't know what off the top of my head. Shortness is not a reason for deletion. Its long enough to establish notability, etc. Merge and Redirect with Keynesian economics. Savidan 02:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect with Supply-side economics instead Ruby 03:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep'. A redirect to either Keynesian economics or supplyside economics would not the best options as it could be used by either. Capitalistroadster 04:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Widely used phrase and concept. (try a Gsearch). —ERcheck @ 05:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per CDC and expand. CVG777 06:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Also note the preposterous nomination statement: what is an "all" and how does it mean?, likely bad faith. -- Curps 06:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep widely used aphorism. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable and do not redirect. Did the nom even read the article? Turnstep 16:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, considering that the nominator has been banned from wikipedia and that the nomination itself is somewhat incoherent, I'm going to guess that this may have been a bad faith nom. Night Gyr 07:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scili challenge[edit]

Unsourced, unverifiable description of a questionably-notable drinking game performed at one university. CDC (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 19:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 01:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failure To Deliver Shares (FTD)[edit]

POV fork of Naked short selling by users seeking to avoid seeking consensus on that article's talk page. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Also be aware that this page's existence has been advertised on outside pages, so meatpuppetry may ensue. Please check commenters' contributions carefully. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious POV fork Savidan 03:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV StarTrek 06:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Re ESkog's point above: the vandalism that necessitated protection of the page was apparently a result of meatpuppetry as well. See, e.g., "Wikipedia Entry On Naked Short Selling Hijacked by Bad Guys?", "Sanity Check" blog, Jan. 28. The proprietor of the "Sanity Check" website, Bob O'Brien, is director of the National Coalition Against Naked Shortselling. According to the editing history, he is a principal author of Failure To Deliver Shares (FTD)--Mantanmoreland 15:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Naked short selling or delete. Stifle 16:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blatant POV fork, unencyclopedic, poorly written and rambling. Written by users from organized pressure group as a way of circumventing consensus -- they just stalked off and wrote this article. It focuses on a technical aspect of the naked short-selling controversy, already fully covered in the article, to present a one-sided POV. Verbosity and one-sided nature of article makes merger into naked short-selling impossible. --Mantanmoreland 18:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I created this article. And I would like to clarify some things.

  • Failure to Deliver shares does not equate with Naked short selling. On this, Mantanmoreland, has been very adamant. Just read his comments on the discussion page of the Naked Short Selling page where he is adamant about the fact that FTDs are not all caused by Naked Short Selling. I agreed with him there and I agree with him here. FTDs are a separate issue and topic that stands on it's own two feet and with differently legal definitions, causes and effects. It is a topic that stands all by itself and is apart from Naked Short Selling. Like an article about a Musical Orchestra and another on individual musical instruments, the both make music, but they're not the same and they're both legitimate articles on different topics.
  • Why is a WIKI article on "Short Selling" or "Futures Contracts" etc., somehow not offensive, but an article on failing to deliver, is? Let's just reduce the entire market mechanisms and effects to the consensus of the naked short selling article then, if that's the logic. This logic makes no sense.
  • The fact that Bob O'brian made some edits, is not in itself a reason for removing the article, is it? Please tell me WIKI is not that way. Perhaps he should make some edits on the naked short selling article (I think he has, actually) so that it can be removed on the same grounds? Doesn't each article stand on it's own two feet? Why should my article be removed without any factual arguments what so ever?

--71.106.236.198 01:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not an accurate characterization of the discussion in the other page. What I said was that not all FTDs are naked shorts, in response to the assertions of the above user they were identical. Now he is arguing the opposite, in suppoort of his POV fork.

FTDs only have public significance as an aspect of the naked-shorting controversy. The head of the anti-shorting lobby himself makes that point in his website, saying that "The practice of defrauding investors by taking their money and not delivering the product they paid for has many names. Some call it market manipulation, some call it naked short selling, others call it failing to deliver..." [2]. Though his comments re "defrauding investors" are rejected by regulators, he is correct what is at issue here is a single issue, most commonly known as "naked short selling." See Google -- 414,000 hits for "naked short selling" vs. 174 for "failure to deliver shares" with virtually all of the latter in the naked-shorting context. --Mantanmoreland 03:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Should the above two comments be moved to the discussion page? --Mantanmoreland 16:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Mantanmoreland, Nobody knows the reason or context of why someone googles a term. The use of this type of logic will steer wrong almost every time, and when it doesn't it's coincidence.

IF this article is to be deleted, the information here should be merged into the naked short selling article, otherwise a big chunk of information would be left out of WIKI.

As an example, what does an FTD create? The SEC says it creates a securities entitlement, but what exactly is that?, Etc.... Naked shorting creates and FTD and an FTD creates.....

It would be incorrect to say and naked short sale creates a securities entitlement. Certainly the end result of all naked short selling is not always the creation of a securities entitlement. There are a lot of little steps in between that then fork the end result this way or that...

So I'm OK with the deletion of this page, so long as the information contained here is merged into the naked short selling article

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommytoyz (talk • contribs) 19:38, 15 February 2006

Fine. I would suggest proposing what additions you want to make to the discussion page of Naked Short Selling. A wholesale "merger" of this lengthy and poorly written page, with all its duplications, would overwhelm the Naked Short-Selling page. --Mantanmoreland 20:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave's Sonic Site[edit]

Clear vanity/site-advertising article (created by User:DaveLinger, who I assume is the same Dave mentioned on the page's name) about a fansite that does not seem to meet any of the notability guidelines at WP:WEB. Delete. --Aquillion 01:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Aquillion Ruby 02:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more cheapskates looking for free advertising for their non-notable site. Utterly un-encyclopedic. Camillus (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and you're right about Dave Linger being the one-and-the-same Dave - see [3] Camillus (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirected, no further action required. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest Civilization[edit]

I believe this article is a POV. There is no evidence that one certain civilization is older than the rest. For a comparison Jiroft Kingdom, Predynastic_Egypt#Late_Lower_Paleolithic, Mesopotamia, etc all claim around 5000 BC years or more..

I think its best to either delete this article, or redirect it to Ancient history, or whatever else.. Kash 02:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian cannon[edit]

Tagged as speedy, but makes claims to notability. Abstain for now. brenneman{T}{L} 02:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn-bio. --Terence Ong 02:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless this nebulous claim to "critical acclaim" can be backed up with sources. I'd like to see some awards or mainstream media coverage before I would consider that a valid claim to notability. See Wikipedia:Notability (music). Savidan 02:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Savidan's reasons/view on it. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 03:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. VegaDark 04:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. StarTrek 06:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've expanded the article somewhat, with references. -- Dragonfiend 08:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 03:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been expanded and some references added, if they can be confirmed than this should be moved to Microdot Design & Film and kept. I'll see what I can did up. - brenneman{T}{L} 06:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 04:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refined sugar and ritalin[edit]

Was tagged prod, but original author removed it without any cited reason. Very unencyclopedic and unsourced.

  • Delete Renata 02:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV and unencyclopaedic. -- Mithent 02:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nomination. --Hurricane111 03:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mithent Ruby 03:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, POV. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 03:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV, OR, UE, and scare advocacy. Smerdis of Tlön 04:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic, POV, and unverified. Bad ideas 05:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "You may come to this page thinking: What does sugar have to do with ritalin?" And you may say to yourself, This is totally POV. And you may say to yourself, This is original research. And you may ask yourself, Why the hell can't this be speedied? Per Smerdis of Tlön. Daniel Case 06:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Truly a once in a lifetime comment. Haikupoet 03:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OK, crazy guy! Your original research doesn't belong here. Grandmasterka 11:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all of the reasons stated above. I don't believe there is one factual statement in the entire thing. 202.174.144.202 13:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for above reasons. No sources, nothing verifiable, all opinion. And of course the title itself is tendentious. The article says nothing at all about ritalin, other than to compare the presumed evil effects. Can never be more than a point-of-view fork of other articles we now have which I can't be bothered to look up... Dpbsmith (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Smerdis Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- POV rant, nonnotable crankery, and an insult to anyone who's ever actually lived with ADD. Haikupoet 03:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per JzG. Blnguyen 03:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I live with ADD, so you dont tell me that its an insult.


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

The result of the debate was delete all. W.marsh 19:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other names of large numbers[edit]

Note to closing admin: I request that the votes I have changed to a small font are not counted, as the accounts are too new or probable sock puppets.
Note to closing adimin: The following redirect should also be deleted

I believe this article is hopeless, all the verified stuff is in names of large numbers, this is just made up by the collective consciousness of anonymous editors. —Ruud 02:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been able to track the names down to the following websites and blogs, which all clearly indicate this is original research.

—Ruud 00:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom :p —Ruud 00:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not all made up. Many of those are actual real names coined by actual mathematicians, for instance "Mega". Science3456 02:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Delete per nom.[reply]
  • Keep This article was actually split from the names of large numbers list, as it was too long. This article was created for extremely large numbers, larger than the ones found on names of large numbers. Robot32 02:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sock puppet of User:64.194.44.220. —Ruud 16:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    • No it wasn't, this article was created as a dumping ground for the made up entries, not for even larger numbers. —Ruud 03:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Robot32 (talk · contribs) just got blocked indefinitely for page-move vandalism. --Ixfd64 20:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Names of very large numbers. It's reasonable to split out this information from an article that's getting just a bit too large, but your current title sucks (sorry). Delete per Ruud. GeorgeStepanek\talk 03:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was not split because names of large numbers was getting to large, but because we prefer to keep out articles verifiable and other names of large numbers isn't. —Ruud 03:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apparantly it was split because names of large numbers was getting too large. If you check the history of this article, you'll see that it says by the originator "create to reduce size of 'Names of large numbers" Robot32 03:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But if you read talk:names of large numbers you see it is used as a dumping ground for unverified information. 03:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - very interesting and a lot of work went into this. Renata 03:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but that is not a valid reason to keep unverifiable information. —Ruud 03:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ups, sorry. I was looking at the wrong article. Delete. I tried to google a couple those long & big numbers and it provided only WP mirrors. Unverifiable. Fantasies. Renata 03:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if verified. Delete per Ruud. Having given this page a second look, this is an obvious Original Research fork. Savidan 03:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which, as I said, this can't be. —Ruud 03:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and move to Names of very large numbers as proposed by George. Snowball Earth Hypothesis 03:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Account too new. —Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep if verified, per all of the above supporting viewpoints. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 03:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Delete per Ruud. Dustimagic! (T/C) 15:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Myrianonmillinoncentinovemnonagintillion? —Ruud 04:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Remohol 03:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Account too new. —Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. From the talk page for names of large numbers: "For fanciful extensions, use other names of large numbers." How about "For fanciful extensions, post it on your blog, not in an encyclopedia." --Karnesky 04:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect to names of large numbers. 64.194.44.220 04:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vandal. —Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep many of them are in fact found in other places besides this encyclopedia. Delete "Myrianonmillinoncentinovemnonagintillion" though as that's definitely fake, being so long. Richard F. 04:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Account too new. —Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When asked how many strings there are in the universe, the answer is "a googillion". StarTrek 06:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Account too new. —Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is currently misleading, as it is a mix of fact and neologisms / protologisms. The reader should be able to tell fact and fiction apart. E.g. list protological numbers on a clearly separate page and warn the reader clearly, or list them in talk to await verification. Even if you made up a really cute GooGooGoo word in school today it shouldn't get listed in Wikipedia. Weregerbil 06:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well then please edit the page and delete the fiction! I don't know which of the terms are fictional. If you do, then you could help us out by giving us a purely factual article that we can then evaluate and assess more accurately. GeorgeStepanek\talk 06:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is Names of large numbers not the version of the article where the non-verifiable entries have been removed? I don't need to do it, it has already been done? Is there a number that is missing from Names of large numbers that is being endorsed by a reputable source? Weregerbil 08:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what kind of article has "other" in the name? — ciphergoth 13:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if anyone finds reasonable reasons (references!) to include some of this information in wikipedia, move it to Names of large numbers. The rest must go. The "lot of work" that went into this seems to be the kind of work we call "original research". Honestly, I find it difficult to understand where all the "Keep"s come from. To those who voted "Keep", is it because you know substantial parts of this article are correct and relevant, or is it just because you think it would be fun if it was? If you know it's true, by all means add your references!--Niels Ø 14:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to names of very large numbers. "Other" should not be in the start of a title. Car salesman 14:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.

    • Account too new. —Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the verifiable information is in names of large numbers. Superm401 - Talk 18:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a fork of very large numbers, which as stated above contains the verifiable ones. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after all verifiable numbers have been added to very large numbers. Ziggurat 23:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Shoppers 23:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Account too new. —Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the real/useful ones are at Names of large numbers. The rest are either non-notable inventions and/or numbers that really follow the naming system of numbers too far. - Bobet 01:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC
  • Keep don't see any particular need to delete. Fargo3455 03:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to names of large numbers Terizmo 03:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Account too new. —Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. 169.157.229.69 15:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC) Changed my vote to Delete per nom.[reply]
    • Account too new. Removed JzG's vote. —Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete. It's basically a POV fork of names of large numbers, whereby names that are not verifiable, probably because they were invented or made up in school one day, are thrown into another article. No thanks. Stifle 16:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the article title hints at its inappropriateness..."Other (Something we already have)" is a subset of articles we do not need. Carlossuarez46 22:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 64.192.107.242 03:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Account too new. —Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while this article is fun to read, it is mostly original research. --Ixfd64 03:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should have been done long ago. Septentrionalis 06:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - original research, neologisms, etc., etc. Any real names of numbers should be in Names of large numbers. Possibly Knuth's "Extended Myriadic" scale might be used, if he Knuth actually used it. Even if it's a neologism, if it's his, it may be acceptable. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Knuth's naming scheme is already documented at Knuth -yllion. —Ruud 14:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That artical is also disputed. I haven't checked out the references to see if the dispute is justified. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fork containing unverified material. Kusma (討論) 13:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. --C S (Talk) 12:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pigmanship[edit]

Vanity neologism, almost certainly unverifiable. CDC (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angels boot[edit]

Was prod'ed and then {prod-2}, but some new user removed it with no reason cited. I see no reason to keep it. Un-sourced dict-def that gives more doubts than anything.

  • Delete Renata 03:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as much as I think {{prod}} is a good idea, it has no mechanism to deal with contested deletions, especially when at least one person is willing to act in bad faith. Savidan 03:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So far every answer I have read said - go to AfD and debate and track any trolls, sockpupetts, etc. So that's why I have listed this and few others here. Renata 03:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the mechanism for dealing with contested deletions. But you might find this useful... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Renata. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 03:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Renata StarTrek 06:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn, unverifiable. Blnguyen 04:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disney formula[edit]

Delete. Pure opinion and fluff. Unencyclopedic "rules" for Disney movies. Even states that the rules don't work for all movies. -- Wikipedical 03:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Sounds like original research to me, total nonsense --lightdarkness (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks to be original research. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 03:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. moink 04:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, with some reluctance. If this were made by a user with a user name, I'd choose userfy instead. Disney animated movies are indeed formulaic. I believe sources could be found for most of this analysis, and parts of the text could be profitably incorporated elsewhere. Smerdis of Tlön 04:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. --FuriousFreddy 07:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as original research, but I also feel that it has some merit for inclusion elsewhere (off Wikimedia sites). -- Mithent 14:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup and rename to List of Disney animated movie clichés (we have List of movie cliches, List of action movie cliches and list of horror movie cliches), otherwise delete. Daniel Case 15:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cleanup/rename else Delete as per Daniel Case. -- Mithent 15:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It needs extensive cleanup if it is to be kept. Most of it is made up of opinions and half-truths. --FuriousFreddy 20:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original "research" Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. Blnguyen 04:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a list of criteria with Disney movies that fit a mold contasted with those that don't. Not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. A List of Disney animated movie clichés might be interesting as long as it listed outside sources, otherwise more OR. Cleanup and rename looks like a Herculean task. Good luck if you want to try it. Thatcher131 23:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is on to something, but it is original research that is not presented with any sort of neutrality. Nor does it have all that much encyclopedic value; I don't think people over the age of 10 need an encyclopedia to tell them that Disney movies are formulaic and contrived. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block
  • Delete along the lines of Thatcher131's thinking Ruby 02:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has been altered to better meet Wikipedia standards. Please reconsider.


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

The result of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 08:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debb_Eaton, Kel_Gleason, Maralyn Hershey, Mitchell Olson, Sonja Christopher, B.B. Andersen, Ramona Gray, Diane Ogden, Kim Powers[edit]

  • Delete - Not enough information on most contestants, voted out of Survivor early for a reason, and not really notable as articles. Information about those contestants should only belong in their respective contestant pages, not in wikipedia Arnzy 03:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable. Tawker 03:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into respective Survivor articles. As Arnzy said, this information about these contestants should only belong in their respective contestant pages. Be bold. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 03:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. --Terence Ong 04:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn. — ciphergoth 13:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gameshowcruft.Blnguyen 04:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Mondschein and Corporate Mofo[edit]

  • Comment Do you all have any idea how crushing it is to have people arguing to have the little bio page you set up for yourself deleted? I would argue for non-deletion based on several things:
  • I write for several publications with a circulation of more than 5,000 (Nerve and Renaissance being two)
  • Corporate Mofo (which doesn't need its own entry) is linked to Fark, a high-traffic newsfilter, and my Matrix analysis thereon garnered a lot of media attention
  • I have two books coming out
  • It's helpful to include my qualifications for editing those obscure fencing articles.

See 1st AfD in June. The person gets 212 UNIQUE Google hits (and he's internet personality!), many of them are WP mirros, the ezine has alexa rank of 803,572. The ezine was {prod} but the mark was removed by, guess, user:Ken Mondschein.

  • Delete not notable. Renata 03:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, nn. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 03:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in no way notable at all Remohol 03:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 04:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very unnotable. StarTrek 06:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I agree with this deletion, please make sure to explain user:Ken Mondschein why the articles were deleted. His article contributions in obscure fencing topics are very valuable. Thanks! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the article seems to indicate he's been published. if that can be verified it might be a basis for keeping, but at the moment, no vote Jcuk 19:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zone-h[edit]

NN group as far as I can tell. gren グレン ? 03:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Homey 00:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Tadross[edit]

Vanity, unsourced and unverified. Delete Ardenn 03:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Hey everyone. I'm the one who wrote the article. I am not George Tadross and am not affiliated with his campaign. I was intrigued by his website, and I think he is serious in his intentions to run. I've talked with him, and he's sparked some interest in the voting age youth, and is set to be interviewed for 2 university newspapers (Toronto, and Laurier his alma mater). It could spark interest in mainstream media but who knows. As far as Dogbreathcanada and ikkyu2's problem with my writing it early, there certainly has been precedent. Martha Hall Findlay has never been elected into parliamentary office and has never done anything formally political, yet no one is threatening to delete her info, or the info on the Liberal convention page (the stuff I put on Tadross was gone in less than 24 hours). So that's fine if you're going to delete my work, but just be consistent and use your criteria for every politician. I honestly don't think Tadross will win, but I think it's an intriguing story. Findlay won't win either, and her story isn't nearly as interesting. So cut up my article all you want, but do so fairly and don't assume there's "vanity" involved just because he is different than the other candidates.Dfahmy 06:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Martha Hall Findlay has never been elected into parliamentary office and has never done anything formally political"
Yes but Findlay's candidacy has been reported in the Toronto Star, no mainstream media has reported Tadross' candidacy - there is nothing to verify it save for a one page website. Homey 06:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read my comment again. My problem isn't that you wrote the article early, which opinion you misattributed to me; it is that the subject of the article in no way meets WP:BIO. You should read WP:BIO; maybe you will see a way to make Mr Tadross qualify. Ikkyu2 21:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how, or if, I can delete a site myself, but you're not reading it wrong; I've changed my position. I still stand by the fact that all people making a legitimate run should have their information available on Wikipedia. Newspapers use the same fact checkers as anyone else, and are subject to biases of editors, and the position the newspaper wants to uphold. That's the great thing about Wikipedia. We're not subject to those same biases, and we are able to change or add information to inform others, even before the newspapers get the scoop. However, in this case, George Tadross has taken his site down. So the only source of information is gone, and I can't argue to keep it around anymore. As far as his history about being the "Greatest thing since sliced bread". Although hilarious, I have no idea what it was about. He is a university student after all. Could be one of his friends messing around. That should have no bearing on the legitimacy of what I wrote. Dfahmy 05:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Tricky one, this'n. If he actually files as an official candidate for the leadership race, then he will merit an article whether he's seen as a real contender or not. (I sincerely doubt he would be seen as a contender, but political party leadership candidates merit articles for the fact of being candidates, not for POV assumptions about their chances.) But it's also distinctly possible that he's talking out of his hat, and won't actually file as a candidate when pu$h comes to $hove. And a candidate who's not particularly well-known isn't necessarily going to generate a whole lot of media attention right away, particularly on the weekend when there aren't that many media at work in the first place, so it won't be easily verified until he either does or doesn't actually file nomination papers. If it's deleted and he does file, it'll have to come back; if it's kept and he doesn't, it'll have to be deleted. So personally, I'd suggest that we suspend judgement on it for the time being, and either keep or delete at a later date based on whether anything actually comes of this or not. We can always hide it somewhere as a user subpage if need be. Bearcat 04:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest the article can be re-created if he actually files. Ardenn 04:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Article can be recreated if he files. Does he have a seat in parliament? Has he ever been in parliament? He's done nothing at all politically. This fellow is nn. --Dogbreathcanada 05:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing tricky about it at all; fails WP:BIO by a large margin, and will until he's elected. I don't agree that he'd merit an article just for filing for candidacy. We had dozens of candidates for the last California gubernatorial election; almost none of them were notable, either. Ikkyu2 05:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete StarTrek 06:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dogbreathcanada. Steve Casburn 06:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Tadross' candidacy hasn't been reported by a credible media source (ie not a blog) by Friday then delete. Homey 07:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems this article was speedy deleted in November 2004 when its content consisted of "George Tadross is a 3rd year business student at Wilfrid Laurier University. He is considered the greatest thing since sliced bread." Homey 07:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure vanity--Porturology 07:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If he achieves success or even achieves heavy media coverage, we can have an article on him then. If he achieves a seat in a national or provincial parliament, same applies. He doesn't meet WP:BIO at the moment. Capitalistroadster 19:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - vanity-ad-nn. He is not even a member of parliament or has any political achievements so far, so the fact that he is trying to take over a major party from nowhere seems to show he is a nn-stunt politician. Perhaps, I will do a leadership spill on John Howard and get no votes -can I have a WP entry????Blnguyen 04:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jinzena[edit]

Obviously a band-vanity page (meaning that the group itself wrote it). Not sure if their appearance in Liquid magazine counts as an acceptable establishment of notablility. FuriousFreddy 04:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 08:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warpstorm[edit]

Does not appear to meet the suggested guidelines at WP:WEB. The site has around 120 members or so, and does not seem to have any significant impact beyond the core group of users. Listing here rather than at WP:PROD because an editor disagreed with and removed the {{PROD}} tag. Joyous | Talk 04:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is not a novelty site, if you consider our affiliation with Freespace 2, Hard Light, Volition, and legal battles with Games Workshop, Ltd over the name. WS is a site that has kept on going after any other site would have given up. It's an inspiration to many. And yes, I stole the time/date tag from TheRingess. Considering the original delete nom came from Dragonfiend maybe I should include some of his wikis:

[4]

Several of his include webcomics, WS started the web comic nerrds.

In fact, several of Dragonfiend's entries appeal to a smaller group than the impact of Warpstorm.

This article has been marked for deletion before it's even finished. We have not had the time to include more than 80% of the content that is relevant to the article. It was marked no less than a few hours from when it was written.

Terence Ong, according to his "bio" "spend most of my time looking at AFDs. That's nice.

  • You like this. It means the article was looked at by someone who really, really deeply understands the Wikipedia inclusion criteria and is strongly committed to them. That makes Wikipedia a better encylopedia. -ikkyu2 (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Nyxfall and Terran Imperium (published stories) is cross-linked to Warpstorm, so when that part of the article goes up, it would be good to have it known where the stories originated from.

One last thing, instead of a mod posting to "delete per nom," In cases such as this, where we are not some bored internet geek looking to pass the time that they should post an independent reason of their own for why the feel it shouldn't be deleted. member count of a forum is not a good reason... a member count is just a number. I've seen dead websites with thousands of users. 

heretic 04:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 05:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 04:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Warpstorm has had far more then 120 members. That is all that is left after many site crashes throughout its history. The site has made an impact beyond the current "core" membergroup. As stated, Warpstorm has spun off a number of other forums and websites. IcyGeddon 05:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agrred with Icy - Krackers (not a member of WS but one whos felt its influence elsewhere)
  • Delete per nom. StarTrek 06:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dragonfiend 07:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 120 members is entirely too few. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; why this is on Wikipedia at all is beyond me. Melchoir 07:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is NOT one of those articles that someone leaves the word "Hi" then never returns to it again. spinninghippo 03:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep heretic makes a good case. K0d3 19:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Alternately, why this is trying to be deleted off Wikipedia is beyond me. I have yet to see any reason as to how this page is inadmissible to Wikipedia. This page falls well within the parameters of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The criteria for WP:WEB content has been met, citing heretic's evidence for example. Furthermore, this page still has a great deal of content to be added. Warpstorm may not have universal fame, but this page is notable, verifiable, neutral, without original research, and with reliable and cited sources. Eberwolf 21:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like previously stated, heretic makes a good case, and this page has potential. T1g4h 22:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even Alexa never heard of this site --Ruby 00:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nsitlounge[edit]

Does not appear to meet the inclusion guidelines for websites. brenneman{T}{L} 04:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 04:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Curry Rogers[edit]

non-notable, possible vanity bio Batman2005 04:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE article creator added quite a bit of information after article was posted for deletion. Asserts quite a bit more notability. I'm open to keeping it so long as the rest of the community is in agreeance. Batman2005 06:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Batman2005 :-) However, now that I'm here I might as well cast my vote, which is the same and for the same reasons as the one I gave for the Jeffrey Wilson page - MAK
  • Strong Keep. As a published researcher in the field of paleontology, Dr Curry Rogers is certainly notable. As is obvious from the list of published papers in many scientific journals on the bio page, she fits the wikipedia notability category of published authors who have written articles in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more (papers published in scientific journals). In addition, she has also written one chapter and co-authored one chapter in one book (Sauropods - Evolution and Paleobiology) and one chapter in another book (The Scientific American Book of Dinosaurs). Add to that, as the co-editor of one of those books, she is an editor of a book with an audience of 5,000 or more.
Comment: As I've already pointed out on Batman2005's user talk page, and Jeffrey Wilson AfD page, but will repeat it here; while there are plenty of entries on Wikipedia on a many different dinosaur genera (something I do support and think is cool), there are still as yet very few write-ups on the paleontologists who are making these discoveries. This means that Wikipedia has lots of stuff on names and types of dinosaurs, but very little on the real science and scientists behind their discovery! For this reason, pages on scientists who have made important discoveries in this field are absolutely necessary. In fact this is one of the tasks I have set myself here on Wikipedia. M Alan Kazlev 09:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Memetracker[edit]

2 line stub about not notable software that gets 430 googles. Was tagged {prod}, but removed by the authors.

  • Delete Renata 04:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN software. VegaDark 04:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per VegaDark, article doesn't even link to the software it writes about. --lightdarkness (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, according to website [5], it isn't even released. Paul Carpenter 13:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn ComputerJoe 19:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is referring to the term "memetracker", rather than any particular software. I'm not sure who invented the term, but it has recently been used by bloggers following an article on my blog which attempted to round up some of these services [6]. The name is likely derived from Memeorandum, the most popular memetracker. At the time I wrote the post, I wasn't aware of memetracker.org, although the whois data shows that the domain was registered before the post was written. I don't think I'm in a position to say whether it should be deleted or not (the consensus appears to be that it should). Mashable 20:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, software advert. Stifle 23:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 00:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey A. Wilson[edit]

non-notable bio Batman2005 04:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not assert notability; co-editor of one book on amazon.com. Weregerbil 06:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Page has now been edited to assert notability. No mention of any publication was made initially. Little content in article though. Weregerbil 02:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. As a well published researcher in the field of paleontology, Wilson is certainly notable. Scroll through the list of published papers in many scientific journals I have listed on his bio page. You can see that he fits the category of published authors who have written articles in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more. Add to that he is editor of the book on Sauropods you mention, hence he has edited a book with an audience of 5,000 or more. In addition, he has also written one chapter and co-authored one chapter in the afore-mentioned book. So an Amazon search alone is highly misleading in this case! (in fact even if he hadn't written and co-written all these other scientific papers, Dr Wilson would still be notable by Wikipedia standards, as (co-)editor of a book with a circulation of over 5000)
comment: I already explained this on Batman2005's user talk page, but will repeat it here (and also on the Curry Rogers AfD page); that while there are heaps of entries on Wikipedia on a many different dinosaur genera (something I do support btw), there are as yet very few write-ups on the paleontologists who are making these discoveries. This means Wikipedia has a sort of kids' book quality when it comes to paleontology - lots of stuff on names and types of dinosaurs, but very little on the real science and scientists behind their discovery. For this reason, pages on scientists who have made important discoveries in this field are absolutely necessary. M Alan Kazlev 09:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep. Monicasdude 15:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Far from the WP:PERFECT article. Wikipedia is not a directory of publications; explanation of Prof. Wilson's life and work needs to be expanded greatly. Ikkyu2 21:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Published author in his field but the article greatly needs to expand as per above, wiki is not a list of publications. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 00:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    comment I've added some additional material, also annoitated some of the bibliographical references M Alan Kazlev 07:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep published author most articles are not perfect. Yamaguchi先生 01:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Wow, a very tough one to close, and no way to do it without pissing somebody off. A simple vote count gives us 68% in favor of deletion. On both sides we have persuasive arguments from experienced users. Before deciding on this one I reread Wikipedia:Consensus, WP:WEB, WP:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. In the end, although the site does smashingly well on the Google test and barometers of "internet fame", IMO the delete voters have successfully made the case that it falls short of notability as delineated at WP:WEB, and also suffers from fatal problems of verifiability. Thanks to all for participating in the discussion, it's DELETE by a hair. Babajobu 02:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LJ Drama[edit]

I would like this article deleted or the passage regarding me ("nathanr") changed to represent the actual facts.

Reason why I would like it deleted:

a) Article (at least the passage regarding me) is filled with rumour and hearsay, and can damage a person's reputation.
b) Information in said article (at least in the passage regarding me) is biased, false and is not accompanied by facts.

Yes, there's evidence to warrant its deletion. A person's reputation is at stake. The article is full of rumours/hearsay/gossip and second and third-hand information. I think that's enough.

While yes, it has created enough of a stir in the LiveJournal community, we don't need examples of "user conspiracies" because they seem to be full of rumours/hearsay/second and third hand information and usually not factual. They seem to do more harm than good.

I recommend:
a) DELETE the article if the author(s) fail to delete "user conspiracies".
b) KEEP the article if the "user conspiracies" are deleted.

LJ Drama is hardly a "notable site" as it slanders others. (and to those who say it is, you try being on the receiving end and see how you like it)

Nathan 06:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]

This article is codswallop, and isn't even backed with facts. Only refers to biased personal attacks that are not relevant.

  • Comment In response to the claim "LJ Drama is hardly a 'notable site' as it slanders others.", the website's content doesn't define it's notabilty. Its visitors do; being cited by numerous online groups does. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 07:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Being cited by multiple online groups why? Because it slanders and defames others while claiming to be "satirical", all the while failing to respect people's privacy? Do people have so little of a life that they have to read about the misfortunes of others with skewed and sensationalist opinions? Why would anyone in their right minds read that tripe? You try being on the receiving end of months of cyberstalking (just because you did one thing wrong) and see how you like it. --Nathan 07:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonetheless, I hold by my assertion that the site is notable, regardless of content. This does not mean that I agree with the content. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being cited on online groups doesn't cut out verifiability standards. We require reputable and reliable sources. Some guys blog just doesn't cut it. I also refer to "A Wikipedia article about an unreliable newspaper should not — on the grounds of needing to give examples of their published stories — repeat any claims the newspaper has made about third parties, unless the stories have been repeated by credible third-party sources." That applies to allegations made by people on this site. There are no reliable sources cited as per WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 10:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a good point, but I do believe that the site in and of itself is verifiable, and well-known in many internet circles. Some of the site's content may not be, but this isn't scrictly and issue for AFD. Nonetheless, I will amend my vote to Keep with recommendation to Cleanup and Verify. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Didn't this survive AfD already? This is a vanity AfD because Wikipedia is reporting something about LJ Drama and one of the things LJ Drama reports is this guy. True or not, we report that LJ Drama reported it. If we aren't sourcing any claims to LJ Drama, then we need to clean that up so Wikipedia isn't repeating the claims as fact. However, what we don't do is censor Wikipedia because someone doesn't like what it says about them. Furthermore, the nominator doesn't understand our processes, and is blanking and inserting his own POV into the article because he doesn't like what it says. SchmuckyTheCat 07:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, I understand Wikipedia's processes. I'm not an idiot, thanks. Every time I delete the passage about me (I count 8 factual errors), you put it back. (I'm perfectly happy to play this delete/restore game with you until my point is made) MY entire point (which you didn't notice) is this: Does "LJ Drama" back up any of their claims/articles with actual fact? No, of course they don't, and it damages people's reputations. We're very quick to judge others, but we aren't so quick to see the impact of sites like this on other people (one of them being me). Of course I don't like what LJ Drama writes about me on their site and on Wikipedia. Am I just supposed to sit and take it? And would you? -- Nathan 08:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No answer. So you're just going to assume that everything Wikipedia prints is accurate and sourced? That's funny, I didn't see a single accurate source on that little blurb regarding me ("nathanr")...no references save for one webpage that hasn't been updated in 5-6 years. Could my eyes possibly have be deceiving me? - nathanrdotcom (Talk • Contribs) 02:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not appear to meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 08:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm borderline as to whether this is notable, but if it stays, we really need to remove unverified stories as they do appear to be reported as fact. I'm not convinced the section should really be included anyway. -- Mithent 15:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. First, if the nominator finds the facts to be incorrect to the point that he can enumerate specific instances, he should rewrite the section rather than blanking it and listing the article here (especially if it survived an earlier vote). That comes close to WP:POINT. Second, does that section need to be so long anyway? It could be dealt with in a paragraph or two. Third, the site's notable IMO due to its association with the undeniably notable LJ. Fourth, for the nominator to assert that he wants his privacy when his user page links to his own website is a mite hypocritical. Daniel Case 15:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why would I want to rewrite the article? There is still the issue of people's privacy that needs to be respected? So what, I was the centre of some controversy in LiveJournal circles. That's the past, it doesn't need to be rehashed over and over. However, I'd rather have the truth than 8 factual errors. --Nathan 21:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per bad faith nomination. Was kept in a prior discussion. "LJ Drama" gets 36k Google hits, "LJDrama" around 35k. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fairly notable, and the Livejournal article is too long for this to be merged there -- Astrokey44|talk 15:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Capitalistroadster and others. WP:WEB. PJM 15:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crap crappy blog-cruft. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 21:40, Feb. 12, 2006
  • Delete I can't see why this belongs in an encyclopedia. Tom Harrison Talk 21:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it exists as a notable internet community? Because it has a fairly interesting part in the history of another? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not here to document petty LJ flamewars. At a minimum, the "Various LJ Drama controversies" section should be removed. It is unencyclopedic at best, and a mean-spirited invasion of privacy at worst. Rhobite 21:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So that's a content issue. The site itself is still notable, as consensus decided earlier. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you won't mind if I remove the section then? Rhobite 21:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's an issue for the talk page, which I have addressed there already. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to be notable abakharev 23:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pending third-party verification. Nominator's reasoning not accepted, however. Ziggurat 23:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep *smacks forehead* I sure don't think it deserves an article, but I've argued for keeping other articles with no claim to notability outside of Internet popularity, so I guess it'd be hypocritical not to vote keep on this one. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not important in the long run. Extreme verifiability problems. Wikipedia's association with the Internet it runs on makes Internet culture seem extremely notable to some. This is an illusion. silsor 01:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rhobite; if flamewars are noteworthy, we may expect to find articles related to nearly Yahoo stock message board, where flamewars are standard fare and have 1000s/10000s/100000s of participants & messages. Very bad precedent to keep this. Carlossuarez46 23:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, just because you don't like an article doesn't mean it has to go. The number of external links leads me to think that it's a vanispamcruftizement. The nomination seems to be a content dispute rather than a genuine reason for actual deletion. It may be WP:POINT, but I'm going to say that this is a delete, per WP:WEB. Stifle 23:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a content dispute, one that was ultimately dealt with. External links are for sourcing purposes only, truly. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Wikipedical 02:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB, no ranking, no independent sources. Melchoir 07:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For people who don't understand the strikeouts at the top of this page, I initiated the AfD and I withdrew it. The issue is now dead. - nathanrdotcom 07:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are entitled to change your own position. The issue is not dead. Melchoir 07:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • User Melchoir seems to have taken it upon himself to reverse any change I make regarding the AfD. He should therefore post his reasons why he wants the article deleted. Also, so people know: This has nothing to do with me. Don't moan at me, this is out of my hands. - nathanrdotcom 07:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry if I wasn't clear: Delete per WP:WEB, no ranking, no independent sources. Melchoir 07:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which ignores that this is essentially a complementary article to LiveJournal, which exponentially exceeds WP:WEB. This content doesn't fit that article by size or context. Notability guidelines aren't designed to be an axe to chop away established articles. SchmuckyTheCat 18:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Livejournal is notable. It does not magically make things that touch it notable. If I search Google News for Livejournal, I get nearly 200 articles. If I search for LJ Drama, I get zero. "LJDrama" turns up a single hit, but the reference isn't in the article; it's an anonymous comment tacked onto the end, right after such insightful commentary as "asdf", "we did it for the lolz", and "Rfjason is a known troll - ignore everything the worthless scum says." I don't need to lean on WP:WEB here; if you don't like that guideline, how about WP:V? How about WP:NOR? Are we going to defend any standards at all? Melchoir 20:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
references have been applies, OR charges have been addressed. - and neither has ever been a deletion criteria. And no, the LJ article doesn't automatically make anything that touches it notable, as anybody that edits the LJ article regularly can attest, vanity entries appear routinely. LJ Drama also appears routinely, within the article, in see also links, and in references. But what LJ Drama actually is does not belong in the LiveJournal article. Again, our editorial standards aren't there to be used as a cudgel, nor robotically, nor arbitrarily, but with common sense. LiveJournal is a larger community of concepts, places, and ideas than JUST the website itself - thus, satellite articles make sense and are necessary in order for wikipedias coverage of the larger community to have a complete context. SchmuckyTheCat 21:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
References haven't been applied.. Badlydrawnjeff dug up some links to old LJ Drama threads and Encyclopedia Dramatica articles. Joke wikis and blog comments just aren't adequate sources for Wikipedia articles. And don't forget that Jeff is affiliated with Encyclopedia Dramatica. For all we know, he contributed to the references himself. Rhobite 00:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which indicates that you apparently didn't bother to actually look at the content added. So much for WP:AGF, eh? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 00:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are accusing me of bad fatih, see my reply below, which predates yours. Melchoir 00:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I was going to reply to your response, I'd do so under yours. Of course, I guess primary sources aren't reliable anymore. Kind of a bizarre change in precedent. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 00:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff, I clicked on every link you added. Most of the references are either links to LJ threads, links to LJ Drama, links to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Many of them are broken links. In fact, the only reliable reference is the link to Ed Rodriguez's sex offender record. Rhobite 01:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As explained to you in talk, the "broken" links aren't broken at all - they demonstrate either former names used or deleted/suspended journals, as noted in the article. I believe there is only one ED link, and that's to demonstrate the opinion of some people as noted in the article. They're primary sources, as has been spelled out to you. And your accusation/implication that I contributed to any of them is entirely without merit. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While it may seem mergist of me to say so, just because information is useful (and I agree that there should be some mention of LJ Drama) does not mean that it should have a separate article. A sentence or two in the main LJ article could describe all the relevant and externally verifiable information, and that seems to me to be quite sufficient reference. Ziggurat 21:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let me rewrap this series in response to SchmuckyTheCat above. There are no reliable sources used in the article. In good faith, I have independently looked for reliable sources addressing LJ Drama and found none. Not only is the article unverified, it seems to be unverifiable. Deleting the unverifiable is common sense. Melchoir 21:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. We're writing about LJ Drama and the various claims made by LJ Drama. It's an easy to answer question, For claim X, did LJ Drama actually make the claim? Click the link, and there it is. It's the same standard you could set for the New York Times. Did they publish X as fact? Provide a publication date for the NYT with X as fact, and go look it up. There are several places where more outside sources should be found for external facts; for instance, the state sex offender registry for Ed Rodriguez (which does exist), but LJ, LJ Drama, and ED, are reliable sources for the subject itself article according to WP:Reliable Sources. SchmuckyTheCat 00:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to quote, the full quote is, "A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing." And that's just the bit about primary sources. Reading on, we get "Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.". This article is certainly not just about the content of LJ Drama; the allegations, the controversies, the spinoffs, the popularity-- all these sections contain material on other subjects that cannot be verified. The very existence of the article is a claim to notability, which has not been verified. We have WP:WEB precisely so that we don't have to hurt our brains on cases like this. Melchoir 00:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To be honest, I can't even find a single verifiable source that supports the (deleted) blurb about me ("nathanr"), aside from myself. - nathanrdotcom 22:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reasons as in the previous AfD: "LJdrama was prominent enough to cause quite a bit of a flap on LJ with its actions. Putting it in the LJ article would not really be relevant (not to mention bloaty) because it's a separate community with its own sites that just imports from and targets LJ." I don't see what has changed. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So much of a flap that we can't find reliable evidence that it occurred? Melchoir 03:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The entire article is filled with inaccurate information and I doubt that the people with accurate information will come along to clean it up. -Jameth 17:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was going to (regarding "nathanr"/me) but decided against it because it would raise too many red flags and privacy issues...and dredge up something that happened 5-6+ years ago (originally a private issue between two people until it was posted). It's on my talk page (archive section) if anyone wants to be nosy and read it, as accurate as it can be because I can't find any sources either. - nathanrdotcom (Talk • Contribs) 02:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep -- Curps 06:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Hahn[edit]

Un-notable made up sound like stuff, disagree with me if can--Cr0w bar 04:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. IMDb shows over 100 roles to his credit [7]. Clearly meets WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 05:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please do some research before listing people for non-notability. Just because it may sound "made up", that doesn't mean it is. moink 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable - long list of credits from 1953 to 1989. —ERcheck @ 05:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Nominator's concerns have been put to rest pretty conclusively. Ikkyu2 05:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - per Ikkyu2 --lightdarkness (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. This is clearly a notable article for an actor with dozens of major film roles that meets any and all criteria for retention. Something must be done regarding Cr0w bar, who seems to have no understanding of the AfD process and has kicked off AfDs for almost a dozen articles with little apparent understanding of the articles or the AfD process, which would be considered vanadlism if applied directly to the article. Let's put a stop to this nonsense. Alansohn 06:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 00:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian freemasonry[edit]

There is only one source cited, and the majority of the stub is lifted almost directly from it. no one has added to this article since the original poster got tired of trying to force the subsection into Freemasonry a while back. MSJapan 04:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems like a perfectly legitimate encyclopedic topic. Paul August ☎ 05:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What's wrong with Estonian freemasonry? I don't see any actual argument why it should be deleted. u p p l a n d 14:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paul August. Stifle 23:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a worthwhile topic—perhaps an Estonian freemason can contribute something about masonry in Estonia today with the history as an introduction —Pēters 18:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 04:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steeling the Mind Bible Conference[edit]

Minor fundamentalist christian convention with main speakers from conspiracy backgrounds (Missler, Hovind). This is a promotion, as admitted by author of the article, to put fundamentalist Christianity on Wikipedia.[8] The article claims that Cameron and Keyes have been part of the conference (no sources). If true Wikipedia does not need to log every small conference a 1980s TV star or one time presidential hopeful attended. There are four articles that link to the article. Two of which are Missler and Hovind, conspiracy theorists who lack academic credentials. As the author of this article admits, "These conferences are usually one day in length, but they are sometimes two days long" and has music by "Andy Day or another Christian musician." Those two lines show that this article has little to offer by using terms like "sometimes" and "or another." This is cruft to promote religious leaders favored by the author. Arbustoo 04:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article does not document notability. Googling the conference name as a phrase returns only 85 hits, some of which are from its Wikipedia entry. Steve Casburn 05:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. StarTrek 06:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears NPOV but partially unverified and ultimately non-notable. -- Mithent 00:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Avi 01:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete conferencecruft Ergot 02:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spamvertisement. Royal Blue 02:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gastrichcruft. Blnguyen 02:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Blnguyen, Royboycrashfan & Ergot. Mikker ... 03:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Terizmo 03:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs to be developed to show why its notable and not because christian musicians were part of the show.,,,,,Ariele 03:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mikker. --Kinu 07:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a spamvertisement written by my favorite Wikipedian, Jason Gastrich. Grandmasterka 18:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Chairman S. 09:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VSCA and per Grandmasterka. Stifle 11:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 19:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal Autonomy Study in Puerto Rico[edit]

Delete This article is about a small, non-notable law passed in 1991. A change of the law was suggested and forgotten a long time ago. The article is not linked from any other article. Joelito 04:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like it might be original research as well. Steve Casburn 04:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. WP:NOR. Stifle 23:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep -- Curps 06:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evi Sachenbacher[edit]

very short article plus who is really when you thing evi? because who is she really evi? can you tell with such short article?--Cr0w bar 04:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Yes it's a short stub, but a multiple Olympic medal winner, especially one with a suspension, is notable. moink 04:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She won multiple Olympic medals. Carioca 04:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable athlete with Olympic medals [9]. Capitalistroadster 05:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Olympic gold medalist - clearly a notable athlete. —ERcheck @ 05:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above. --lightdarkness (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously. --Kinu 06:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep. – Robert 04:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy Bienstock[edit]

un-notable autobiogrophy vanity--Cr0w bar 04:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. The company he founded, Carlin Music, is a notable company, plus he sits on the ASCAP Board of Directors. Important and notable enough to keep. Steve Casburn 04:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. AfD initiator AfD'ing random articles. See: Cr0w bar (talk | contribs). --Weregerbil 05:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Reasonably well-known music business figure, often referenced in Presley biographies. Monicasdude 15:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as random AFD without merit. Yamaguchi先生 01:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as vandalistic nomination, nominator has been permanently blocked. Stifle 23:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 04:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dtoons Productions[edit]

Some amateur animation website with no alexa rank. Visitor counter on the main page shows 350 something. Was tagged {prod} but removed by original author, who, guessing by username, is the same author of the website.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, nominator is trolling. -- Curps 06:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CP Lacertae[edit]

what is an anova? give some description or people think its no-sense article--Cr0w bar 04:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The first sentence links to nova, and a nova is significant. moink 05:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable as astronomical event. —ERcheck @ 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable astronomical event. Capitalistroadster 05:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, novae are significant. As moink said, the first sentence links to the main article on novae, and lacking a full description is usually not grounds for deletion. Bad ideas 05:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From here, you seem to be nominating a lot of articles without even reading them before doing so... ? --Kinu 06:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. This is clearly a notable article for an astronomical phenomenon that meets any and all criteria for retention. Something must be done regarding Cr0w bar, who seems to have no understanding of the AfD process and has kicked off AfDs for almost a dozen articles with little apparent understanding of the articles or the AfD process, which would be considered vanadlism if applied directly to the article. Let's put a stop to this nonsense. Alansohn 06:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 04:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Evening News[edit]

No notability claim. There isn't even enough information to know which Cambridge it is published in (The one in England, the one in Massachusetts or one of the other ones?). RJFJR 04:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:V as is. If verified geographic and circulation details meeting notability criteria appear before expiration of AfD, consider this opinion changed to Keep. Ikkyu2 05:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. StarTrek 06:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's almost certainly the Cambridge Evening News in Cambridge, England, but I don't think that small regional newspapers usually get Wikipedia pages. -- Mithent 15:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Stifle 23:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. James084 16:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Absolutely nothing helpful whatsoever. --Slgrandson 17:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep -- Curps 06:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Legs in the Eighth Grade[edit]

un-notable thing about somebody's 8th grade?--Cr0w bar 04:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Actually, a TV movie so may well be notable enough. [10]. Capitalistroadster 04:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's actually not "about somebody's 8th grade", it's a movie starring several quite famous actors. Not that I care so much about TV movies, but I think it qualifies for notability. moink 05:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known actors. Released on VHS and DVD. Notable enough. —ERcheck @ 05:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. AfD initiator AfD'ing random articles. See: Cr0w bar (talk | contribs). --Weregerbil 05:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article asserts notability, espcially with it's inclusion at IMDB. --lightdarkness (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. This is an article for a TV movie that meets any and all criteria for retention, even if I recall that it wasn't such a great movie when I saw it. Something must be done regarding Cr0w bar, who seems to have no understanding of the AfD process and has kicked off AfDs for almost a dozen articles with little apparent understanding of the articles or the AfD process, which would be considered vanadlism if applied directly to the article. Let's put a stop to this nonsense. Alansohn 06:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Jelligraze 06:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep -- Curps 06:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thames A.F.C.[edit]

football club? do we make a home for all un-notable private clubs in somebody's college days?--Cr0w bar 04:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If the league is notable (and it is), then every team that has played in it is notable as well (though merging some short-lived older teams into a single article might be worth doing). Steve Casburn 05:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Shortlived team in English first division soccer. Capitalistroadster 05:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. AfD initiator AfD'ing random articles. See: Cr0w bar (talk | contribs). --Weregerbil 05:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. This is clearly a notable article that meets any and all criteria for retention. Something must be done regarding Cr0w bar, who seems to have no understanding of the AfD process and has kicked off AfDs for almost a dozen articles with little apparent understanding of the articles or the AfD process, which would be considered vanadlism if applied directly to the article. Let's put a stop to this nonsense. Alansohn 06:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Jelligraze 06:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep -- Curps 06:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kwality Wall's[edit]

failed cleanup in 2005 and now is still about some guys ice cream shop advertising--Cr0w bar 04:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Orphaned article, reads like promotional copy. In theory, could be cleaned up, but given its current content, could just as easily be rewritten from scratch at such time as someone is around to do such a thing. Ikkyu2 05:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Article is poorly written, but Kwality Wall's is part of Unilever, a multinational corporation. Will add POV tag. Bad ideas 05:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. It's not "some guys ice cream shop," it's a branch of Wall's ice cream, which is part of the Unilever corporation, and is marketed in India as such, after they purchased the nationally famous Kwality company there. Another ridiculous AfD by this user. Don't nominate for AfD, tag it for cleanup and someone will fix it. --Kinu 06:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a major Indian division of a global conglomerate that has been rewritten to address POV issues. Alansohn 06:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did some cleanup of my own as well, based on Alansohn's changes. --Kinu 06:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cr0w bar has been banned for trolling. He is constantly adding notable articles for deletion. --Jelligraze 06:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 12:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Hoskins[edit]

Minor "personality" on minor British TV show - not notable enough for own entry Bwithh 05:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or keep, no reason given for deletion. Kappa 11:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable Maustrauser 11:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Merge possible. Stifle 00:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 12:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Foreign Intelligence Agency[edit]

  • The subject of the article does not exist. Joshuapaquin 05:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - see CSIS for Canada's intellegence agency. Tawker 05:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball and per above. Ardenn 05:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was bold and redirected to Canadian Security Intelligence Service moink 05:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It should be deleted, NOT redirected. The Canadian Foreign Intelligence Service doesn't exist at all. So redirecting is giving incorrect information, that the names are interchangeable. --Dogbreathcanada 05:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, boy. This link and this one, for two, both confirm that an agency of this name has been proposed for creation, most recently in the Conservative election platform. Yeah, as in the one they just won on. Which means there's a distinct possibility that this will exist within a few months. I'd need to do some more research, but this may very well be keepable. Bearcat 05:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the article to make the actual status of this more clear and more encyclopedic, and to provide some external link support. I grant that since it doesn't actually exist yet, it may still strike some people as a delete, but it isn't a hoax or a wild figment of someone's imagination, either — it was explicitly proposed in the election platform of the very party that now forms the Canadian government. So, in all likelihood, the government will at least try to create this within the next few months. Bearcat 06:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball and the legislation to create it could be defeated in the very weak House or by the Senate. Ardenn 07:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A fact which the article, as currently written, already makes quite clear. I don't think that makes it inherently unencyclopedic; the fact that they're going to try legitimates an article, as long as that article doesn't conflate "proposed" with "done deal" the way CelebritySecurity's original draft did. Bearcat 07:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. StarTrek 06:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's not forward-looking to consider a perennial proposal for the creation of this agency, which has been discussed at some length in .ca .gov ... especially since it's notable by its absence -- Canada is one of very few countries with no foreign intelligence service. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Until the new government actually takes official action (like, you know, actual legislation) it's just political vaporware (or maybe "vapourware"). --Calton | Talk 15:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cyrstal Ball Paul Carpenter. 18:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: relevant portion of Crystal Ball:
"Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics.
While there is 'well-documented speculation', it is not "almost certain to take place", nor is the planning and notability anywhere comparable to the US election or 2012 Olympics. -Joshuapaquin 19:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Ardenn et al Pete.Hurd 23:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is something that was proposed by the party which is now in power. We have lots of articles on other things that were proposed but not created (Strategic Defense Initiative, New Columbia, etc), so why not one on something that has been proposed and may be created? - Jord 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because all there's been is the "proposal". In the SDI case, there was notable funded research. In the New Columbia case, there has been repeated legislation. For "CFIA", there's only been a campaign promise. That's not enough to be encyclopedic. I think it will be encyclopedic once there's Canadian legislation or an Order-in-Council, but we have no way to know if that's going to happen (Canadian governments occasionally do not follow through on all their promises). -Joshuapaquin 04:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You say "it will be encyclopedic once there's Canadian legislation", I point you to this piece of Canadian legislation that was not passed. - Jord 02:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was thinking of legislation that's passed or at least gone up for a floor vote. I should have mentioned that. I'm trying to find out if anything happened with this bill (c-409); if it actually got put up or down, then I think you might be on to something... if however it died on the order paper, and hasn't since been reintroduced, I'd have a hard time thinking of it as encyclopedic.
I poked around in databases of Canadian dailies, and while there's some coverage of the introduction of the bill by Pratt, I can't find anything on its resolution. Anyone know what went down with it? -Joshuapaquin 04:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep - nomination withdrawn, no votes to delete (ESkog)(Talk) 01:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G.r.s. mead[edit]

This article contains no content, just a list of see also's-- xaosflux Talk/CVU 05:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If content is added to this article to bring it up to stub qualifications, then consider this a WITHDRAW.
I'm working on it right now (smiley face) Wjhonson 05:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it is now it seems like a worthwhile stub, lots of mentions of his work already in WP. I've moved this article to G.R.S. Mead. Makemi 05:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original poster withdrew if destub so I'm deleting del flag which is really annoying to edit around. Please give a person at least ten minutes before marking del. Not everyone creates full-blown bios at soon as they start ;) Thanks. Wjhonson 05:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per nominators comment since it now has content -- Astrokey44|talk 15:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn, article has been developed. xaosflux Talk/CVU 17:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that "consider this a withdraw" means "anyone may withdraw it" versus "only the original person who tagged it may withdraw it". Please clarify. Thanks. Wjhonson 17:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 04:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information continuity[edit]

Was tagged for {prod} (reason: No sources, few relevant google hits) but the original author removed it. Renata 05:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I can't provide a better source than "I've heard of it," but I have. It's a topic of great concern among medical informatics types. Ikkyu2 05:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep medical information term. Arbustoo 06:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've put information on the article's talk page with citations indicating that it is a valid concept. —ERcheck @ 15:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, relevant and useful topic. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little bit of a newbie here - sorry for deleting the original removal tag. I appreciate the helpful reference additions. We (health informatics physicians) are using this term routinely with other health care organizations that we seek to exchange data with; it helps create understanding about patient expectation - that their health information be where they are whenever and wherever it is needed. --Taeytan 22:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is an emerging term of great importance as we shift to electronic medical records and greater transparency for patients.
  • Keep...for all the reasons listed above.
  • I have added a nice reference from British Medical Journal brought to my attention and co-written by a colleage (who now works at) at Group Health Cooperative, which describes "Informational Continuity" as a part of "Continuity of Care." --Taeytan 21:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. – Sceptre (Talk) 12:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition for Religious Freedom[edit]

One sentence article of unnotable and no longer existing front group. A google search for "Coalition for Religious Freedom" "robert grant" bring 330 hits (includes Wikipedia articles). This organization should not be confused with "International Coalition for Religious Freedom," which brings up thousands of hits. Arbustoo 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Arbustoo 05:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Grant is an influential figure in American politics. Bad ideas 08:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grant is, but this group of 330 google hits isn't. Merge any important information (the whole article is ONE sentence), delete article. Arbustoo 20:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Notable organization. Keep and expand. --Jason Gastrich 01:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who let the trolls out? --Chuck Hastings 06:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is suspected that User:Chuck Hastings is a sock puppet of User:Jason Gastrich. See talk pages. Arbustoo 00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is suspected that User:Chuck Hastings is a sock puppet of User:Jason Gastrich. See talk pages. Jason has a long documented history of trying to sway AfDs. Arbustoo 00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notable people, non-notable group. After deleting this, this info ought to be merged into lehaye and grant pages. -- Pierremenard 23:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn group. --Terence Ong 07:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Oh, and your allegations only need to be said once, Arbustoo. ---J.Smith 07:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to International Coalition for Religious Freedom (as soon as the article actually gets written) (I don't know when I'll have time.) Grandmasterka 08:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as a nn organization --TBC??? ??? ??? 10:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Two non-redlinked founders and defense of a controversial outfit seems keepable to me. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep somewhat notable. Bobby1011 15:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to...? Arbustoo 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I removed the tag not NPOV because I don't see how the 2 sentences which currently comprise this stub are not NPOV. I also removed the tag Clean up because it is already listed as a stub. Bobby1011 15:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Grant may be notable, but his defunct front organization from the 80's is not.--Isotope23 17:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Organization appears at least minimally notable, and google searches are not terribly effective in identifying newsworthy events of the 1980s. Monicasdude 18:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be notable? In what way? Arbustoo 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is a notable organization agree with adrian lamo Yuckfoo 19:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why. Arbustoo 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope23. Stifle 23:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Needs to be expanded, not merged. There's more information that can be added. -AKMask 03:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article gives no evidence of verifiability. --W.marsh 15:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 03:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Freedom Coalition[edit]

Unnotable group. A google search for "American Freedom Coalition" brings 950 hits, including Wikipedia articles. It contains only one source discussing the the groups view on communism. If this is a large group of like minded people, it isn't asserted in the article or on google. Any relevant data should be merged with Robert Grant, the rest of the unsourced should be deleted. Arbustoo 05:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Arbustoo 05:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, group was founded by several notable people in American politics. Bad ideas 08:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Its first activity, orchestrated by direct-mail expert Richard Viguerie, was a massive fundraising effort for the Nicaraguan contras and Oliver North ..."[11]. Notable enough. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe someone should consider adding that to the article... If true that would indeed be notable and strong grounds for a keep... but right now there is no case for notability in the article(I personally reject the assertion that notability is confered by the fact this group was established by several minorly notable people).--Isotope23 20:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bad ideas. All that name-dropping makes it notable. Melchoir 07:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 07:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 09:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. Its founders make it notable enough. Mgm|(talk) 11:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bad ideas. --Craig Stuntz 13:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep somewhat notable Bobby1011 15:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Adrian, Bad Ideas. Monicasdude 18:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is notable Yuckfoo 19:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable back in the day. -AKMask 03:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete both articles. Mailer Diablo 00:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbon Media and Subsonar[edit]

Non-notable production company. Delete. I am also nominating Subsonar as a non-notable DJ related to Gibbon Media. Delete. Andy Saunders 14:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Subsonar as db-bio. If not then delete as nn and vanity (author and subject are the same person). Delete Gibbon media as nn company. Zunaid 12:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable commercial spam Tawker 05:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 05:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this a relist? Four deletes and one keep? I'm adding a delete per Tawker, someone close please. Stifle 23:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. It was created by an anon, so I don't understand the userfy suggestions. -Splashtalk 18:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coplan[edit]

Almost a CSD:A7, but the article does attempt to assert notability. Vossanova 16:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 05:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, then delete. Article's attempt at assertion of notability doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines. Ikkyu2 05:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete per Ikkyu2. --Kinu 06:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Sceptre (Talk) 12:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 03:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Faust[edit]

Delete. 56 GHits for +"jacob faust"+"san diego", mostly similar to the main one at the link provided, with sparse news stories. Probably doesn't meet WP:BIO, and editors of this page insist that it read as a rambling memorial, based on the history. Originally tagged as speedy A7 by me; redirected here per removal and after some cleanup. --Kinu 17:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 05:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Marginal, and the article is perhaps in need of more context, but Moink has noted that the group's size counts in this article's favor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curious Pastimes[edit]

Sees to be a non-notable role-play group. Offshoot ffrom a larger, notable group. A merge of this into the article about the larger ggroup was promptly reverted. 182 unique google hits. None seem to involve significant media coverage. Delete unless reliable evidence of notability is provided. DES (talk)

  • No Vote. I don't know much about CP nor how notable a LARP organisation has to be to be included. According to their website, events vary in size from between 100-1000 LARPers. Certainly not as big as Lorien Trust, but still large. [12] Oh, please don't merge back to Lorien Trust. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 20:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Key words: "According to their website". Is this verifiable by any outside aource? Any media mention of this organization would go far towards establishign notabiliyt, IMO. DES (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would vote Delete but more based on lack of context. I read the article. I am no closer to understanding what it is talking about than before I read the article. James084 19:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. I am one of the referees for CP, on the plot writing team. The largest event does indeed have over 1000 players. This makes it the second largest event of its type in the country and so should probably qualify as "notable." Also, it no longer counts as an off-shoot of Lorien Trust, but rather is in direct competition. The current article does lack content, but I'm working on a replacement - Troll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.171.212.186 (talk • contribs)
    • If this article does get deleted, you can always post a new article with fresh context and claims to notability. Oh, and it's would probably be best to not use the nickname Troll here. I know what it means in a fantasy context, but on the internet it can mean something else. :) --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 05:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if it does in fact have more than 1000 players, that's a pretty significant LARP group. It makes it several times bigger, for instance, than the MIT Assassins' Guild. moink 05:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's very likely that they would lie about having 1000 players, but I can't find 3rd party confirmation of their attendance figures.I have to say weak keep for now. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creepy Motherfucker

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catelu[edit]

I can find no reference do this subject via Google search. The article lacks enough context to determine what it is about. James084 21:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yup, that's a delete. Recommend the nominator check out {{prod}} :) Stifle 21:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hope for expansion. Not all topics have an internet presence and I can see an Amerindian folk tale location being one of them. -- Reinyday, 07:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 05:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:V. May be true; needs to be verifiable, as well. Ikkyu2 05:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can verify independently. Googling for "american indian folk tale" gives 2.6 million hits. If the term was real and notable wouldn't it be mentioned somewhere? Weregerbil 06:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nobody has come up with verification. Catelu seems to be a place name in Rumania, that one would deserve an article perhaps ... Lukas (T.|@) 10:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 18:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sedo[edit]

This was originally marked as a speedy deletion candidate, but as a non-notable corporation, it doesn't meet the criteria. So here it is. I've already removed the linkspam that was present in the original article. —Cleared as filed. 05:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Sedo is a big company in the domain name parking and market industries. ComputerJoe 09:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. If someone cleans up with details of the importance/notability of the company, I may change. Stifle 00:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Stifle. --Billpg 11:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 18:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can't see any need to delete this, since a redirect is fine. -Splashtalk 19:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneurial[edit]

dicdef, transwikied months ago, should have been deleted then. I'd speedy it as an A5 but I'm not sure how to be sure the history is dealt with properly. Delete once that's seen to. GTBacchus(talk) 05:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire macha[edit]

Despite asserting that it is the greatest website in the world, its page ranking (and the fact that it's on blogspot) seem to suggest otherwise. Does not meet WP:WEB (as a point of interest) AFAICT. WP is WP:NOT a web directory. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious vanity entry. --Mr. Vernon 05:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after reading the first sentence. Daniel Case 06:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per no, Maustrauser 06:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The greatest website in the world is too cool for Wikipedia, anyway... yeah, that's it. --Kinu 06:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete! firemacha.com is in my opinion the best A's blog on the internet and with its fast growing readership, deserves an entry here Dukewellington 07:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's first and only edit. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete! This is clearly a very serious entry designed to shed some light on the history of a great webpage.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by FireMacha (talk • contribs) .
  • Don't Delete! I agree with the entire article! Plus it is beautiful prose.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.140.179 (talk • contribs) .
  • Don't delete! If you're going to criticize or attempt to mitigate the importance of each person who votes to keep the page up, it is only fair you do the same for those who voted against. Or are you only looking for entries that agree with your position and validate your claim? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FireMacha (talk • contribs) .
    • It's considered poor etiquette to "stuff the ballot box" (it's not a vote, but putting in more "Don't Delete!" entries makes it look like you're trying to artificially sway the discussion). - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. As the page says, the site's readership "continues to climb into the double digits." It needs to climb a bit further before it gets a WP page. --Thunk 16:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thunk and contra the anonymous trolling. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:08, Feb. 12, 2006
  • Delete, per nom. Kuru 17:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete! Firemacha is a great website!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.198.80.145 (talk • contribs) .
Comment: User's only edit. Daniel Case 18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 18:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete! Any page that is referenced by BaseballProspectus.com and also wins a "best of" award from Deadspin.com is very deserving of a wikipedia page. JessicaAlba 19:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's first and only edit. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as sockpuppet-ridden non-notable website. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as random non-notable website. Sock flood. Stifle 00:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Melchoir 07:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 19:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nululu Online[edit]

Non-notable MMORPG (an acronym the article doesn't even get right). Daniel Case 06:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom Maustrauser 06:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Criticizing a mistake in the article is unfair considering that it was tagged after one minute and was obviously done by a non-native English speaker. Furthermore, how do we know this is not an important Thai-language MMORPG in the Thai market? Seems fairly unique to me, but perhaps the nom would care to provide some analysis. -- JJay 06:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about an Alexa rank of ... 1,799,518? I apologize for any offense I might have given, but frankly I don't see the point of keeping this unless we want all the other several thousand MMORPGs with higher Alexa ratings we've deleted in the last several months. If it's an important Thai MMORPG, let them do an article in the Thai Wikipedia first (assuming they haven't already). Daniel Case 06:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how many Thai articles we have deleted, but I tend to doubt it's in the thousands. As I don't read Thai, I have not verified whether the Thai wikipedia has an article (I assume you have). However, does the Alexa rank matter if the game is played over mobile phones? What kind of participation are we looking for with these games in the Thai context? The press reports suggest 3,000 users in the beta. I beleve we need some valid input from Thai users here. -- JJay 06:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to MMPORPGs in general, not Thai ones. All I'm saying is, keep this one and you open the door to an ungodly number of MMPORPGs, in every language. Yes, we do need input from Thai users, but I'm doubtful that even if we do get it it will result in a good reason for keeping it. Daniel Case 14:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that keeping or deleting an article opens or closes the door to anything. Therefore I see no compelling reason to delete this. -- JJay 02:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Daniel Case Aussie Alchemist 02:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per alexa rank and nothing even hinting at significance. Sounds like development is barely underway with this. If it becomes popular and starts getting discussed by third-party sources, maybe it could have an article then, but as it is, there's nothing verifiable here. Friday (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Friday. Stifle 00:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 19:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Schlueter[edit]

playing with the boston symphony is impressive, but unfortunately not notable enough to warrant inclusion here. Batman2005 06:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, notable work outside the Boston Symphony. Produced multiple CD's[13], collaborated on soundtrack for Mystic River, which would seem to meet WP:MUSIC, albeit not by much. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, principal trumpeter with notable orchestra. Kappa
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 19:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Popiel[edit]

probably hoax. No google hits to verify this outlandish story Batman2005 06:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article has been cleaned up and deleted and it definatelly does not deserve to be deleted. This is an actual Polish legend of the early ages. Thanks for your help Crypticfirefly. http://kingpopiel.tripod.com/english/frames2.htm Norum
  • Comment: Why did the AfD tag get moved to the older article? Savidan 19:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Because I merged the content of the two articles together and put a redirect on "Prince Popiel" to the earlier one. Was this not the correct action to take? Or should both articles contain the same text but only one have the tag? I am uncertain of the procedure in this situation. Crypticfirefly 20:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well done Crypticfirefly for improving this article. Capitalistroadster 23:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 04:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick J. Hearden[edit]

A professor with no assertion of notability beyond that. Delete, per WP:BIO GTBacchus(talk) 06:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He's published five books. [14]. --Thunk 16:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Adequately published Dlyons493 Talk 17:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for his books. ×Meegs 19:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 04:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The klub konnection[edit]

Non-notable / Vanity. Prod tag was removed by User:67.190.128.185 Cnwb 07:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Bad ideas 08:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Though some of the individual DJs might actually meet WP:MUSIC, this group most certainly doesn't.SoothingR 10:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Stifle 00:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 04:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coolbits[edit]

Non-notable software. Prod tag removed by User:Ddxfish Cnwb 07:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 07:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Distress, Gypsys Rhapsodie[edit]

This does not appear to be encylopedic, nor particularly coherent. -- Beland 08:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hesitant keep. Painfully few Google hits under this title or the title of the original work: Douleur rhapsodie tsigane. If kept, needs slashed to a quarter of its length and heavy tidying. Has a human name as translator - reads more like a babel fish translation. -- RHaworth 08:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Bratschetalk 22:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and prune. The translation is definitely human. Dlyons493 Talk 00:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus, even after discarding votes.SoothingR 09:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LUEshi[edit]

This is the very definiton of cruft. The only assertion of notability is the fact that it was signed by Shigeru Miyamoto. Other than that, it's an unnotable internet meme Toffile 08:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • And as a note, this is the article's 4th time at AfD. The first time no consensus was reached because only 3 users participated. The second time was a speedy delete as recreation of deleted material, though it's invalid because the first AfD was inconclusive and never made a decision to keep or delete. The third time we had a debated keep result. (3 keeps vs 3 delete and 5 merge, seems to lend more to inconclusive.)--Toffile 08:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with GameFAQs message boards seems like a good option to me. How about creating a "Culture" section in that article and putting the content from the LUEshi article in it? Nick Bush 09:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per NickBush24. Funny, though not *really* encyclopedic enough for its own article.SoothingR 10:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect per above. Gets 51,800 Google hits, but despite that I don't think this is notable enough for its own article. I wouldn't be sad if this ended up as a keep, however. VegaDark 10:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable internet memes. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, it is like a obscure unground meme. --Rick Browser 19:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. NaconKantari e|t||c|m 19:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable internet meme. Accurate, sourced, verifiable. Coffee 20:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's by no means non-notable. I think it's definitely a keeper. rmzy717 AT SCHOOL 20:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. While LUEshi is a popular fad on GameFAQs, I've rarely seen it outside of there. Mr. Qwert 20:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • user's 8th edit in the past month.--Toffile 23:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How else is one to find out the origin of LUEshi, and even what it is? Is the goal of wikipedia to keep secrets secret? --Statikeffeck 22:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • user's first edit in about a month.--Toffile 23:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete. "LUEshi" is a meme virtually exclusive to the GameFAQs community. It isn't nearly as widespread an internet fad as something like O RLY?. I don't believe it deserves its own article here. WarpstarRider 22:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing vote, and additional comments. The article itself is largely fluff and only references GF/LUE/LL throughout its content. There is nothing in the article to suggest any significance outside of the community; it's comparable to the majority of the "Notable memes" list in the 4chan article. In my opinion, LUE itself is significant enough in GameFAQs history to warrant its own article (though others disagree), and LUEshi should then be part of such an article. The meme itself does not deserve its own page. WarpstarRider 22:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the information, but probably best to Merge it in somewhere. I've never seen it outside of GameFAQ. --Falcorian
  • Keep, it is a vital part of internet history - .(talk) 22:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.44.34.88 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 13 February 2006.[reply]
  • Keep if possible or at least Merge to GameFAQs community. I have to admit that while the LUEshi symbol is popular on LUE and LUElinks, it's not widespread on the Internet. Douglasr007 02:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article should be re-written, though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.12.72.43 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 13 February 2006.
  • Keep. Easily passes a standard Google test. It's popularity has spread beyond the GF boards- merging it with that article would not make much sense. An alternate solution would be to recreate the LUE article. It has been deleted before, but there is absolutely no argument of whether or not LUE passes a Google test. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.107.197.49 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 13 February 2006.
Here's the thing, Google isn't the deciding factor of what should be on Wikipedia. Douglasr007 02:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sure my fellow LUEsers will rub me 'bout this, but this seriously is not a notable meme. Sorry, guys. I would suggest a merge to one of the GameFAQs pages, but editorial precedent (read: many, many, many reverts) suggest that nobody thinks LUE's culture is notable enough to be put on any of the GameFAQs pages. - - CorbinSimpson 03:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge per Nick (who was a well known GameFAQs user) Sceptre (Talk) 12:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's notable. Additionally, as per Sceptre's comment, Nick isn't a well-known GameFAQs user, other than the fact that he had a bunch of accounts and got them banned. And Toffile, shut up about how many edits someone has made. That should have no bearing on the Afd page for this. --NSA 15:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    542 alternate accounts made him well known Sceptre (Talk) 18:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it does, it may indicate sockpuppetry. How relevent I don't know. Let the admin decide whether those editcount is relevent or not, and I recommend reading Wikipedia:No personal attacks for reference. - Hbdragon88 22:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.154.11 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep It's quite popular, I've seen it around GameFAQs, YTMND, and several other game forums. It's becoming as big as the O RLY owl, imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.152.2.34 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. I would say merge with the GameFAQs page, but I think that it's too long to really fit there on its own, so it should probably have its own article. I think the content deserves to be on Wikipedia, and as I stated before, there's too much information to merge it into GameFAQs.-J Train
Let me clarify. My first thought was yes, merge it into GameFAQs message boards (heretofore referred to as GameFAQs). However, I went over to GameFAQs and noticed the article was already moderately long, and even if the whole article is not necessary for a merge, it would still account for a significant portion of the GameFAQs article. If there were a page such as GameFAQs fads, or something of the likes, I would say merge it into there, but I don't think that there are enough other fads to justify that kind of page. -J Train 03:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Protect. Message board fancruft, ONLY importance is on GameFAQs, the only group who primarily uses LUEshi is on GameFAQs. - Hbdragon88 21:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is getting insane. I'm predicting that this article will soon become a GNAA-type article, lots of AFD nominations (GNAA has eight AFDs as of this writing) but no deletions. Each AFD here keeps getitng shot down... - Hbdragon88 21:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Oh my, the LUEsers are up for it - I see a topic with 41 posts about this AFD nomination, plus two other topics about it. I don't know if this kind of effort was mobilized for the third nomination, but it's moving. And if this gets deleted, could it be protected? - Hbdragon88 22:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is there some conspiracy to remove internet memes from Wikipedia we should know about? LUEshi is quote notable, with GameFAQs being one of the larger internet communities. Plus, its spawned its own sites and has been signed by Miyamoto. Quit trying to turn Wikipedia into an elitist encyclopedia under the guise of open source. SA9097
    • Comment. Open source means that anyone can use our coding, not that we have to let any useless, non-notable article be on the site. --Rory096 19:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, flood of meatpuppets. Request closing admin to check votes for contributions very carefully. Stifle 00:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I'm not mistaken (which I very well could be), this is to be decided not by the number of meatpuppets/sockpuppets, but by the number of and especially arguments presented by responsible users. -J Train 03:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right. Let me clarify. The reason I've voted to delete is both that I agree with the nominator and that I instinctively vote to delete articles where a flood of "meatpuppets" (meaning new users, users with very few contributions, or unregistered users, no more and no less) contributes and asks to keep or "do not delete". My request was simply for the closing administrator to carefully check whether contributions from certain users should be discounted. Stifle 21:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as a non-notable internet (site) slang. If I go to a website like this and enter in a picture then post it on a website like Something Awful or Offtopic.com, does my picture get its own article? I think not. --Rory096 19:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that's how O RLY? was created seeing as the communities of 4chan and Something Awful are almost the same. Yes, O RLY? is more widespread on the internet but your logic is flawed. Douglasr007 00:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, your logic is pretty flawed. Maybe you didn't read the article, but this was actually a huge deal on GameFAQs and other places, such that users were banned or suspended for 2 months just for posting it once, and it's not anything shocking like tubgirl, goatse, etc. Your picture you've uploaded is just that; something of note to you, not a website with 3 million registered users and "hundreds of thousands times more hits than your personal website does". -J Train 03:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pfft. Nobody was banned for LUEshi. The worst I heard was purgatory, but that was pretty much brought on yourzselves by abusing it to the point of no return (i.e. Night of a Thousand LUEshis). Out of the 3 million registered GF accounts it was only a big deal to a few thousand, the LUEsers (22,000 as of ExcLUEsivity). Anyway, you're making it a strong canidate for merger - this did in fact was a big deal on GF, but can you prove it was a big deal elsewhere? - Hbdragon88 03:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my original idea was to merge, but I didn't think it was appropriate. Because I don't want to overload this page, please see my above reasons (under keep). -J Train 23:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It could be condensed down to a couple of paragraphs or two; it wouldn't be too hard. For instnace, before Cassandra de Vries was merged into Perfect Dark ( see its last edit before merger), that article was pretty long. But most of it was drivel and repetition from the main article. I could see LUEshi being condensed down to a small notation in the LUE section currently at the GFAQs message boards article. - Hbdragon88 04:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
O RLY? also didn't get an article until it actually was a notable internet meme, and even now it's up for deletion every 3 days. Once everyone on the net is using this, come back. Hell, once another of the major forums is using this, come back. I doubt they will though- it's just an ASCII picture, whether GameFAQ thinks it's more or not. --Rory096 03:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep notable and necessary for reference. Avengerx 04:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep LUEshi is an important meme — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinyboy21 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's 5th edit. - Hbdragon88 02:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should also be noted that one of said user's edits was a request to create an article for "luelinks.net".-J Train 03:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two questions should come out of this whole discussion. First, are fads and internet memes noteworthy. Are they significant in the sense that anyone looking back years from now would even care? Probably not. Are they significant in the sense that someone might actually look up something like this for reference, yes, I've personally looked up the ORLY article myself to figure some things out. In discussing internet memes their inclusion may be inevitable in a community dominated by the internet.
The second question is whether or not it's possible to lobby wikipedia. Can a dedicated enough forum, which is all we're talking about here, defend an article or topic of their choice and promote it to notability? These votes suffer from a self-selection bias, the only people likely to show up are people who really want to defend the article, few people are likely to put the same effort into getting rid of it. But does this basically mean that a commmunity like somethingawful or slashdot can hold wikipedia articles hostage or dominate coverage of themselves and promote their topics? Aside from making votes like this more public or putting out an appeal to wikipedia that a message board or community is exercising undue influence, I'm not sure what we can do.--BigCow 09:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that, I, a LUEser, do not believe in the notability of this article, I think we can rule out the idea that any community can truly be solid on this issue. I think that notability of memes will establish itself, without the community's interference. - CorbinSimpson 03:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the long run, almost certainly, just like in the long run any article tends towards being accurate since enough people will have had a chance to correct it. However, in the long run, we're all dead. The average VfD may have only dozens of users where as forums have hundreds of members at their disposal, we'll just have to trust that people in the community of wikipedia make wise judgements.--BigCow 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per NickBush24... and yeah it is time for WP:MEME so we don't have to keep repeating this ad nauseum ala the Brian Peppers AfD.--Isotope23 21:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep' It has played a very prominent role being a bannable offense and posted in many places. It's been around for a while and gets over 50,000 hits on Google. I'd say that is notable enough for an encyclopedia article on this internet meme as it will grow. SandBoxer 02:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep By itself, the meme is too obscure for its own article, but seeing as it's wrapped around such diverse areas such as GameFAQs, YTMND, eBaum's World, and Miyamoto, I'd say it just aobut qualifies as Wiki-worthy. BaronMasters 00:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 04:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MVP Ball[edit]

Studentcruft. In the absence of references, we must assume this game is restricted to North Carolina State University (and probably only certain parts thereof) and is therefore non-notable. -- RHaworth 08:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There was a large dumpster outside the bathroom window of my 4th story room in college, and was a perfect target for our refuse. Can I make an article about how that was a game? No. --Kinu 08:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "MVP Ball is an indoor sport created in 2003 at North Carolina State University. The game involves kicking a rubber playground ball back and forth in a hallway in an attempt to score three points and win a match." All together now, in three-part harmony, Wi-ki-PEEE-di-aaaah is NOOOOOoooot for thiiiiiings maaaaaaaade up in schoooooooool one DAAAAAAY!. Daniel Case 14:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I attended Gonzaga University and this game was played regularly in dorms all around campus. If its being played at colleges on both coasts, I imagine its a legit game played by college students. Justin Sorrell 15:48 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Daniel Case Aussie Alchemist 02:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After further reading of Wikipedia policy I suppose the article falls into the "cruft" category, my fault. MurpleMan 20:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete and merge to William Howard Taft IV. Bratschetalk 04:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Howard Taft V[edit]

Delete. Not notable, and article makes no claim to notability Steve Casburn 08:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Just because your father is famous doesn't make you famous automatically. Until he does something to establish his own noteworthiness, no article; a passing mention in the William Howard Taft IV is good enough. --Kinu 08:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight merge to William Howard Taft IV. Well-established at WP:BIO. Non-notable relatives of notable people don't get their own article, just a mention in the article of the notable person. Stifle 00:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Merge per Stifle ---J.Smith 00:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge with GoldenEye 007. - Mailer Diablo 11:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenEye Doom 2 Total Conversion[edit]

Delete, Poorly written, and obviously an ad, look at the first edit, says it's from a "PR manager" Adam850 08:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"PR Manager" - meaning a brother of the guy who spent a lot of time on this project and wants people to know that it is out there. Sorry if that is a problem. Texnofobix 23:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, random mod, no reliable sources. Stifle 00:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you define why you think it is an random mod, with no reliable sources? Maybe I can provide those details.-Texnofobix 14:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes I can. I think it is a random mod because it does nothing to stand out from other mods. I think it has no reliable sources because... it has no reliable sources. If you cite some, then let me know on my talk page, I'll be able to take another look. Stifle 21:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sorry, but Wikipedia is not for promotional purposes. Good luck on the mod though. I played it a few years ago, and it will be interesting to see how it has evolved.--Drat (Talk) 03:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can take it that direction. I started rewriting it from a NPOV, at least tried to. -Texnofobix
  • Keep. But the article does need improvement. There's a category of these kinds of games at Category:Fanmade computer game remakes and sequels. The fact that this is a port of Goldeneye makes it significant. If it was just a random mod it wouldn't warrant an article. jacoplane 02:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Change vote to Merge per K1Bond007. jacoplane 09:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to GoldenEye 007. I have heard of this mod, but I don't think it necessitates its own article. Might as well merge it with GoldenEye 007 where it's already mentioned and remove the unnecessary PR. K1Bond007 06:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per K1Bond007. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 04:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Maxwell[edit]

Vanity page. Ckessler 09:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think this page deserves more than two words explaining why it shouldn't exist :) . Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Here they are. This person, while I am sure he is a talented doctor, has done nothing of note to earn a Wikipedia page. If every doctor in America had a page here, there would be nothing but pages about doctors. Furthermore, the page looks as if it were written by Dr. Maxwell himself, and reads like a professional biography. Ckessler

  • Delete "Dr. Andrew Maxwell" gets about 100 Google hits, not all related. I've nominated his nn charitable organization too, though I felt like a total jerk AfD'ing something called "Big Hands for Little Hearts" : / . Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or delete. WP:BIO, WP:V. Stifle 00:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 04:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kort ub[edit]

Article does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Vegaswikian 09:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm unable to verify its notability as well.SoothingR 10:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Stifle 00:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 04:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MSNLiveDisplay[edit]

Doesn't look very notable to me.. not sure though. Werdna648T/C\@ 09:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears to be nn, and an advertisement. Thor Malmjursson 18:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 00:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete and redirect to lever-action. – Robert 04:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Levergun[edit]

Delete and redirect to lever-action. Article is flagrant POV and redundant. Note that this article is remarkably similar to the Henry Repeating Arms article, which I just rewrote. Bad ideas 10:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete as per nom Maustrauser 10:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per above. Stifle 00:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User talk:66.91.253.75

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Bratschetalk 04:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of compact discs sold with XCP[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (WP:NOT) Albums could be added by random users based on wrongful speculation. The list is too long to verify all of albums that are listed in the Wikipedia article. It doesn't provide much additional value that the external links don't already provide. Tokek 10:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep & rename to "List of compact discs with DRM". Useful list, provides a composite view of data on various external links. --OscarTheCattalk 10:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and because it looks more like an advertisement than an article. There might be room for an article on the subject (if 23skidoo is right about there being controversy), but not a list like this (I take it that the list isn't controversial, except in the sense of the nimination?). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As long as the list sticks to the Sony and related links, I see no problem with it as this is a rather controversial subject. I was at a record store the other day and they were handing out Sony pamphlets with the albums listed. I see nothing to show that this is in any way indescriminate. It's newsworthy and verifiable. 23skidoo 17:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename as per Oscarthecat. Article is verifiable. Thor Malmjursson 18:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The problem is precisely that it isn't verifiable. What if your friend's 90 year old grandma had problems playing Britney Spears' latest album, and decides to add it to the list? You can't verify if her album actually has any DRM by buying the same album, because the record company could have sold two versions of the same album, one with DRM and one without. Essentially where you need to go for reliable lists are the record labels' websites. Hence it doesn't provide additional value that you can't get by following the external links. In fact it's worse because this article could accumulate misinformation.—Tokek 03:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is no reason wikipedia can't provide a documented account of discs that made news headlines around the U.S. This list is no different then the articles on things such as [Anthrax], which list ways to avoid infection. Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 23:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1. it made global headlines and 2. it's a case of a reputable company using virus tactics. James Kendall [talk] 23:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just to be clear, this isn't a deletion request for Extended Copy Protection (XCP redirects there), hence the fact that XCP made global headlines is largely irrelevant. —Tokek 03:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, likely to be useful to Wikipedia readers. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the controversy is notable and so is a list of the affected titles. Carlossuarez46 23:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the page about the controversy. Can't find it at the moment. Stifle 00:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename as per Oscarthecat. The information is useful, verifiable, and historic. It lends depth to other articles about DRM. Commercial websites (Sony BMG, for instance) will drop these links once the spotlight is off of them, and cannot be trusted to preserve a record of this knowlege. Zen611 03:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As mentioned in the article, the EFF has a list.--Tokek 07:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, likely to be useful ProveIt (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 04:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Hands For Little Hearts[edit]

I feel like the Wicked Witch of the West putting this up for AfD, but ... they have like five Google hits, and their founder is also up for AfD. Probably wonderful people, but non-notable at this time. No vote. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I understand the nomination, but I don't think that Google is an adequate criterion in this sort of case. If we knew the Russian, Googling might raise more hits, I suppose; note also that the charity's top-level Web page uses the title "The Dostoevsky Family Children's Heart Fund" (which doesn't get a single Google hit). The charity is verifiable. The article needs to be moved to a properly capitalised form, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete. Russian Google yields only 17 hits, two of which are Wikimirrors. It would be nice to keep this, but it's just not sufficiently notable and Wikipedia can't be a nonprofit directory anymore than it's a business directory. Daniel Case 14:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Russian version Большие руки для маленьких сердец gets 0 Ghits. Their executive director is Геннадий Микитянский (Gennadi Mikitjanski) but he turns up few Ghits either. Possibly a scam? Dlyons493 Talk 18:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As noted above, a search turns up nothing. A valid charity would have at least some presence, especially given that it's an American run charity, set up by a doctor based out of San Francisco. Nothing turns up at the American Institute of Philanthrophy, a charity watchdog group, or the BBB. That doesn't mean it's a scam, but it's certainly not of note enough to be in Wikipedia. Ckessler
  • Delete per Dlyons493's research. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The low number of hits makes me think this is a scam, or it's so new no-one has heard of it yet. Not notable. Grandmasterka 02:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 04:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moser Baer[edit]

This is advertising for a NN company Maustrauser 10:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 04:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False Love[edit]

Essay/original research. Kappa 11:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 04:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The poster on the wall[edit]

The article needs, at the least, to be renamed and thoroughly cleaned up and given a proper context. It refers to an incident in World War II, but the reader has to go through at least half the article before discovering roughly what's going on. I'm still not sure whether it's genuinely encyclopædic. If it can be verified and its significance established, then Move (and clean up); otherwise delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable. Open to change if reliable sources are cited. Stifle 00:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 04:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol UK Record Companies[edit]

Wikipedia is not DMOZ JeLuF 11:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: DMOZ is the Open Directory Project. Wikipedia is not the place for a page which contains nothing but a list of external links (see WP:NOT). I'm not suggesting one action or another on this at the moment, since perhaps you could clean it up a bit first (for example, make it more encyclopedic by removing all of the first person references in the text) and then people can make a decision. And by the way, yes, it is JeLuf's business. Anything on Wikipedia is every member's business. --Kinu 20:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Stifle (below). The above was in response to a question/tirade posted by (I believe) the author of this page, which has now been deleted. I guess there goes that... --Kinu t/c 18:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a business directory or a collection of links or emails. Please see WP:WWIN. Stifle 00:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Stifle --Xorkl000 09:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Stifle James084 21:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absinthe Retailers[edit]

Wikipedia is not a business directory. Delete. –Sommers (Talk) 11:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Absinthe page has overview of availability in several countries. At least one website (the Swedish one) linked from External links section contains list of sellers (much larger then AfDed article has now).
To find a nearby seller is task of Google or Yahoo or specialised web directory, not WP. List of absinthe producers could be considered since these are likely few and relatively stable. I cannot imagine how page containing list of brick and mortar and especially online end sellers could be maintained here.
The difference from List of supermarkets in size. Supermarket chains are few. Taking look there I noticed one invalid item for Czech Republic. I don't think I would be able to do it for list of small or online shops of a very specific product.
One possibility would be to keep only list of brand sellers names but I never saw anything like this on Wikipedia yet. So I am not changing my mind. Pavel Vozenilek 20:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Pavel. Yes, I agree that one or two external sites have larger lists than the article as it currently stands. I was not going to spend hours and days on a fuller (and more up-to-date) list only to see it deleted. If it is agreed to keep the article, it will be much more comprehensive.

I don't believe that Google or Yahoo or similar can produce a satisfactory list: that is the reason I considered doing one on Wikipedia.

I think that the online section of the list is fairly easy to maintain: there are probably around 20 online absinthe shops of any significance.

As far as bricks and mortars sellers are concerned, I would guess that your perspective, Pavel, may be slightly different from mine (or most readers of Wikipedia) since absinthe is much more readily available in the Czech Republic than elsewhere. In London, apart from Tesco and 1/2 other large supermarkets. one can only find absinthe at 4/5 large department stores and about 3 specialists. The situation is similar in many other European countries.

I hope I can persuade you to re-consider.

Alanmoss 21:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been asked to provide some further comment after Pavel's additional information. I still believe that Wikipedia is not a business directory. The argument put forward by Pavel, could be used for many pharmaceuticals that are only available in certain countries, or for certain drugs etc. Just because Kava is legal in Fiji and illegal elsewhere, does not mean that Wiki should provide a way of finding the stuff. It is non-encyclopaedic, difficult to maintain and provides little that a Google search could not eventually find. I remain with my original vote of delete. Maustrauser 06:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AJR | Talk 13:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My purpose in starting this site is NOT to set up a business directory. As you may or may not know, absinthe has only recently been legalised in most countries in Europe and it is still very difficult to find. In the US it is still illegal and I am seeking to help both Americans and others in Canada, Europe and Asia to find out where they can get absinthe. Absinthe's status in the USA means that US consumers either use the internet to purchase or make it themselves which is a highly illegal activity and a much greater risk to people trying to do this at home.

I see little difference between what I am proposing here and this section of Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Supermarkets

which seems to take readers to long lists of stores (and the Wikipedia entries) for various countries. The only major difference is the scale .. and since I have just started this entry, I need a while to get that far and to do it as well.

I would be grateful for help in creating this site and any links in the correct way.

Alanmoss 14:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Well, Category:Supermarkets is a category of articles, not an article itself, but the comparison to List of supermarkets would actually be a valid one. Hmm. I might be willing to change my vote to "keep" on this article, but the following things would have to happen for it to become a valid list article:
    1. The title should be changed to List of absinthe retailers (and Template:Listdev would be appropriate).
    2. The first paragraph would have to be pared down to a short lead, probably a single sentence, so that it doesn't sound like it's introducing an advertisement. Anything to be said about absinthe's legality and sale can be said neutrally at the absinthe page.
    3. Perhaps most importantly, the page should not be an invitation for businesses to put their own links (or names) there for free advertising.
This last point is why the page could turn into a collection of "linkspam", in which case it would wind up on AfD again. The important thing would be that the page is an encyclopedic list that would be reasonably informative to the reader, not an indiscriminate list of businesses (no matter how useful it may be to the reader—Wikipedia strives to be useful only within the bounds of being an encylopedia). But Alanmoss may be correct that the page has the potential to turn into something more like List of supermarkets instead of just another linkspam page. It's an interesting question and I'd like to get other editors' feedback on it. Thanks. –Sommers (Talk) 18:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the first para already, but cannot see how to change the title or template. Do I need to start the page again to do that?

I certainly don't want it to become listspam, and I'm sure that there are other absinthe experts who would help me in policing that.

Thanks for your consideration.

Alanmoss 19:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment You should see a "move" tab at the top of the page, next to "edit this page" and "history", which moves a page to a new title (i.e. changing the title.) One simple way to avoid it becoming a spammy page would be to only have links to Wikipedia articles about the listed retailers, and not external links to their websites. Also, restricting it to notable retailers might be a good idea, rather than potentially listing every off-licence or equivilent that sells absinthe. -- AJR | Talk 22:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedic, as well Absinthe is LEGAL in Canada, just none of the crazy stuff. Mike (T C) 00:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we keep it? It looks pretty handy to me, as Google is especially poor at helping to locate real-world shops for absinthe. It's still pretty rare on the ground here in the UK. Binkydozer 16:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per some of the arguments above, I'm changing my vote to keep. I think I'm convinced that this article has the potential to be encyclopedic as long as it is restricted to large, notable retailers (i.e., many of which would hopefully have their own legitimate Wikipedia pages) and is not allowed to become a business directory, indiscriminate list, or invitation to linkspam. Just because the list will be a little short does not mean that the article is worthless. This is not a clearly non-notable subject, so let's give the article a chance to be edited into a good one, or at the very least err on the side of inclusion. –Sommers (Talk) 17:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm on the fence and thus abstaining. On one hand there are some notable vendors and stores that have helped to push absinthe forward, making it better know, and/or working with both small and large distilleries to create a better product. As absinthe on wikipedia grows these companies probably deserve their own pages. So a page grouping them together makes sense. On the other it does seem to come pretty close to what wikipedia is not and could cause link-spam problems. There are a number of small, unnotable, and/or unscrupulous sellers that I wouldn't put it past them to link spam the page. If the page stays I think a criteria for listing a link needs to be added to the talk page to reduce any possible edit wars from vendors or vendor fans who feel their site should be added to the list. Ari 18:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Ari. Ari's presence will, I am sure, helps maintain the article's integrity as much as is possible. I would like to suggest, given the variety of views, that I do a bit more work on the article over the next week or so, knowing that there is still a possibility of deletion, but also the possibility that it will then address the concerns raised here. Alanmoss 09:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am now starting to adopt the suggested policy of linking, wherever possible, only to outlets that have their own Wikipedia page, eg Tesco, Harrods, LCBO, some airports and airlines. There are some exceptions and I take Ari's point about the criteria for listing a link (assuming this to be external). I will have a stab at that (easier for bricks and mortars stores than for online sellers, I think). A lot of work in progress here ... Alanmoss 12:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 04:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RPG Maker Database[edit]

This is not a notable site. Not even in the small RPG Maker community. It thus should not have its own article. Michiel Sikma 12:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn site--Kalsermar 16:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Stifle 00:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean Up - Who decides what is notable? At any rate, it could be expanded and maybe cleaned up. Kobra 05:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 04:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dietary Controversies[edit]

Original research and POV essay. Delete. –Sommers (Talk) 12:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree with nomination.-Mr Adequate 01:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 00:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Excuse to advertise a bunch of nutrition books Ruby 02:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 04:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super dude[edit]

Delete Non notable, unpublished high school invention. Vanity Maustrauser 12:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable fiction created by high school student. —ERcheck @ 14:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. -- Mithent 14:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Delete, per all above. PJM 15:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in case three opinions aren't enough for clear consensus. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. "He is not even have powers until he dies." That's a shame. --Kinu 07:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree; what a pity . ;) PJM 18:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super delete as cruftcruft. Stifle 00:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 04:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boot_polish_boy[edit]

This page is not worth an enclycopedia entry. It incorrectly is masquerading as a page for the film Boot Polish for which a new page is being created. The content is irrelevant. Sbohra 12:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, neologismvertisement Obli (Talk) 13:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Boot Polish, legitimate. This, no. --Kinu 07:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 04:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FandomTropolis (FT)[edit]

A role playing game on a live journal. Unlikely to have have been written about by reliable sources Tim | meep in my general direction 12:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 04:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantitative analyses of behavior[edit]

Almost certainly orignal research, like all articles created by this user (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hierarchical complexity and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stage and Hierarchical Complexity of Tasks — ciphergoth 12:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing original in this posting. It is a description of a large field of study in psychology. I am new to posting so I do not know all the rules.


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

The result of the debate was speedied. — FireFox • T • 18:17, 12 February 2006

Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy[edit]

Unverifiable Sunfazer (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sounds like someone is washing their dirty washing. A hoax Maustrauser 13:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important historical controversy, of interest to participants on the Adolf Hitler talk page. A strong keep. --CerealBoy 13:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First ever edit of this user.--Austrian 13:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can't find any discussion on the Hitler talk page of this issue...Maustrauser 13:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the current Adolf Hitler talk page. And this article is not a hoax! --CerealBoy 13:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Found it now. It was added 8 minutes before you put in your keep vote, so it can't be of great interest to Hitler researchers... Maustrauser 13:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Adolf Hitler#Adolf_Hitler_and_the_Briefs_Controversy.--Austrian 13:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, This article seems to be the even more unverifiable little brother of Hitler_has_only_got_one_ball. Also, it's been deleted 5 times already [15]. Obli (Talk) 13:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete (speedily, if possible) as hoax, unless properly verified. --Austrian 13:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm deleting it speedily. It's a recreation of a deleted article, and it's transparently false. (Hitler's briefs found in 1995 outside a Nazi Concentration Camp in Germany! - Nunh-huh 13:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 08:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drive (charity)[edit]

dicdef Delete -Doc ask? 13:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep: I understand the nomination but perhaps it would be better to put it in articles requiring attention. With a few simple edits, sources, etc. we should be able to make an encyclopedi article. Expanding is possible. I found many definitions for drive. [16]. At a minimum have the page redirected to a dissambiguation page of "Drive." Again, I think we can have some encyclopedic material added to this article and references to organizations and examples and perhaps even a how-to book on wikibooks. --CyclePat 22:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, definitely a good encyclopaedic article with potential. Stifle 00:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I guess - include some of the more popular types? Beetle drives and such (shwing my age there!). On its own? I agree it's not enough. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 13:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 04:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Butterflies of India (Pieridae)[edit]

Listcruft. ComputerJoe 14:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It can be changed to a category but seeing that the person who created this list had done a lot of work in this area, I would rather leave it to him. Tintin (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Useful list; may need to be retained until the red links are made blue. Then, probably it can be categorised and the list can be nuked. --Gurubrahma 15:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - useful list; Hi, this list was basically broken up from List of butterflies of India, There are 4 more pages; ending with Papilionidae, Nymphalidae, Lycaenidae and Hesperiidae. The idea of this list is to help people interested in butterflies with a tentative list. I have just started this process and am getting together people to put in life histories and images. For eg. Euploea core. This list acts as 1. a seed (other people invloved can see how much is done and how much needs to be done) 2. A pictorial guide to butterflies and their life histories for anyone looking for info on the net. I do agree that some of these butterfly lists of india have more red links than blue. But it will fill out and soon these pages will look like the model we copied it from List of British butterflies. --Viren 18:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and create a category, both are useful in their own ways Jcuk 19:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Viren. Tintin (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ardric47 05:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Viren. Carlossuarez46 23:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this should be a category at most. As it stands its just a load of redlinks. Stifle 00:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge back to List of butterflies of India, along with its other children; it wouldn't be that large. Melchoir 07:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an index to the butterfly species of this family as well as a list. A category can also be used, but this list can contain Indian region specific annotations. Shyamal 08:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Viren. utcursch | talk 11:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 19:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shuman Ghosemajumder[edit]

Marked for speedy deletion as a recreation of previously deleted content. However as I can't find a copy of the deleted content I'm notminating it here. The previous debate was in May 2004 and would today have been closed as no consensus (this is long before my time so I don't know whether this is representative of debates back then) so imho this another reason for another hearing. No vote. Thryduulf 14:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - Doesn't meet notability criteria. --bodnotbod 20:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was the one who tagged it for speedy delete. This bio is of a non-notable person. OCNative 23:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable as long as the article is referenced. Well-referenced. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per bodnotbod. Master and Commander 08:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets notability criteria as author of wide-selling book (CGI Programming Unleashed). - Fenster 16:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per bodnotbod Wiki4Life 04:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I just noticed that the account Wiki4Life has been created just to vote on two AfD pages. WesternMustang 04:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per bodnotbod. Ardenn 06:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Former CEO? Published author of a major text on CGI programming? Cited as an external reference (per "What links here") on 14 different articles relating to P2P and file-sharing topics? Seems notable enough to me, personally...keep. Bearcat 20:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bearcat. Notable achievements, author of major book, many references. BfDx 06:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Fenster, Bearcat, etc. TrinityC 03:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vernamc 03:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per bearcat, obviously the author of a significant book on internet programming, with links from many other articles, and numerous press citations should be kept; debating achievements alone are notable. HHR 17:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep. Based on content and references, original nom seems malicious or erroneous. -- WesternMustang 02:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per WesternMustang -- Geo Swan 17:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Just adding this in an attempt to de-confuseify bots and scripts. -Splashtalk 19:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Litefantastic Files[edit]

Time to come clean. I've been here since 2003, and not all my contributions have been... stellar. All the stuff I actually made up was either discovered or turned in by me when I reformed. However, there are still a lot of things I think probably deserve to be evaluated as to whether or not they deserve to live. They are organized alphabetically; articles accompanied by an asterisk have already been to the VfD before, but survived.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - I'm putting the result up here to avoid confusing bots and scripts. -Splashtalk 19:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collier Motors[edit]

Case for: Historical trivia
Case against: It's an abandoned car lot.
Votes:

Suggest folding to AMC as sortof a "dying gasp" like alot of articels on dying entities like to have. 68.39.174.238 21:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I clicked some of the links and even as a non American it interested me. I think an article is overkill, but I'd suggest at least adding the links to the AMC article if not a paragraph or 2 per User:68.39.174.238 e.g. in a Trivia section. Delete the main article though. --kingboyk 00:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, marginally notable. Kappa 03:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think a merge is called for here. -- JJay 21:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, interesting cultural and automotive artifact TGC55 04:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep we have articles on wierder topics than abandoned car lots. Savidan 05:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I think it is useful information, but not useful enough to have its own page. jgera5 00:14, 18 February 2006. (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loomis Village[edit]

Case for: A retirement community, and Wikipedia has a history of creating articles for them.
Case against: May just not be significant enough.
Votes:

  • Delete - completely non-notable. —ERcheck @ 23:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and add an AFD tag. Not notable, poor article. --kingboyk 00:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional people who lived more than once[edit]

Case for: Sort of interesting.
Case against: Listcruft.
Votes:

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 00:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Elvis impersonators*[edit]

Case for: Information originally compiled here; not available anywhere else.
Case against: Transcends listcruft; it's more like intelectual kleptomania.
Votes:


  • Userfy or BJAODN. That's topic is too good to throw out. It has to be kept somewhere. Dr Debug (Talk) 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Additionally, it is a list of interest to very few people, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 21:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Dr Debug. Might be a good idea to add an AFD tag since a deletion concensus might arise. --kingboyk 00:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, doesn't require original research, and is of interest to many. Kappa 03:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Elvis impersonator. Valid, significant, and interesting information, but there doesn't seem to be enough of it to justify a distinct page, so simply make it a section of the general "Elvis impersonator" article. Win-win. -Silence 03:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep excellent list.  Grue  16:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Probably is a merge candidate, but that can be worked out elsewhere. -Splashtalk 00:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of books to which Stephen King has written an introduction[edit]

Case for: Semi-useful.
Case against: Really not.
Votes:

  • Weak keep I suppose this would be okay for King completists Ruby 22:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge it into Stephen King after the list of his books. --Bduke 23:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Stephen King. feydey 16:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Useless list, slight merge to Stephen King. Stifle 21:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Stephen King, although that article is growing quickly or perhaps an article on Non-fiction writing by King. This list in question is intersting (I recently expanded it by 8 titles) only in that it shows an element of King's writing beyond the "horror" that he is known for. I'd vote (and participate in) an article dedicated to King's non-fiction writing (which is nearly twice as prolific as his fiction). This could include lists of subject headings for his Entertainment Weekly column, reviews, numerous articles in magazines such as GQ, Playboy, TV Guide, etc. Although, just how valuable are endless lists? LACameraman 07:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, don't merge. Kappa 03:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. I don't see the case for merging information admittedly made up. -Splashtalk 00:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple incarnations[edit]

Case for: Unfortunately, there really isn't one.
Case against: Good intentions here, I promise you, but pointless.
Votes:

  • Keep. With cloning, time travel and other plot devices causing this in increasing numbers in fiction (Inu Yasha, Back to the Future, and The One immediately come to mind) this is noteworthy in terms of speculative fiction and creative writing.--み使い Mitsukai 20:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Merge with Doppelgänger. I did some digging, and a term does exist for this: "temporal doppelganger", as listed here. The information could be used to expand that section of the article, which is more of a list than an explanation.--み使い Mitsukai 05:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support this idea, standing by my 'new name for old idea' confession. I suggest the information part of this be moved to Doppelganger, and the list part of it just be thrown out. -Litefantastic 00:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: As part of my 'come clean' policy, I think you should all know that I made this term up. This was after the period where I actively made terms up - in this case, I saw trying to find a term for any existing phenominon - but it is still a neologism. -Litefantastic 23:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. --kingboyk 00:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy, original research neologism. -Silence 03:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP BOTH. -Splashtalk 00:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of real people appearing in fictional context*, and List of mythical and religious beings appearing in fictional context[edit]

Case for: The one for real people, at least, is sort of useful.
Case against: Collapsing under its own weight.
Votes:

  • Keep, I like it, up to par with that article about the occurrences of the word 'fuck' in movies. But then again, that's just my stand on semi-trivial knowledge :) Obli (Talk) 22:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. I'm not a fan of listcruft, but these ones are actually useful. 23skidoo 05:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. They have their uses, more so than, say, List of guys named Bob with only one eye who appeared in more than one movie filmed in Tibet or other rampant listcruft around here.--み使い Mitsukai 16:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - arguably useful. I've added someone to it also. Worth keep an eye on it though to see if it expands out of control. Essexmutant 05:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They are useful. Why delete? (Ibaranoff24 01:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong keep "List of real people appearing in fictional context", Weak keep "List of mythical and religious beings appearing in fictional context" (which is much, much lower-quality and less interesting, but still has tons of potential if future editors spiff it up). No justification for deletion; "too long" is not a reason, in itself, to completely eliminate a page, and it confuses me that you'd list these with so many much less interesting and valuable pages. There are countless ways to combat excessive length, like subdividing alphabetically, or by work of fiction (i.e. "List of real people appearing in novels", "List of real people appearing in fictional television series", etc.!). -Silence 02:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Conclusion[edit]

I'm big on lists, and some of them (such as List of fictional U.S. Presidents) have actually turned out pretty well. Let it be said that I'm trying, anyway. -Litefantastic 21:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for 'coming clean'. What a good idea! You ought to add AFD tags to any which might be controversial, or to all of them. You can adjust the link in the tags to point here. Subst the tag, save the article, then edit the link to the deletion debate. --kingboyk 00:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added tags to them all (save for one which Dr Debug had already done). --kingboyk 06:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -Litefantastic 13:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.SoothingR 21:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terry MacAlmon[edit]

A google for "I sing praises" and McAlmon yields around 10 unique hits, the writer about 150, mostly adverts for other songs. No evidence to support claims of "top 40 Christian songs" (in the UK Graham Kendrick is I think the only living writer to make the top 40 Christian sings, but I could be wrong there). Publisher is redlinked, none of the supposed modern hymnals in which it's included are referenced. I call WP:HOLE. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. You may not have heard of him but unfortunately citing a page you just dreamed up, i.e. WP:Hole, is not good enough for me. Guess what. Amazon has heard of him because they are selling around 8 of his albums [17]. 'Sony' has heard of him because that's the label he records for. I call WP:please do some research. -- JJay 16:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious if not Speedy Keep. Has at least 7 albums out on that obscure little record label Sony. Has more solo albums than Christina Aguilera and Gwen Stefani combined, a point at least as convincing as WP:HOLE. By the way, that Google search came out badly because the searcher spelled the subject's name wrong! Monicasdude 23:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's disappointing to see that "delete because I haven't heard of it" has become official deletionist reasoning. Kappa 23:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Article has been rewritten during the course of this AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Padmaloka_Buddhist_Retreat_Centre[edit]

Delete. This page is a commercial advertisement for a little known retreat. The copy is partially lifted from the Centre's website. The Centre is currently advertising its Wikipedia entry [18] S.N. Hillbrand 14:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom Aussie Alchemist 02:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, possible copyvio. Stifle 00:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can we put a hold on the deletion process please. I have been updating the entries for this site and am responsible for their webmaster linking to the wiki page. The place is a place of Buddhist worship, and as such is listed under Buddhist temples on wikipedia, and many of the other temples have entries about them. Im new to this stuff (started in December 05), so can I ask for help with editing the page so that it doesnt get deleted - I genuninly want to create a page that is a resource. Thanks lotusskywalker
    • Comment: The deletion process lasts five days, and as things stand it'll get another five days due to lack of contributions. However, it will not be put on hold. If you want to expand it or clean it up, then do so. See User:Stifle/Delete unless cleaned up for why I don't vote keep until the cleanup is done. Stifle 21:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created this page and have been working with the above user to help improve it. Please refer to the page Buddhist_Temples which lists other examples of Buddhist Temples with page listings such as Kadampa_Buddhist_Temple. How is the entry for Padmaloka_Buddhist_Retreat_Centre different from these entires? I am vary happy for suggestions as to how to comply with the Wikipedia policy on this. Samudradaka 11.00, 15 February 2006
  • Keep I think that the article possibly just needs some editing (which User:Lotusskywalker have started with). I'll argue that the centre is not "a little known retreat" (at least not in Britain) and that AFAIK it is not a commercial enterprice. Andkaha(talk) 12:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I have made significant chages to the page and have addressed the issues raised. Any comments? User:lotusskywalker
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, nominator withdrew. Stifle 00:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden_State_League[edit]

Created by an IP address. Already listed in "Dead-end articles". Not sure whether clean-up or delete was best. AfD process is difficult to understand - is there a place where you can just nominate an article and others can then do this AfD "three-step" process? Carcharoth 14:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This was real baseball league [19]. For cases like this, you should try the new prod procedure: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. -- JJay 16:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the link. I've updated the article, though it will never likely be more than it is at the moment. I'd now like to withdraw my nomination for AfD, if that is possible. Apologies for sending it to the wrong place. I'll use Wikipedia:Proposed deletion for similar cases in future. Carcharoth 17:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem. Prod is easier because you just add the tag with a reason. It seems to be working well and I've been using it for articles I'm not sure about. -- JJay 18:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In case the above is not clear... (Is there a recognised way to withdraw AfD nominations, or is it best to let the nomination run its course, or can it at least be moved to speedy keep?). Carcharoth 07:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you can strike out your nomination at the top, or say you're withdrawing, or the like. Then an admin or some other responsible person will close the debate. Stifle 00:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam woeger

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

The result of the debate was listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Chick Bowen 16:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Salzberg[edit]

Nominated for speedy deletion as a nn-bio, but notability is asserted ("In 1976, she established, together with Joseph Goldstein and Jack Kornfield, the Insight Meditation Society (IMS) in Barre, Massachusetts, which now ranks as one of the most prominent and active meditation centers in the Western world."). I don't think this makes her notable enough for an article, but it does mean the article isn't a speedy candidate. Delete. Thryduulf 14:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep and clean up. [20]. PJM 15:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have voted keep but it's a copyvio- so I have listed it on copyvio page. Please check copyright status before nominating here. -- JJay 16:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was reverted to redirect to Matthew (name). — sjorford (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt[edit]

Delete because it redirects to a non-existant page Rubena 14:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The plight of Radio 2.[edit]

Nominated for speedy deletion, but it doesn't really fit any of the criteria. As far as I can tell what this is, I think it is an essay. Delete. Thryduulf 14:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A hard to follow mess with a bad title. PJM 17:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads like a item from a tabloid gossip column. Colorful, but has no place on Wikipedia. Daniel Case 20:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Along with Nova in trouble, seems to be some kind of press propaganda. Darthsco 22:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POV news story, therefore unencyclopaedic. -- Mithent 23:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as... um, I'm not even sure what this is supposed to be. Likely press propaganda as Darthsco says. --Kinu 07:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 04:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrice Bertin[edit]

this appears to be purely self promoting... what else has this person done? Jabencarsey 14:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palmer Park, Maryland[edit]

Delete: POV; not encyclopaedic Duckbill 15:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a community in Maryland and AfD is not the venue to resolve perceived POV problems. Those are dealt with through editing. And why is there no AfD template on the article??? -- JJay 16:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Very Weak Delete: I don't see the issue of POV. Perhaps this lacks something else. The article seems sound but it needs some citations, references, further readings, and sourcing. --CyclePat 18:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Delete withdrawn: Major thinko - was looking at Talk page, not main namespace, duh! (Will try to consume sufficient caffeine in future...) Duckbill 19:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Kelly[edit]

Not notable living person, not widely recognized (google returns 544 results for "Alexa Kelly" [21], and the same for Lycos [22]. In my opinion it does not pass WP:BIO. Bjelleklang - talk 15:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn person--Kalsermar 16:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Serious approach to this model. Seems to have placed in enough contests to warrant inclusion here. -- JJay 16:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn-bio. --Terence Ong 16:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. I'm more impressed by her photo than her Google results [23]; seems to be more info on the director named Alexa Kelly. PJM 17:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN. Also a vanity page -- the user who created the page appears to have some relation to Andy Chabot, who is advertised on the page. Steve Casburn 20:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No apparent evidence of sufficient notability. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 03:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centrepoint Shopping Centre[edit]

Hello. Article is a non notable factoid collection (SC has basements, shops, ...) I fail to see it's encyclopaedic aspect. I fail to see how it can become encyclopaedic. Gtabary 15:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Gtabary 15:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is not a "factoid collection", it is a serious article on this shopping centre. The nom should explain why this article is different than the thousands found in our Category:Shopping malls by country. -- JJay 16:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This article should be categorized. This bull shit of nominating anything we don't understand is ludicrous. I think there should be a rule where we can't nominate an authentic attempt to create an article, allowing the author some time (perhaps at least 7 days) to create the article. For your information this is a mall in the Ottawa area and can be categorized in the ottawa category. --CyclePat 16:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The mall's not in Ottawa, it's in Singapore. ;) I'll vote keep, as per JJay. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 16:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I'm sorry. You are technically correct. I believe its called CentrePoint Theatre here in Ottawa. On the street though I'm used to calling it CentrePoint mall. It can be found here or online here. Although there is an instance of the mall allegedly being in Toronto. [24] But it's spelt with an "e" at the end of pointe. Like "centrepointe" mall. Another instance is Centrepointe Mall, 6374 Yonge Street, Willowdale, Ontario. [25]. That may however be a typo because my govermnents web site lists it as one of the mall where a dispencer, for vehicle information and renewal, is located. The name however is with no "e" at the end.[26] It may be a totally different mall all together. None the less. I think we have proven that the name is popular all around the world and is notable. Hopefully the article will take all of this into consideration. --CyclePat 16:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I'm the creator of the article, and I may look bias. This is one of the more notable malls in Singapore. Maybe you should look at Compass Point Shopping Centre which is a sister mall located in the suburbs. Note that this is a Singaporean mall, not a Canadian mall. --Terence Ong 16:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. --Sengkang 16:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are many "Centrepoint" shopping malls around the world. At the very least the name of the article should make this clear. Regarding the comment about Category:Shopping malls by country - well, I was shocked to only find one article on shopping malls in Mexico. And looking at another example Category:Shopping_malls_in_Egypt, someone seems to have tried to turn the category page into a list. If I wanted information on my local shopping malls, I wouldn't look on Wikipedia. Carcharoth 16:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not sure I understand your point. We have over 250 articles on shopping malls in the US, more than 50 for Canada. If you feel the coverage is weak for Mexico (and I agree) then please add more articles on the topic. The solution is not to delete a good article submitted by a valuable contributor on a shopping centre in Singapore. -- JJay 16:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent. 23skidoo 17:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not to mention there's also Sydney Tower, aka Centrepoint Tower, that has a large shopping centre at its base. I'd almost vote to make a disambiguation page to cover the number of major shopping centres named "Centrepoint". Confusing Manifestation 18:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I actually fail to see encyclopaedic aspect to many mall articles. The fact that many (IMO) un-encyclopaedic artcicles exists is no excuse for one more. I would like to have opinions on what are actually the facts in this article which could not be mentionned about any random shopping mall. I maintain my delete vote. I am unconviced about the interest of this given article and it's kind. I personnaly think it is vanicruftisement: just because I can make an article about a subject I make it, forgetting btw to ask the key question about significance. I hope WP will not hosts an article for each mall mentionned here. Just imagine: 100 times details about basements, car parks, lifts, shops... Just my opinion.Gtabary 18:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respect your opinion, but I like reading these types of articles. Schools, streets, malls, bridges, towns, etc. are interesting and are generally handled very well here. Remember that malls are huge businesses that attract millions of people every year. They can be vital economically to their local regions. -- JJay 19:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I guess, but probably move to Centrepoint Shopping Centre (Singapore) and leave the redirect to be a dab in future if needed. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and rename as per JZG above. --OscarTheCattalk 22:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Rob 20:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympic games medal count[edit]

template:Olympic games medal count

This list of articles lack sources. Note this is not to delete the template but the article. It hence lacks citations. In turn it becomes original research. According WP:DP this is a candidate for deletion. Please, let us not act to hastilly on this one the idea seems to be good. It just really needs [citations]. It is also list. Perhaps it should be put into wiki source. --CyclePat 16:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The AfD notice has been added to Template:Olympic games medal count, therefore this AfD covers every single Olympic medal count in which that template is used, from 1896 on. See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Olympic_games_medal_count. Having had a short interchange of messages with the nominator, it is definitely not the template he wants deleted, it's the articles themselves, since none of them explicitly cite sources (although all I think link to Olympic games, which in turn links to the IOC website). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1920 1912 1912 1908 1904 1900 1896



Keep and cite newspapers as sources when they come out each morning. Keep updating the medal count as the results change, however and then verify with the morning papers. Uris 16:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Keep. I just finished re-doing the 2 major pages (Winter Olympics medal count and Summer Olympics medal count, and I have made sources for each. Each of the pages with a specific olympic date (i.e. 1960 Summer) do not have sources, though. These pages can't be deleted because a lot of hard work has been put into making them. Furthermore, these pages have been in Wikipedia for a long time, so why is it now that they are up for deletion? A source for this information can be found anywhere (IOC, Olympic.org, Sydney2000, etc) so the real problem is finding someone who is willing to find and append valuable sources for each of the other pages, or make an umbrella citation covering all of them. As for now, I think that the deletion should be removed and a tag for sources should be put on every page. --Jared 18:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Furthermore, what is the purpose of having 4 tags? All that you need is that sources needed tag and the deletion one, because you and I know that this is not a matter of "factual accuracy"; the proble is that there are no sources. I have created a new tag that will act as the source tag. The other two (which are redundant) I am going to remove becuase they are appearing on 50 or more pages (because of the link to the template) and at a time of high traffic due to the current olympics, we don't want Wikipedia first time users to get a bad notion of Wikipedia because there are ugly tags filling up the page. I am not a vandal trying to ruin Wikipedia, I just am thinking of the other thousands of users and viewers. Thanks --Jared 18:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep vote and Comment: Articles on the medal counts at the Olympics are definitely encyclopedic - should not be deleted. Comment: This AfD entry is very unclear as to which specific articles have been nominated for deletion - all articles accessible through the template? (The template is at the top of this section.). —ERcheck @ 19:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not know anything more encyclopedic than this, plus the references can be easily found, for instance the 2006 games currently running can be found at http://www.torino2006.org/ENG/OlympicGames/home/index.html. Instead of deleting lets improve this article, isn't there a Olypmic wikiproject? If not ill voulanteer to find all the references for them. Mike (T C) 19:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Tag the individual articles if needed, not the template used in severeal articles, including the list from the ongoing games. It is close to vandalism to disrupt some 50 pages to make a point that some of the articles lack proper sources. ZorroIII 19:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment: Actually when I nominated them I check all the What links to this article. All of them where unreference except for maybe one. Since then I think there are now two that have references 2006 and 2002. (I think!) Though I nominated this article for deletion. I must agree with the above comment. It is dubiously one of the reasons I nominated this list of articles. Hopefully it will help us realize and perhaps elaborate a little more on verifiability, wp:cite and no original research, which seems to compliment each other and give reason for deletion (according to WP:DP#What to do with a problem page/image/category)--CyclePat 19:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't understand how this is even being considered. —bbatsell ¿? 19:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


comment in the talk page of CyclePat as Written by JzG:

Pat, next time you are tempted to tag up an article like that (let alone a template), please do ask around first. If you don't trust me, ask somebody else. Your action was precipitate - to suggest that an Olympic medal table "requires sources" is pressing a point too far since the sources are freely available on the Internet and published every day in the press, whether or not the people using them have accurately transcribed the figures.
Apart from anything else you apparently only half-did the process, and it was the wrong process to start with (should have been miscellany for deletion). Oh, and you tagged entirely the wrong article - you tagged the medal tables template, in effect demanding sources for the existence of the 2006 Winter Olympics. The article you want deleted, Olympic games medal count, does not exist and never did.
Also, you said in the delete request that all it required was citations - that is not grounds for deletion unless you believe that the article is irredeemable in that regard (i.e. original research without prospect of reliable external sources - absurd in the case of an Olympic medal table). If that sounds like "don't be a dick" then I probably got the tone about right :-) Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep and slap Pat with a wet trout for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Even if these articles required citations - which, if the information is available from the IOC site, cited from the linked article at Olympic games, is a philosophical question of only marginal interest to me, that is absolutely not a grounds for deletion since the problem, if it exists, can be fixed trivially easily without use of admin powers to delete articles, which is the reason this process exists. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Disruptive nomination. Any of the articles could include a link to the IOC site for that Games as sufficient citation. -- Jonel | Speak 20:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Oi. I'll just say....oi. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and further more this is a disruptive nomination worthy of a WP:POINT ban slapping. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If you see how much time it took for you to find one year. How much time do you think it will take to find all the other years. Oh! And whatch what your saying there JzG. I might just snap. Please assume good faith in me. I appreciate your summary of the issue. (the one at the top of this nomination, not your comments just above this comment though) I think this label (Template:Medal sources also displayed below), which you removed, sumarizes the issue verry well. One of the reason I didn't put it on every article is my laziness to put the afd on every article. Why do that when you can simply put it on the template that shows up in every article. At the end we can decide on what article are properly cited or not. <grinning/light heartly> You old stuburn dog.  :)
      • I removed the template, it's linked above. You don't include templates in discussions, it screws everything up. Pat, the difficulty or otherwise of digging up individual medal tables is completely irrelevant to whether all the medal tables should be deleted as inherently unverifiable, whcih is in effect what you've asked for. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--CyclePat 20:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment One question, how the hell is the olympic metal counts "original research". Honestly this is the biggest stretch I've ever seen. Since Cyclepat may not know what original research is I'll give an exmaple. Lets say I am a medical biology student (hey what do you know I am!!) and I do a cause and effect study, for example does deodorent cause breast cancer (dont laugh, someone actually tried to claim this), and instead of publishing in a peer reviewed publication, I publish it on Wikipedia. This would then be original research, and be deleted for it. Olympic metal counts are NOT original research. I am posting this to WP:AN as well since this is WP:POINT. Mike (T C) 20:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, WP:POINT violation. Failing to cite sources does not make an article original research, and is not grounds for deletion. CyclePat has made at least one other bad faith/frivolous AFD nomination in the last few hours. Finally, adding the AFD tag to the template hides the AFD notice at the bottom of the article, rather than displaying it properly. It should be removed from the template as vandalism; if the user is fool enough to want to nominate these articles for deletion, put the tags on all the articles, so they display properly and can be seen by users as required! Monicasdude 20:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What makes that anymore different then saying 2 + 2 = 4? (original research)... The lack of sources may mean this information comes from such original research (or attending the event) (Or tabulating the facts to give a result!) It makes me assume, where there is no citation, that this is an individuals recollection or a tablature from a source (Original research). However if the source is properly cited we may be able to verify this. I'm not saying this is original research... well actually I am... But It may not be. (which the odd are probably very high... I hope!)... In that case it should be easy to substantiate all these claims. Otherwise, instead of claiming I have some bone to kick, why don't you try helping out to find a source to substantiate the unverified information. <walking away... back to researching> Now... How many medals where from 1976 or 1980... etc... --CyclePat 20:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete under A7. --BorgQueen 16:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dali_Duchesne[edit]

Delete Not notable? Serlin 16:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was:Speedy deleted

Captain Positive Reinforcement[edit]

Delete - Appears to be purely invented Biederman 17:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn Davies[edit]

Non-notable. Probable vanity. Mtiedemann 17:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I did a bit of Google searching and could find no reference to her. I searched by Jocelyn Andrea Victoria Davies, Joceyln Davies Manchester, and Josy Davies Manchester. So if she exists, she is non-notable. By the way, all the substantive work on this article has been done by three editors (if they are in fact three different people), whose accounts show edits only on this article, other than one other edit on a soccer player. --Thunk 21:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The soccer player in question apparently being the boyfriend of Jocelyn Davies, according to the article. Mtiedemann 21:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only claim to notability is who she's related to, and who she's dated. Claim of being "darling of terraces" seems made up, as does the whole article. Also quite offensive - claims notability because "apart from spending enough money to feed a whole African country on a weekend..." I think this is just a flight of fantasy. Zap it! Camillus (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for above stated reasons San Saba 17:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Then replace by a stub on the real Jocelyn Davies. Gareth 00:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeyCluster[edit]

non-notable advertisement (~250 google hits) Alvin-cs ✉ 17:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 00:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 23:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable cluster product to date (might be in the future, but at this point clearly not). The article isn't a very good advertisement, but it appears to be one. At this point in time... I have to go with a delete recommendation. Georgewilliamherbert 20:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carparking_Act_%281870%29}}

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mashavera[edit]

Disambiguations serves little to no purpose when all the links they contain are red. Mashavera is one of these articles, so I guess we can delete this. SoothingR 19:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom unless the linked pages are created. Daniel Case 20:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, disambig page with only redlinks. If three or more bluelinks come up on it, I'll consider changing. (One is a redirect, and two would be a disambig header.) Stifle 00:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of German history[edit]

Doesn't seems to make any sense to me. Incomplete, and it's not even relavent to its title. --Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 19:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 19:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Americans_for_Justice_in_Palestine-Israel[edit]

Article is poorly written and seemed extremely biased and in support of the organization. Additionally, the referenced links point to websites that share the same cause but are not directly related to the organization. Limbojones 08:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral for the moment. We need to see some evidence about why this organisation is notable. How many members does it have, what impact has it had, is it widely known etc.--File Éireann 20:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment have tried to remove the POV. Not sure what to do with those links though. No vote. Jcuk 21:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. If notable, they would be listed at [[27]] Without any claim to notability in the article body, it's just someone's soapbox. Carlossuarez46 23:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. They have no website. There are few google search results for the organization. I too believe they are the soapbox of the creator. Limbojones 05:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 03:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Towa Oshima[edit]

Bad Bio as per WP:BIO. You however want to investigate the further links to see if they are bad bio's also or if they are references--CyclePat 20:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. Obvious bad faith nomination. Monicasdude 20:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment only about 500 Googles, looks unpromising. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response. You're kidding, I hope. 6 volumes of "High School Girls" listed at Amazon, a Japanese TV series about to air [28], and she looks unpromising? Comics and cartoons don't draw and write themselves, after all. Monicasdude 21:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. I have plans on fleshing out Ms. Oshima's page, as I am a huge fan of her work. Calicore 23:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, non-vanity published author. Kappa 00:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 192.88.171.35 08:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC) Neier 08:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CES 18:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 19:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petnebula[edit]

Non notable business. Article is advertisement.DeleteTheRingess 20:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a non notable business, why are pet sites like Creature World and Zetapets allowed to stay up here? They are equally popular. Keep --Sakano 20:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 04:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klanwars[edit]

There is no evidence given as to why this PC-based league is notable File Éireann 20:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will expand on it.... It is notable because it is widely popular and used by many...check here for reference ... www.klanwars.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoVe (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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Howard Stern Show Revelations Game[edit]

Article already merged into main article, as it was pretty asinine to create a seperate page for it, in my opinion. JB82 20:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, doesn't seem like a particularly great idea to bloat the main article with this. Kappa 00:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like a keep per Kappa. Stifle 00:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Leithp as patent nonsense (CSD:G1). Stifle 00:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Guillory[edit]

Self-serving nonsense Corazon 20:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 03:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leamy Acoustic Art[edit]

Questionable notability OscarTheCattalk 20:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Canada's only bell foundry ... not notable enough? How much more notable must it be?MLeamy 21:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above (who is author of the article) seems to have been a misformatted response to the nomination, now fixed Kappa 00:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MLeamy. Kappa 00:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per above Jcuk 08:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Ardenn 06:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge to Nottingham. Chick Bowen 03:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie Club[edit]

Small nightclub, no claim to notability. Markyour words 20:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Maybe it should be included in the Nottingham article. James Kendall [talk] 21:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere, as significant part of the Nottingham indie club scence demonstrated by google hits and bbc coverage. Or keep. Kappa
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Chick Bowen 16:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beserk dragon[edit]

It's a random playing card. Suitable for a Yu-gi-oh site maybe, but not Wikipedia. James Kendall 20:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge into Yu-gi-oh. --Thunk 21:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with a list of Yu-gi-oh monsters. Kappa 00:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Power Nine precedent. -- Grev 05:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 00:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 04:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of channel six TV stations in Canada[edit]

  1. Isolated as the only list of this kind when it comes to Canadian television
  2. Has no links

Delete if no one can show this list can become more Wikipedia-like. Georgia guy 21:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Mix[edit]

Purely non-notable brand of cereal, maybe a merge to Lucky Charms or Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 21:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or slight merge per Jaranda. Stifle 00:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 23:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete User: Hrwiki 18 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. I count five deletes, two keeps, and lot of hand-wringing, but the consensus seems to be that people don't like the title, they don't like any of the writing, and all of the material is covered elsewhere. Chick Bowen 16:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foundational status of arithmetic[edit]

A convoluted content fork of Arithmetic pushed forth last 2003 by Jonhays0, inventor of the term Generatics and Generating arithmetic.-- Perfecto 21:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Nothing links here, nothing to merge to anywhere. --Perfecto 21:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've created a few links to this page, and asked User:R.e.b. if he'd like to comment here or contribute to the article. He is a somewhat regular contributor to some of the articles on foundational issues in mathematics and a well-respected professor of mathematics. Michael Hardy 01:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a topic extensively covered in Gödel, Escher, Bach and apparently not described on any other page I could find. May need a name change. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. There's some stuff here that's sort of interesting, but it's highly POV and could be OR. If kept it needs serious cleanup, and I'm not sure just what the path to that cleanup would be. BTW the article arithmetization of analysis, on which this article relies, has similar problems. --Trovatore 21:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, per Trovatore . It clearly requires cleanup, but I don't think there is anyone who is capable (with with the knowledge and ability) of it. Needs, at least, a name change and total rewrite. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Arthur Rubin (the last three votes, mine including, resemble a successor function :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's a poor article for being excessively chatty, insufficiently detailed or focused, and poorly styled as well, but the subject is historically interesting and the article is not inherently worthless. Put an expert attention notice (and hey, why not a sources-needed notice too?) at the top and let it fix itself; this article is merely bad, not perniciously bad.
I also disagree with Arthur Rubin that there is no one with both the knowledge and ability to fix the article: I think there are plenty of mathematics history buffs out there. The first one to read the article will surely improve it. Meanwhile, the cleanup notices will warn other people not to take it too seriously, or encourage them to look up some facts to improve it themselves.
I also disagree with Trovatore: it is very unlikely to be original research, as it basically makes note of some famous quotations, a few prominent historical trends, and some very basic mathematics. It is also not "highly POV": it is weakly so at worst, and mostly just in the writing style and lack of details. The "arithmetization" of mathematics, which is the point of the article, is well-known to mathematicians. Ryan Reich 02:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the agenda of the article is clear; the author thinks that all of mathematics can be reduced to the arithmetic of the natural numbers. He's quite wrong about that; the reals are fundamentally richer than the naturals. (Of course the reals can be thought of in terms of the naturals in second-order logic, but I seriously don't think that's what the author has in mind.) To get a clearer picture of his agenda, check out this link from his user page: http://members.fortunecity.com/jonhays/fable.htm .
Now I didn't say the article was worthless; I said there was some interesting material there. But it is extremely POV, not just a little bit, and I still think it's kind of OR, which is not to say there aren't citations, just that I think his synthesis of them may not be what the original authors had in mind. --Trovatore 04:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, reading it again, I'm still pretty sure the author has an agenda, but I'm less sure what it is (and I'm also less sure what the point of the "fable" is). Maybe that's what you meant about being "POV in the writing style". Ordinarily a good test for NPOV is if you can't figure out the author's opinion, but I think that doesn't apply if the reason you can't figure it out is that it isn't written clearly. --Trovatore 05:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, you don't need full second order logic here; the only sets you need are Weierstrass cuts; I think that is what he has in mind. Septentrionalis 06:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An arbitrary set of naturals can be coded by a real, so yeah, I think you pretty much do need full second-order to get the reals from the naturals. And of course "mathematics" doesn't stop with the reals.... --Trovatore 06:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically seems to be the flawed program of Principia Mathematica and Axiomatic set theory, I would class this as original research. --Salix alba (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With two days left in the AfD, I'm not convinced any two of us agree on what the article is actually about. That's certainly not an indication of a good article, but it also makes me nervous about deleting it, because there might be something there that could be cleaned up. Should someone invite Jon Hays to comment? Probably, on general fairness grounds, though having browsed some of his comments, I'm not sure he's really going to clear things up for us. --Trovatore 18:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. After several tries, I have no idea what the article is supposed to be about. Dmharvey 17:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trovatore and Arthur Rubin cannot make sense of it, nor can lesser beings like I. Therefore, this article is not useful to the reader, who can better turn to Peano axioms. It is also not useful to editors, as it needs to be completely rewritten. Better to delete it and, if somebody feels like it, they can start afresh. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, not really sure whats its about, but there is some stuff here which should be covered, but I think its best to start afresh. (Some material may be covered elsewhere, I've not really found my way around the relavant articles yet). Heres my take on some of the points in the article:
    1. Gerneral thesis: much of mathematics can be generated from simpler elements.
    2. Sucessors: how to get the natural numbers from set theory, I think this is how Russle did it in Principica Mathematica, covered at length in Godel Escher Bach. Covered in successor operation
    3. Reals from Integers: use cantor sets
      • The effort to have a Cauchy sequence of pairs is odd. Septentrionalis 21:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Complex numbers from reals: this seems dodgy, while we can go easily go from pairs of reals to complex numbers, we do not get the additional multiplication structure. Personally I don't like this approach. In a lot of situations (analalytic, poles) complex numbers behave more like the reals than pairs of reals. My understanding of complex numbers improved a lot when I gave up thinking of complex numbers as pairs of reals and started thinking of them as an algebraic extension, sort of the number line with a bit more.
    5. Random philosophical notes. Contrast between geometry and arthmetic, there is scope for a good treatment of this. I saw Atiyah give a great keynote speach on the link between the two along the lines that they are two side of the same coin and much of the best mathematics has happend when one has been transfered into the other.
    6. (Off topic) Are numbers a real thing? There is a good history of people questioning various extensions, negative numbers, zero, irrationals (named because Descarte/Kroneker? though they were not a rational concept to hold), imaginary numbers (likewise name as a put down). Theres was a recient edit somewhere which addressed this but it was quickly deleted.
    7. minuend, subtrahend two terms new to me, don't know if are common, not given any proper treatment.
    8. Pedagogy (teaching). There is definatly a school of thought that one way to teach maths is a purely genarative, start with the most basic concepts (sets) and work up. Well it took Russle several thousand pages to get as far as the natural numbers using this aproach, and then we find that maths is axomatic after all Godel/ZFC.
    9. Links. Mostly to authors own pages so OR.
  • So there is the germ of some good articles here, much is probably already covered elsewhere. Unconviced it is a coherent whole, or this article is a good starting point. --Salix alba (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What everyone agrees on is that the writing is, as per nom, convoluted. It is a POV fork (see Wikipedia:Content fork). The concept's principal author is also the article's principal author, Jonhays0 (see Wikipedia:No original research). Because I find absolutely everything in the article is somewhere else, I deny merge. Until I see reliable sources independent of Jonhays0, I say delete. I'm disappointed we've been serving as free web hosting to jonhay0's ideas since 2003. End this. --Perfecto 20:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 03:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative ranks and insignia of Star Trek[edit]

This was created a long time ago with some combination of canon, non-canon anf fanon info... I think everybody (see the talk page) knew it should be deleted but didn't want to because they thought it could be useful. However, I just don't think there's any way to salvage this in its current form and the cleanup tag from May 2005 would confirm as much. Schrei 21:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, but remove the content that is disputed & hasn't had citations added since May (apparently gorn & ferengi ranks, per discussion page). Karnesky 21:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Pure original research mostly stolen (sorry to be harsh, but its true) off of other people's fan websites with no connection to the producers of the Star Trek show. -Husnock 00:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep anything verifiable, strip the rest out. However, there's quite a few unfree images onboard. Stifle 00:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Karnesky. It doesn't have to be canon, in the sense of appearing on-screen, but it should at least be official, as in having appeared in a licensed product. The Bajoran ranks, since they're so obviously based on US Army ranks, could stay, but, for example, the upper and lower Cardassian ranks look like pure conjecture. In those cases, we should leave spaces for them in the chart but omit the conjectural terms. Powers 17:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Powers It doesn't have to be on-screen canon (being non-canonical is not criteria for being deleted, see [29]), but some citation from official (albeit non-canonical), non-fanfic, non original-research sources are needed. Roleplaying game sourcebooks, for example, would be plenty for purposes of this article. This needs some cleanup and sourcing, but not deletion. --Wingsandsword 16:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge Starfleet ranks and insignia into an all-inclusive article. This is a chart, not an encyclopedia article. I think that might be what he's getting at. Jibbajabba 19:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per author's request. Mushroom (Talk) 23:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exeter University Gilbert and Sullivan Society[edit]

A non-notable university student society. Also, most of the entry reads like a home page, especially the lengthly staff listings and the list of previous shows. Maxamegalon2000 21:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. --Karnesky 21:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, per Evil Harry. --Karnesky 15:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight merge per Wahoofive. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Stifle 00:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge. per Wahoofive. --Maxamegalon2000 21:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I created the page, realised it is unnecessary, and I think it should go. --Evil_Harry 14:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surviving cast members[edit]

Boundless trivia. Girolamo Savonarola 22:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Appears pointless and unecyclopedic to me. A bit morbid too. As the cast members die, we are to update the article by removing their names—ugh. And what criteria gets you on the list? Appears only to be age. So we remove them as they die and add new actors at some arbitrary point we deem they have reached an age at which they're statistically likely to not survive long. Besides being unwieldy, the whole concept is repulsive. --Fuhghettaboutit 23:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more appropriate for deadpool ... Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment who is going to keep it up-to-date. I just deleted Peter Benchley, but a list that keeps contracting is so much worse than one that keeps growing. Carlossuarez46 23:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, invitation to create piles of articles about nn film characters, list that is badly defined and permanently incomplete, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 00:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AskQuickly[edit]

Search engine with alexa rank 2,750,480. Prod removed by its author.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manindra Singh[edit]

Possibly a hoax/nn-bio. I originally saw what looked like a bunch of nonsense being added to this article and reverted it, but as it turns out it was just the orginal author. Searching for the name in quotes brings up a bunch pf non-related people.-- Shanel 22:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax/nn-bio--Shanel 22:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -Drdisque 02:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yeah, Shanel, I noticed someone had taken out some of the content, but it was from the person who created the article, so I put it back in. --Maxamegalon2000 03:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax/nn. *drew 08:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ganeshk (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to User:Manindra and Speedy Delete. utcursch | talk 11:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elwoh Software, Inc.[edit]

Non-notable IT company OscarTheCattalk 22:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 04:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick brewing company[edit]

Prod-ded twice, both times removed. Does not assert notability. Renata 22:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. 40K+ google hits, apparently well-known in microbrewing community, apparently involved in hemp beer litigation [30], cited in tourism guides, etc., etc. Described by independent source as largest brewer of its type in region [31] Its products are treated seriously and reviewed by (beer) consumer guides [32]. Looks notable (and potable!) More significant in brewing industry than Kadee Strickland is in movie industry. Monicasdude 23:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, multiple independent coverage on the first page of google hits [33], thus passing WP:BEER and/or WP:CORP as applicable. Kappa 00:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Removal of prod was entirely correct. Massive room for expansion here, but the Hempen Ale story makes this an automatic keeper. -- JJay 01:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Breweries are generally encyclopedic IMO, and the controversy surrounding the hempen ale makes it even more so. Friday (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Three delete, one delete or merge if necessary, one don't know, only one keep. Chick Bowen 03:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YahELite[edit]

Delete - reads like an ad for the software. Non-notable? ChemGardener 22:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete advertisement. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 23:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for advertising. Shoppers 23:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not uber-notable but notable enough[34]. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This software is well known within the yahoo chatroom community. Whether that makes it notable or not, I don't know, myself. If it were kept, it would need to be rewritten to be NPOV. --Xyzzyplugh 01:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable yahoo-cruft, merge and redirect to Yahoo if necessary, but its probably not, only one page links to this, and there will unlikely ever be any others, wikipedia does not need an article about this. Jdcooper 01:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Automation Ltd[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peaceful correlation[edit]

delete nonsense, not quite patent. Possibly a test page by a new user, User:Luzmarina. I left a note on her (?) talk page but she hasn't been back. --Trovatore 23:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

207_Mafia[edit]

Delete. Non-notable garage band. The 2 links the article gives on them are the only ones that a google search finds, both presumably pages they created about themselves. Xyzzyplugh 23:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_12&oldid=1116878805"