Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 17 February 19 >

Purge server cache

February 18[edit]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP Jehochman 05:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtutech[edit]

Corporate brochure. Does not meet WP:CORP Monkeyman 00:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP They have had notable press coverage & have partnerships with both IBM and AMD. They are a Swedish company, so someone more knowledgabe about international stock exchanges might also chime in. --Karnesky 00:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Press coverage and partnerships are not criteria for 'keep' within WP:CORP. Monkeyman 03:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is the first criteria: "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." -- Karnesky 03:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an actual article, not a brochure --Ruby 00:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC) Changing to Delete Alexa rank of 468,217, which would be borderline for a bank or insurance company but this is a computer company. --Ruby 03:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The company caters to a small number of very large companies. Of course the Alexa rank will be low, because it's not selling to the masses. Googling "Virtutech": 44,800 hits and the site is PageRank 7. Jehochman 19:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Karnesky. --Terence Ong 05:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see no sources cited in the article. If there's notable coverage, then cite it. Otherwise, I don't think it has been demonstrated to meet WP:CORP at this time. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added some sources onto the page after searching Google for a bit. After mulling it over, it think it's a keep per WP:CORP 1 -- Samir ∙ TC 08:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE --Alphachimp 19:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see the point of this nomination. If their software Simics is notable enough to have an article, the company must be at least notable enough to be merged. And Alexa rank seems irrelevant. u p p l a n d 20:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Simics is notable, therefore Virtutech is as well. —Ruud 01:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I have made substantial contributions to the article). Jehochman 18:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to improve the article and added references.Jehochman 18:40, 21 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 Jehochman 05:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argox[edit]

Corporate brochure. Does not meet WP:CORP Monkeyman 00:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Karnesky 00:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Ruby 00:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if rewritten; it has 732,000 Googles, which is pretty notable. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per King of Hearts. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 02:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable company. Kappa 02:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not really a "company brochure", and I've learned something new. No reason to delete. --Jay(Reply) 03:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The gentleman who created this article makes his living marketing companies on the internet, including, apparently, Wikipedia. --Ruby 04:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source of the information should not be discriminated against so long as it can be verified. Source is irrelevent if Information checks out, and it does. -AKMask 00:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alphachimp 19:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable Company. -AKMask 00:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I started this article. Jehochman 18:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 07:50, 23 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 think anything really needs to be added. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brayne case[edit]

Seems to be a hoax. If it's not it's non-notable and unverifiable. Searches for the two main people in this article come up completely without results. Delete Makemi 00:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling Gerald Bittans with this.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 won't touch Daniel Johnson, however, as several users here seem to have that article well in hand. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cincy Weather[edit]

Delete. Advertisement for an irrelevant website, vanity. Doco 00:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I have also bundled the article about the author (Daniel Johnson) to be deleted alond with this one. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 00:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:VSCA. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Ruby 00:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Note that one Dljohnson destroyed a disambiguation page for some notable Daniel Johnson's to create his vanity page - see here. This should be restored, and this self-publicist/vandal/chancer removed from Wikipedia forthwith! Camillus (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did not realize that Dljohnson had wiped the disambiguation page, (good catch Camillus), I have since reverted the article to its state prior to those edits. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 01:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, WP:VSCA. --Kinu t/c 01:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unremarkable spam. -- Krash (Talk) 01:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - user 69.61.143.132, I assume owner of page keeps removing AfD notices. -- Tawker 02:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite to a more factual, less promo cruft article. If the author isn't willing to do that, well, I guess it will have to be deleted. --Jay(Reply) 03:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If I may point out, Daniel Lee Johnson and Daniel Johnson. --Banana04131 04:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity. -- Samir ∙ TC 08:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. -- Death Eater Dan 14:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 07:52, 23 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sumerain city-state[edit]

Basically orphaned article (only link is a misspelled redirect), repeats information in City-State without adding anything which makes a Sumerian city-state different (which it probably wasn't). Hasn't been edited since initial creation and clean-up last October. Delete Makemi 00:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just realised that this title is also misspelled. Makemi 00:31, 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, not speedy delete. Honestly, are people just using "speedy" for emphasis these days? "Delete, and I really mean it, so I'm gonna say speedy"? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunreef yachts[edit]

Advertisement. Was tagged with PROD, but the creator removed it, so I'm bringing it here. Joyous | Talk 00:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete outright advertisement. Why do these cheapskates think they can use WP as a site for free advertising? And how many times have we seen "creater removed prod tag? Camillus (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me, they can have five days 'til deletion on PROD or AfD, their choice. --Ruby 00:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They can get their own web space to advertise --Ruby 00:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, along with their boat's picture. --Kinu t/c 01:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Treznor 03:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: Article cries yellow pages. --Jay(Reply) 04:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad per nom. Kuru talk 05:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Makemi 06:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, great ad though, they should post the same on their website. It caught my eye. -- Samir ∙ TC 09:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Death Eater Dan 14:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 07:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, per nom.Bjones 04:54, 24 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 09:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farting sexy[edit]

Really dumb advertisement --Ruby 00:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advert. While WP is not censored for minors, neither is it a repository for pornography (does that make me a prude? :) Camillus (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising for otherwise non-notable website. --Kinu t/c 01:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unremarkable spam. -- Krash (Talk) 01:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons above, plus...it smells. PJM 02:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, smelly. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 02:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. No need for AfD. Monkeyman 02:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per above. Daniel Case 03:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD G1 NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Waste of quality time even listing it here. --Jay(Reply) 04:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Deletions are interpreted very narrowly, this is not patent nonsense (CSD:G1) and I am not aware of any precedent for doing speedies on advertising (which can sometimes be a judgment call) --Ruby 04:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete As per Ruby, not sure what speedy cat this would fall under (cause it's an ad, not nonsense) so STRONG delete. --lightdarkness (talk) 04:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice, wish it could be speedied. Makemi 06:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't know why they feel they need viral advertising. It seems like fart porn should sell itself... savidan(talk) (e@) 06:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non-notable website of "hot tooting babes". Cnwb 06:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete'. Piling on -- can we set the AfD record? Herostratus 08:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as close enough to CSD A1/G1 for government work. And Wikipedia. Tagged as such. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A1. -- Samir ∙ TC 09:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That there is no speedy deletion criterion that covers this points out a flaw in the speedy deletion criteria, plain and simple. -ikkyu2 (talk) 09:09, 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 speedy rename, this is the Philosophy of education article with long history (originally created by Larry Sanger), moved to current preposterous title by the North Carolina vandal. Moved back. -- Curps 07:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SECRET aNIMATED sITCOM[edit]

I can't figure out why there has been so much edit warring going on here where good editors are reverting to an article which is nothing more than our Philosophy of education article with a nonsense title on it. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete duplicate article, possible vandalism --Ruby 01:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as duplicate article with peculiar name and bizarre edit history. -- Krash (Talk) 01:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. The edit history has to be merged back into Philosophy of Education, as it was moved from there, but wasn't moved back. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 02:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SAVE THE HISTORY, as above. Move/merge back to Philosophy of education so edit history is not lost. Pengo 02:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SAVE THE HISTORY per above. Move/merge to correct article. --Jay(Reply) 04:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move/merge back to Philosophy of education to save the history, per above. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move/merge as above, probably someone should think about blocking User:Elitist, who moved the page a number of times, causing confusion. Makemi 06:30, 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Intitiates[edit]

Delete as nn group. Google returns 234 hits, most of which seem to be mirrors back to the Wiki article. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 01:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep & Merge with the related artical at Martinism ---J.Smith 01:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-club --Ruby 01:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable club; more club guidelines than content/info. --Jay(Reply) 04:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Master Jay. Stifle 22:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 07:54, 23 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 following withdrawal of nomination. It doesn't pre-empt a merge if deemed appropriate by editors. Well done Dragonfiend and PJM. Capitalistroadster 20:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evening Crazies[edit]

Term for a supposed increase in 'hyperactivity and playfulness' in cats during the night due to their nocturnal nature.

The previous nomination ended with three 'votes' for merging to Cat and two delete/merge votes. It's still here and hasn't been merged. The thing is, it's not referenced and therefore fails WP:V, and I for one wouldn't put it into Cat unless a reference could be found. And if someone does come up with a source to support it, it's not like we'd be losing a huge amount of material that would have to be rewritten.

For what it's worth one of the cats we used to have exhibited the 'evening crazies' for a while, but the cats that I've lived with since have been crazy and hyperactive at completely random times during the day and night, so I have no idea whether this is actually true or not beyond a tiny bit of anecdotal evidence. Delete. --Malthusian (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawing nomination, voting merge. I like the references and they seem to indicate that this is the accepted term, thanks PJM and Dragonfiend. An admin can close this if they feel like it. --Malthusian (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Cat. It's seems to be a widley used and accepted term: [1]. PJM 02:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've verified with references and expanded slightly. I'd also be fine with a redirect and merge into the "Hunting and diet" section of Cat. -- Dragonfiend 03:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Cat. Valid term, verifiable, however not quite an article of its own yet. --Jay(Reply) 04:07, 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 keep. Those who really really want it merged are invited to do the work themselves at a later date. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smažený Sýr[edit]

Too little information on this entry CClio333 01:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No meaningful content --Ruby 01:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC) Keep with the new changes. --Ruby 02:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 02:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC) Keep with new changes. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 02:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a real dish. It's just fried cheese, like Saganaki or Mozzarella sticks. Keep pending rewrite. -- Krash (Talk) 02:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current revision has useful content. I basically moved information from Czech cuisine. I would also support a redirect. -- Krash (Talk) 02:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's hardly a delicacy, ("it's just fried cheese") just a translation of something incredibly nondescript. Merge and redirect to some cheese-related topic at a push. ++Deiz 02:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Article seems at present to be a pretty good stub. --Hansnesse 02:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I confirm it really means fried cheese in Czech, it is popular (I like it too) but I do not think there's need to have such article for every language. The material can make good section for a "typical Czech food" article. And btw, capitalisation is wrong: "smažený sýr" or at worst "Smažený sýr". Pavel Vozenilek 02:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a stub, so just give it some time. A new user listing it for deletion airs on the caution side, as a side note. --Jay(Reply) 04:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now that it has some actual factual information, it is a worthwhile article. It was the original entry that pretty much just said "It's tasty!" that I objected to. CClio333 15:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly legitimate stub. I'm going to move it to Smažený sýr per User:Pavel Vozenilek. dbtfztalk 16:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and well done to Krash for his work on this topic. Capitalistroadster 22:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Carlossuarez46 01:32, 22 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 what with the NN bios, the nonsense and the vandalistic Michael Jackson references and removal of deletion tags; one of the more obvious bits of junk I've yet seen submitted to Wikipedia. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 02:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YoImJordanC[edit]

Delete. Vanity, utter nonsense, etc, but author keeps deleting speedy tags. Mithent 01:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Vanity --Ruby 01:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or Delete Obvious vanity. Might be an issue with the photos as well. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 01:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, A7. Re-tagged. PJM 01:58, 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 delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 6, 2006[edit]

A single day - which generally is against article naming/creation ideals. Couple that with a healthy dose of both crystal balls and plain old balls, add in a garnish of incorrect factoids (The anniversary of AIDS is 6/6? Really? Our article says 18/6!), and you get a prime piece of sirloin deletion material. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The next Omen movie is said to be released on 6/6/06, if this article is deleted it will just get created again --Ruby 01:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could have easily went on PROD. Delete, despite the amazingly worthless fact of another Omen movie being released on that date. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 02:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unremarkable and unverifiable. Original research and opinion. Also, WP:NOT a crystal ball. -- Krash (Talk) 02:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, crystal balls. Plus, movie release dates can be as unreliable as flight arrival times. When it happens...by all means create. ;) PJM 02:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per those above. Pavel Vozenilek 02:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant with already existing calendars and lists, no need for a whole article for this one particular day. Contributor could very easily make a note on the current June 6 article for the year 2006. --Jay(Reply) 04:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate when it is nearer the time. --Terence Ong 04:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, recreate on 6/06/06 if the world really does end that day... er... yeah. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice against recreation when timely (but not before) if notable. Daniel Case 04:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And there's already a mention of this date at Number of the Beast#Astrology Schizombie 05:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the nomination details, and more. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreate three and a half months from now with (*gasp!*) real, verifiable, non-POV, non-OR content. --Kinu t/c 06:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - we do have individual day pages for many days in the last few years, which are transcluded into the relevant month pages (see User:Sjorford/DMY pages). However, I agree that there's no good reason to do this for future dates. — sjorford (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I something happens on that day we can always recreate. Batmanand 11:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with everyone else, this date has not even happened yet and it is based purely on opinion. If something DOES really happen, we can create this article again then. ~ NecroWraith
  • Delete any and all future Armageddon speculation. And anyway, AIDS would be an extremely anti-climactic apocalypse ;-). Grandmasterka 11:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 07:54, 23 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eceng.plasmafish.com[edit]

Totally unremarkable student-run website with content only for students of a technical institute, no alexa ranking on this one. --Ruby 01:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable. Chairman S. | Talk 02:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 02:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Kinu t/c 02:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Treznor 03:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No relevance outside of those who already use the site for school work. --Jay(Reply) 04:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 13:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Relevant to viewers of Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology and linked from said page. - El Barto 14:28, 18 February 2006 (GMT)
User has 14 edits other than to this page. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 18:00, 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 well, nothing really. I'll delete the copyvio, as a copyvio, and replace it with the temp page. Nobody has addressed the new version, so I'll leave that to a new AfD ... if you dare. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Eskow[edit]

A consultant for 20 countries including Hungary, Albania, and Japan; a vice president of several companies, a CEO of two companies. Performs under his own name and blogs for leading site The Huffington Post and others. Note: New detailed temp article has been posted that does not have copyright violation. --Ruby 02:01, 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 REDIRECT to Military slang. KnowledgeOfSelf 10:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cluster fuck[edit]

Wiktionary already has an entry for cluster fuck which addresses the subject of this article more appropriately. James084 02:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 02:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Ruby 02:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef. -ikkyu2 (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated. -- Krash (Talk) 02:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: dictionary article. --Jay(Reply) 04:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Military slang just like clusterfuck does. —Cryptic (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Military slang per Cryptic. BD2412 T 05:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki If dictionary, please dump the content onto wiktionary and replace the wikipedia page with {{dict}} -- Zondor 07:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This word is not unique to nor is there any evidence that it originated with the military (though we do use it a lot). It does not really belong at military slang. Straight delete (and clean up the other inappropriate redirect as well). Note: I'd also be okay with a redirect to the Wiktionary page. Rossami (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it's already in Wiktionary. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and comment. Interesting... I've know this phrase for years (since at least the 1980s) because it's widely used in both science fiction fandom and SCA circles - buit with a completely differnt definition... it's another name for a group hug, with everyone arranged in a circle (like you see before and after some sports events). Grutness...wha? 01:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -in Wiktionary. Sandy 15:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Cryptic. youngamerican (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Calicore 21:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content of the wikipedia article is much more comprehensive than that of military slang or wiktionary. I'd hate to lose it. If the content can be moved to wiktionary, then I'd support the Transwiki - but not just a delete, please. GRuban 13:40, 23 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 REDIRECT. Banez 11:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stool Pigeon[edit]

A dicdef with just enough etymology to pose as an article --Ruby 02:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A homing pigeon is an animal. A stool pigeon is a euphemism. --Ruby 02:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real abuse of pigeons. Kappa 02:43, 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 16:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Kingdoms[edit]

Delete this article on a webcomic which does not meet WP:WEB. This article was listed as a PROD for lack of reliable sources and for not meeting WP:WEB notability guidelines. The PROD was also endorsed by a second user [2]. The PROD tag was later removed by an anon user because, as they wrote on Talk:Dragon_Kingdoms, "Comic Genesis is a major webcomic site" and "The Webcomic List lists many comics, including Dragon Kingdoms." Neither of these are reliable sources or signs that this webcomic meets WP:WEB. "Comic Genesis (formerly Keenspace) is a free hosting provider for webcomics ... there is no requirement to join other than having a comic to put up." "The Webcomic List" seems to list every webcomic submitted to them: "Get your favourite comic listed for free! If you want to see your comic or a comic you read appear on The Webcomic List then please enter the it's [sic] details below! ... Your comic will be added to the list straight away ..." [3] Dragonfiend 02:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why? Because of the guideline that states: "7. Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion." Comic Genesis, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, is an independent online site, and if this comic should go, then there are dozens of other comics on this site that should be removed from the webcomic list section. Other reasons that support keeping the article. 1) The series has more than the suggested 70 comics in an 18-month period. 2) It ranks fairly high on a search engine. 3) It might be better to have a list within the Comic Genesis article of the more active webcomics on its site, than remove valuable material from this and other Comic Genesis sites. Again, CG may have thousands of comics, but very few of them are active. --65.32.81.3 02:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note #7 of WP:WEB also states "Such distributions should be nontrivial. Although Geocities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial." Being hosted on a free site such as geocities, myspace or comic genesis is a trivial matter, and not a sign of notability. -- Dragonfiend 03:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the time Dragon Kingdoms joined Comic Genesis (which was Keenspace at the time, in April 2004), there WAS a quality requirement (that the comic happened to meet). Not just anyone could join. Part of the re-branding effort in 2005 was for Comic Genesis to be more open to the many webcomics out there, to the extent of registering domains, such as toonspace.com, among others. So, while it is now possible for just any comic to join, that wasn't the case. Also, Comic Genesis is hardly trivial- it isn't even stated in a COMIC guideline page that it is. Even if it is now, it wasn't then. --65.32.81.3 03:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Proof Comic Genesis never had quality requirements. You're thinking of Keenspot (which was the entire reason Keenspace was rebranded: People kept getting the two confused). Nifboy 00:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • History of Comic Genesis Comic Genesis had a major crash under the Keenspace name in 2003.
        • Revised to Keep In fact, before they officially started taking any submission that came across the street in March 2004, they were limiting submissions, so the site wouldn't crash again. My submission was in February 2004, at the time they said "We're limiting comic submissions at this time, but if you're good enough, we'll take you. Please submit the work that you want to represent your comic." The first work I sent ended up representing the April 9th update. The comic posted by Nifboy started in 2002, before the short period of submission limitations. Since I don't know much about Comic Genesis before the crash, I thought they all had to be quality works. Even so, it doesn't make sense to remove comics that were already being hosted before the crash due to lack of quality. Because, if CG was as delete-happy as Wikipedia is, there would probably be about 10 or 20 comic sites left on it. As mentioned, this community is a black eye in the webcomics community, to the point that it WOULD be best to take all articles down, and move them to Comic Genesis, Comixpedia, or any other webcomics-related community's Wiki. In fact, I think all these deletions are going against what Wikis were supposed to be in the first place. It doesn't harm a directory on webcomics to tell a little about each one, as said earlier, if long listings become a problem, BOLDly split them into other categories! If they are truly inactive comics, THEN consider removal. If they are poorly written (which I believe is the TRUE issue here), have them marked for clean-up. Otherwise, remove them ALL, and have the webcomics page be a links page to sites that host these comics. --Videowizard2006 01:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Alexa 33,878, which is respectable for a webcomic --Ruby 03:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC) Changing to no vote per Dragonfiend --Ruby 03:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 33,878 is actually the Alexa rank for all of the thousands of webcomics hosted on the free Comic Genesis hosting service combined. If you scroll down to "Where do people go on comicgen.com?", you'll see that Dragon Kingdoms is not in the top 20 most popular webcomic on Comic Genesis, and it accounts for less than 1% of their Alexa traffic. -- Dragonfiend 03:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, couldn't the article be either on Wikimedia or the Comic Genesis wiki? Though it is strange that Comic Genesis isn't considered notable enough. Another possibility, rather than deleting every article in sight, is having the webcomic lists in genres. That way, the main page would still be readable, and people looking for comics of a certain genre can find them. Also, at the time Dragon Kingdoms joined Comic Genesis (which was Keenspace at the time, in April 2004), there WAS a quality requirement (that the comic happened to meet). Part of the re-branding effort in 2005 was for Comic Genesis to be more open to the many webcomics out there, to the extent of registering domains, such as toonspace.com, among others. --65.32.81.3 03:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per User:Dragonfiend. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Dragonfiend. Sandstein 12:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Dragonfiend. JoshuaZ 00:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Dragonfiend. Nifboy 00:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Dragonfiend. ergot 00:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Comic Genesis/Keenspace is the geocities of the webcomic world. Anyone can host their comic there, and yes, there's a lot of webcomics which need deletion, we've just not round to doing it yet. - Hahnchen 01:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Zaron 19:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cancelled - I checked hits in, and they aren't so great (fewer than 25 hits, not in the top five results for links in). And there's the fact that no one has even suggested transferring it to Comic Genesis' wiki (which I've already done) or Comixpedia. --Videowizard2006 21:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revised --Videowizard2006 08:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Close to 500 webcomic articles have been imported to Comixpedia from this site. The decline continues. Though maybe not all of the imports are articles deleted from Wikipedia, I have a feeling a lot of them are. If "there's no way to verify most webcomics' articles" (quoted from Nifboy), why not take them all down? Just make searches for them redirects to the appropriate comic site. As I've already stated, it is pointless for Wikipedia to duplicate the existing sites' (CG and Comixpedia) Wiki directories. This also works because, like it or not, some notable webcomic authors (such as the one of Checkerboard Nightmare) already feel that Wikipedia is a useless source for webcomic information (which I unfortunately agree with them). I looked at the Secret of Mana Theater article (for example), and I fail to see what is so notable about that. Also, I don't know why 2-3 people can shut an article down. Having 10 votes is hardly a large enough sample from the community to allow an article to be deleted, especially when there is no way to check that 5 of these people are Dragonfiend's friends, a well-noted nominator of articles for deletion. This is supposed to be a site for everyone. If your article is simply a description of the characters and the comic's history, and not "LOL, go to teh forumz", or "My comic is da BOMB" what harm does it do to put the word out there? Also, Alexa is no longer supposed to be used as criteria for an article, yet that is what DF has been doing. In fact, I'm thinking about proposing a new standard for webcomics to end this fighting.

I feel that it is fine to have an article on your (or any) webcomic, as long as: 1) It has been around for at least 6 months. 2) It has at least 20 comics in those six months, 70 by the end of 18 months (if a weekly), or 15 comics in 18 months for a monthly. 3) It doesn't go around saying it's the greatest comic ever. It is okay, however, to mention improvements since earlier editions. 4) It at least talks about the characters, mentions the time it started and its website link, and should have some history. That's all. If it isn't well-written, mark for cleanup. If the comic becomes inactive (three months without update) for a long time (like RPG World), it should go into the Inactive list for six months, after which, it can be an AfD (Article for Deletion). Inappropriate articles can go into AfD or SD, depending on severity. Completed webcomics like Kid Radd would be exempt from the Inactive list, and would go under the Completed list. I don't know why we all have to keep fighting, keep arguing, and keep deleting, when there is a simple solution right here.

Finally, to verify, is it so hard to go to said website and look through the archives? I didn't notice anyone checking to see if the info was correct besides DF, which doesn't exactly instill confidence in me. --Videowizard2006 05:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Videowizard, I agree with you that Wikipedia's rules are too strict about what is considered to be a notable webcomic, but the truth is that is the rules of the site, and that is what we're going by here. This webcomic may or may not deserve an article here, but by the current standards it does not. I think your arguments are good, and deserve to be heard, but this is not the place to bring it up, this is only an AfD discussion. Try taking this up in the WikiProject Webcomics discussion, where it's not going to fall on deaf ears. If this article stays it would be an exception to this site's rules, so rather than try to preserve the article, see if you can get people to agree to change the rules. -- Zaron 05:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Videowizard2006, I can understand that this might be difficult for you, having not only an article that you wrote up for deletion but having the article be about your comic as well. The only thing I can think to suggest is that you might want to read over Wikipedia:Verifiability and try to understand that we are building a reliable encyclopedia based upon reputable published sources. The alternative -- an unreliable encyclopedia -- isn't really a worthwhile option. It may also help to read over Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. For example, Wikipedia is not a place for advertising or self promotion, nor is it a web directory. Best of luck with your comic. -- Dragonfiend 08:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, you don't hate it then? I thought maybe part of the issue was hatred of the comic. Well, I've noticed somewhat of an increase in the comic's popularity recently, having been included in the 2005 Blank Label Webcomic Telethon, and the number of hits have steadily increased. Unfortunately, Comic Genesis doesn't make the number of hits a comic gets public, so it isn't possible to verify that the comic has done so. Maybe it's just a little early for this comic to get an article here. Would've been nice, though. --Videowizard2006 08:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realized something. As far as I know, this is the first comic series based on a RPG Maker creation. I haven't seen anything about webcomics starting before November 2000 that are based on RPG Maker. How come being first isn't considered notable? After all, there's the first sprite comic, the first Flash comic, the first 3D comic, etc. --Videowizard2006 07:04, 21 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 can't hardly believe it, but it's a keeper. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Guilt[edit]

This is an extremely notable and widely discussed concept, and as such this article needs cleanup not deletion. However it was {{prod}}ded, which gives me the excuse to bring it here. Kappa 02:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Well documented phenomena. No Guru 02:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We've also got White_guilt, why not Catholic Guilt. Monkeyman 02:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. Perhaps if Kappa feels that all these articles are notable he could expand them to prove their notability? Simply removing the Prod and CSD tags doesn't really fix the problem. James084 02:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to discuss other articles, please do so on my talk page, it's off-topic here. Kappa 02:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How old does something have to be before it's no longer a neologism? I don't think "catholic guilt" is one. 108,000 hits on Google, 465 hits on Google Book Search, 501 on Amazon's "Search Inside This Book." And not that it's directly relevant to the article, but I saw Big Catholic Guilt live, and they were really good. Anyway, as noted WP has White guilt and Jewish mother stereotype, so the article is not necessarily a powder key, but what's written there at present is not worth keeping. The article on Guilt#Cultural views of guilt is rather skimpy so it could be merged over there, provided it were improved upon. Schizombie 05:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm Catholic and I can say, without a shred of guilt, this isn't encyclopedia material --Ruby 03:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Powder keg waiting to explode in edit wars, opinions, POV, and so forth. No clean way to pen a legit article such as this. --Jay(Reply) 04:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It sounds very Wiktionaryish. Outside of explaining the concept I don't know where you go with it except POV.--T. Anthony 05:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expand. BD2412 T 05:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. As Schizombie noted, this is a widely discussed topic. Capitalistroadster 06:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lankiveil 06:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, without a doubt. This is both encyclopedic and expandable. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Potential for edit wars isn't a criteria for deletion. Otherwise "Jesus", "abortion" and "George W Bush" would all be removed. (oh, rename the topic to "Catholic guilt" please.) ---J.Smith 09:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Someone needs to give a reason that this violates the policy, or else the default is keep.Batmanand 11:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. Editors can recommend deletion based on guidelines and their own opinions. This is a discussion. PJM 16:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notable and important topic. aliceinlampyland 13:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Agreed that a notable and important topic. It deserves encyclopaedic reference if only for its importance as prominent theme in modern Irish and British Catholic literature. Graham Greene in particular.--TMMABPTY 14:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT I'm sorry I just need to interject here. There are a lot of you voting Keep and Expand but nobody is really taking any initiative to expand and cleanup the article. This really, really, really does not fix the problem. If it is so notable and worthy of more than the dictdef that it currently is why doesn't anyone fix it? James084 15:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't one legitimately express the opinion that the article is keepable and expandable, even if one lacks the time, motivation, or knowledge to expand it at the moment? dbtfztalk 17:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point being that if nobody ever takes the time to expand and clean up these supposed notable articles then a pretty low standard for articles becomes established. Clean them up, expand them, or delete them. James084 18:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Merge with Confession might suffice. I don't see it standing well on its own without bumping WP:NOR or WP:NPOV. PJM 16:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, per above. dbtfztalk 17:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, per above. A real issue, though not a simple one, with social, psychological and ethnic components in addition to the religious. Fan 18:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one BBC article is not sufficient. If this is knwon and used term someone will create valid article later. 22:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavel Vozenilek (talk • contribs)

  • Keep and expand. The phrase and stereotype absolutely exist and are not new. The extent to which the phenomenon is real, vs that to which it is a construct used by non-Catholics to stereotype Catholics, is worth recording. (Arriving at college in the 1980s, I was startled to find my (nominally Anglican) friends refer to this idea - coming from a Catholic background, I'd never heard of it!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackyR (talk • contribs)
  • Keep And you may want to add a section on that fun subset of Catholic Guilt, "Irish Catholic Guilt". I blame those nuns from grade school for all my problems, and somehow I feel guilty about that. . . FunkyChicken! 01:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, as per above! Catholic Guilt lives! Ahhh! UncleFloyd 03:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see how this is encyclopedic, it seems to just be a term and a regurgitation of material covered in Roman Catholic Church article. -- Greaser 06:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless expanded'. Stifle 22:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's notable, verifiable, and encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 01:35, 22 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. KnowledgeOfSelf 10:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of Nigeria[edit]

According to the BBC, not even the Nigerians know their own demographics. As such, this article is a bit of an embarassment on Wikipedia - it seems to be fraudulent. Recommend it be deleted. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but source info (or explain why info might be inaccurate). We have similar articles like South_Africa#Demographics. Monkeyman 03:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a notable topic with precedent shown per Monkeyman (see also Category:Demographics by country). Needs references. Have tagged as unsourced. —ERcheck @ 03:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but source. And do you believe everything the BBC tells you?  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 03:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but source, same as above. Other than reference, absolutely positively no reason to delete. --Jay(Reply) 04:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have demographics of other countries, but source info. Carioca 05:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild keep. As someone who has lived in Nigeria for a few years, I think I can comment. The difficulty here is getting accurate sources. The FAO populations given in the graph, were widely believed when I was there to be grossly underestimating the population. Academics I talked to in 1980/81 considered the population then to be well over 100 million - an enormous difference from the figure in the graph. This article is valuable, but a lot of caution about the figures needs to be noted. However, it may be the best figures anyone can get. --Bduke 07:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom. ComputerJoe 18:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Verify: Too bad for the Nigerians if they don't know. We Wikipedians will have to find out eventually... Karmafist 18:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and verify. We have articles on the demographics of every African country. It would be unfortunate if we deleted the article relating to the most populous nation on that continent. There is a public domain source in the World Factbook for this type of information [4] and plenty of other almanacs would have this data. Capitalistroadster 23:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and source, possible add material about accuracy issues(with link to bbc article maybe?) JoshuaZ 00:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but change language to make accuracy issues prominent throughout: "source x claimed figures y in year z", etc. The topic itself is encyclopedic and WP isn't making claims, just recording other people's with suitable caveats.JackyR 01:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Have added caveat at top of article. More sourcing work needed further down. JackyR 01:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although many cautions are needed with the stats, since they may not be reliable. UncleFloyd 03:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but source it; and just because the BBC says that the Nigerian's don't known their own demographics does not mean that they really don't or that someone else doesn't. Carlossuarez46 01:37, 22 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. KnowledgeOfSelf 10:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Action Figure Association[edit]

Vanity, advertisement. NN Delete Ardenn 02:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • BJAODN, if for no other reason than because of the 14 year-old that still plays with his rasslin' figures. youngamerican (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertisement. Monkeyman 03:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above. --Jay(Reply) 04:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Ruby 04:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above. UncleFloyd 03:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VSCA. This information belongs on the group's own website. Stifle 22:15, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 11:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campbells Bay Primary School[edit]

This article was previously nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campbells Bay Primary School. On 17 Feb 2006, Kennyisinvisible tagged the article for deletion. His/her renomination unfortunately linked to the previous discussion rather than to a new discussion page. No explanation was provided for the renomination. My correction of the nomination is procedural. I abstain. Rossami (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. No reason given for nom plus previous nom that this article survived. Let's not waste our time with the same articles. I see no problem with Campbells Bay except a need for some expansion. -- JJay 13:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable school. BrianGCrawfordMA 20:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its survived AfD once, that should say something. Plus its a school. Jcuk 23:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is capable of expansion. It would be good to have input from New Zealanders as to whether it is Campbells Bay in Auckland or Campbell's Bay. Capitalistroadster 23:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is Campbells. A few years ago the NZ lands and surveys department (or whatever it was called then) went around and barbarically removed apostrophes from a large number of New Zealand placenames. A lot of people still use the names with apostrophes, but technically they're gone. (Oh, and a weak keep, BTW). Grutness...wha? 23:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded it a bit, enough that I'm comfortable strengthening my vote to Keep. (But now I'm hardly unbiased.) -- Avenue 12:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. If kept, no need to expand solely with generic and transient information. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, helps WP's coverage of education in Auckland's North Shore. Kappa 23:52, 23 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 11:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lon Amick[edit]

nn actor with one direct-to-video credit to his name, calls himself a poet even though he's not published, and claims descent from Charlemagne along with millions of other people. ("Everyone is Descended From Charlemagne") User:Zoe|(talk) 03:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non notable. --Jay(Reply) 04:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zoe --Ruby 04:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nomination. UncleFloyd 03:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, to be a poet doesn't imply any published work. Emily Dickinson had no work published while she was alive; does that mean that while alive she wasn't a poet? Take that idea and stretch it to all artists. You are saying that if they have no art for resale they are not really making art. That is a lie. The bio says Amick is an actor who is in the planning stages of his poetry book; we have no reason to doubt this.

As to his ancestors, these may be fantastic claims but we have no way to prove them to be lies. If they are really all that bothersome I suggest editing out the portion “…whose lineage can be traced to Charlemagne the Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich and Edgar Allen Poe among others.” However, I see no reason to really doubt these as factual. Also, if everyone is related to Charlemagne then he has just as much right to say so as everyone else.

Amick obviously does have an acting career and a position with Monumental Pictures. I think this is proven by the external links. While he has only one movie to his credit he is in talks for more movies and does hold a position on Monumental’s Board of Directors. I think if we doubt this we should contact Monumental Pictures and ask them about the nature of “Imprudence” Amick’s role in the company and any further acting work he may be doing.

I don’t think that this page is a strong candidate for deletion, this person has obviously done things and is continuing to do things that are beyond the scope of the everyday individual.

The above is from User:Scotsmanace, whose only edits are to the Lon Amick and Blake Fitzpatrick articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia had existed during Emily Dickinson's time, and somebody had tried to write an article on her, the article would rightly have been deleted, as she was not notable at the time. Also, it is not our job to try to prove things are lies. It is the job of the people who write the articles to prove that they are true and notable. So, when are you going to start editing the article of every single person of European ancestry to include that tidbit about being descended from Charlemagne? And where's the proof for Mr. Amick? Also, one credit does not an actor make. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:36, 22 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 11:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peep brûlée[edit]

Seems to be neologism - very few Google hits. --Ixfd64 03:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. But, man, the image of pyred Peeps made me laugh.  :) Monkeyman 03:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverifiable, local term. But the peeps really weren't that funny. I say we hold a consesus on if the peeps were funny. Or maybe even a consesus on if we should be able to hold a consesus on if the peeps were funny. --Jay(Reply) 04:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jay --Ruby 04:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. I like Peeps. Schizombie 22:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nomination. UncleFloyd 03:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with main Peeps article. Toasting them is sufficiently notable a use form to list on their page, but not for an independent article. No matter how much fun it is (where'd I put my Arc welder ...) Georgewilliamherbert 22:27, 21 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 11:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Living Corpse EP[edit]

This isn't verifiable. A Google search for "'The Living Corpse' 'Liz Phair'" brings up the Wikipedia entry first and the Sub Pop denial, but no announcement of the existence of an EP. Weebot 03:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No source. Monkeyman 04:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Ruby 04:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above. No source, could be a hoax, or extremely non-notable. --Jay(Reply) 04:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, non-notable or hoax. --Terence Ong 04:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't someone just contact Sub Pop, which is not hard, and ask them whether this is real or not. If it's not, speedy-delete it. If it is, keep it. - Jmabel | Talk 00:28, 23 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.

AkashArora[edit]

unofficial entry by some random user 165.69.3.20 06:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. JIP | Talk 17:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Arora[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn bio --Ruby 15:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP AS IT BELONGS TO JOURNALIST

  • Delete as non-notable. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:BIO criteria for published writers, also involved in noteworthy event [5] . Monicasdude 15:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, more notable than Cyrus Farivar. Kappa 17:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another of those journalists. The event [6] is not notable enough. Half the Google results are about Akash Chopra, the Chief IT Architect of Netlink Digital Energy. Many others are results from non-notable forums/discussion groups ([7], [8] etc) or Wikipedia mirrors. Doesn't meet WP:BIO criteria -- he is not an editor; his only claim to fame are some reports about sex. utcursch | talk 11:31, 21 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, with no prejudice against merging to I, Robot, if that's what someone chooses to do. Deathphoenix 13:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Lanning[edit]

Irrelevant to ANYTHING. Teabagged 05:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as nonsense. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Relevant to both the movie and stories of I, Robot. Englishrose 11:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to I, Robot Dlyons493 Talk 08:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Characters from media deserve to stay in WP if someone takes the trouble to write them up --Ruby 15:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with I, Robot. Notable. BrianGCrawfordMA 20:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is this fictional character really any different to Frodo Baggins or Romeo and Juliet or even Laa-Laa from the tellytubbies? Jcuk 23:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Three Laws of Robotics is a recurring theme of Asimov's work and the developer of these laws would meet WP:FICT. However, the fact that our article on the Three Laws of Robotics doesn't mention him at all causes me some concern. He is a charcter in the movie but is he in Asimov's book/s. The answer to that will determine whether I vote to Keep and Expand or merge with I Robot. Capitalistroadster 00:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with I, Robot or Three Laws of Robotics. Latter article already includes lines such as 'In his short story "Evidence", Asimov lets his recurring character Dr. Susan Calvin expound a moral basis behind the Laws.' Unless Lanning shows considerable character development, or is more generally used to reference the Laws (like Romeo and Juliet, etc, are used as cultural refs), then a similar sentence re Lanning would suffice. JackyR 00:39, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 11:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amnon Jackont[edit]

Only 528 results in Google[9], not notable enough. Useless article.

  • Delete --Haham hanuka 09:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep An extremely well-known Israeli author and literary editor with over 600 hits on Google [10], appears in the Lexicon for New Israeli Literature [11], the Institute for translated Israeli literary authors [12] and has an article on the Hebrew Wikipedia, written by prime contributors of that project [13]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gidonb (talk • contribs) Thank you Alhutch, I did forget to sign. gidonb 16:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's still less than 1000. --Haham hanuka 18:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1000 seems fairly arbitrary. For a local figure, 600 may be plenty. Wikipedia:Google says taht Google may be used as a test of whether a term is in use, or whether something is verifiable, but even then is dubious. For notability, I would not use Google as a measure unless someone's claimed notability was in the online world, where I would surely expect sufficient reference. The only accepted criterion for authors is found at WP:BIO. jnothman talk 23:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for your explanation. I now get over 900 hits. [14]. This user frequently tries to remove information. gidonb 12:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a speedy keep. A speedy keep can only arise when there are no other votes to delete and a nomination was either withdrawn, vandalistic, or clearly disruptive. Please try another vote. Stifle 22:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stifle, I support continuing the regular procedure as you suggest and as it developed. That said, I see this nomination as clearly disruptive. The nominator, who is indefinitely banned from the Hebrew Wikipedia, can read in Hebrew that Jackont has an extensive article at he.wikipedia and is a notable and in fact a multiple times bestselling author and television personality. By luck I found out that so much creative work was about to get lost (edits started elsewhere; there was an error with the article movement). Regards, gidonb 22:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be a notable person.--Alhutch 16:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this author is also something of a hero for exposing serious crime in Israel, see Amnon Jackont#Trojan horse exposure, so why pick on him? I just don't get it. IZAK 16:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: appears to pass WP:BIO both by criterion as an author (presumably) and by reknown through newsworthy events. jnothman talk 23:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Gidonb and reference as per his illustrations. What we are looking for reliable sources to meet our verifiability policy which have been supplied above. Capitalistroadster 00:29, 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. Mailer Diablo 11:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Cruz[edit]

This is self-promotion of a not-terribly-notable sex-film worker. My favorite part: "She graduated in the top 5% of my senior class and left to study..." whoops! JDoorjam Talk 02:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It says she's starred in 100 porn films. I'm not sure if this is a notable achievement or not (does porn differ from normal films in the amount of films people usually star in?). I'm not going to check her website from my work computer! Cnwb 04:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So his angel is a centerfold, big deal --Ruby 15:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 16:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and for advertising. A hundred films for a porn actress is not notable. Steer clear of her website, unless you like butt-ugly girls in trashy lingerie. Ugh! BrianGCrawfordMA 19:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 100 films is not few. Not a record by any means, but neither is it anything to sneeze at. Many listed porn actresses have starred in far fewer.GRuban 14:00, 23 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 11:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypse Racing[edit]

Delete, non-notable; also vanity and/or advertisement. EdGl 02:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non notable "racing group" that exagerates it's accomplishments. --lightdarkness (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic self-promotion of a group --Ruby 15:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable advertisement bordering on patent nonsense. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:13, 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. Banez 11:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arro[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, real French commune. Used to be about some Bionicle thing, but it didn't look very verifiable. Kappa 13:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Same as if it were a village stub --Ruby 15:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although 'commune' in this sense is merely an administrative division. --Lockley 23:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as real place with real communities of interest. Capitalistroadster 00:41, 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.

From what i can tell, this is all information (On the Pag) that was fan created. Can a member of BZpower please ask Greg about this article? HHS.student 21:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Banez 11:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avital Gad-Cykman[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per original PROD nomination --Ruby 15:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A few Google hits for this writer, but no accomplishments (so far) that rise to notability. --Lockley 23:34, 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 Speedy deleted as an atack page for an alleged porn actress with no Google hits. Capitalistroadster 01:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Becca stewart[edit]

No google results for Becca Stewart porn actress. Abögarp 22:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Yeah, that's a pity. Can't find her movies either. Weregerbil 00:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this reads very much like a dumped boyfriend getting back at his ex. I'm sure she'd be appalled. Delete it quick! Camillus (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like a hoax --Ruby 15:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax ComputerJoe 18:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mildly funny, but not at all verifiable or notable. BTW, there is an actress in the IMDb named "Rebecca Stewart" who did a thirteen minute short in Australia in 1983, the alleged year of birth of "Becca Stewart." "Moisten my Labrador" although funny, cannot be found. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:21, 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 redirect to Dumpster diving. – ABCDe✉ 01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Binskiffler[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was Moved to Wiktionary. (It was promptly deleted there.). Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:39, 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. — Feb. 26, '06 [15:27] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Coldplaying.com[edit]

website vanity, not notable in it's own right Cyrock 23:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is very notable, even the band's official site has the coldplaying.com link on it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.83.188.206 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep Coldplaying.com is the offical fansite of the band coldplay, and you allow other offical fansites on here (and a lot of other rubbish). MrDaveS 23:15, 12 Februart 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Coldplaying.com is the biggest source of information for Coldplay fans, removal of its entry will render a lot of current Wikipedia Coldplay information attainless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Busybeeburns (talk • contribs) .
  • On The Fence If the article can be expanded by someone who is part of the aforementioned site, then keep. If this is as far as it ever goes, delete. Lunis Neko 08:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Alexa ranking of 142,470. The claim of "arguably the biggest Coldplay fansite on the internet." is POV without any proofs. Even if claim is true, just being the largest fansite for a particular band does not satisfy the criteria listed in WP:WEB. --Hurricane111 15:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable as the first website to offer a much sought after recording of Ode To Deodorant, one of Coldplay's first releases. Also one of the first to provide news on singles, interviews and tours, even before the official website... Littlewhiteshadows 21:42, 16 February 2006 (GMT)
  • Delete. Not-notable per WP:WEB, even if it is the "official fansite" of the band. Green Plastic is the official fansite of Radiohead, and for a while the band's primary website before radiohead.com became regularly updated. However, even it is only referenced with an external link on Radiohead's Wikipedia page.
Alternatively, if the band's official website is only externally linked on Wikipedia, why should a fan site deserve its own article?--Madchester 05:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To all fans of this site. Making a new account just to vote here is not acceptable. To all, please sign your votes if you want them to be taken seriously. But I agree to the idea that if this article can be expanded, then it stays. Other wise, it goes. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 22:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As not notable. Fine (and would encourage) having this as a link from the Coldplay page - however this is not notable in its own right. Coldplay is the notable topic (if you like dull music. Just kidding.)--TMMABPTY 14:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hurricane --Ruby 16:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, an external link at the bottom of the Coldplay article is sufficient. Average Earthman 17:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Average Earthman. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and add external link at Coldplay as per Average Earthman. JoshuaZ 00:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence presented that it meets WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 01:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nomination. UncleFloyd 03:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Alexa ranking is crap, it only ranks pages which the webmasters have paid Alexa to rank. It can not be trusted
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 to Coton Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coton, England[edit]

This page duplicates the Coton page and is thus redundant. Also its name does not follow the guidance for English placenames: Saga City 19:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Coton, which is what this page originally did. --Kinu t/c 07:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Redirected to Coton. I can't imagine any possible objection to this, but I'll leave this open for a while just the same. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:39, 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. Mailer Diablo 11:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deanna Allen[edit]

Delete 1) No references to support the claim, 2)If you had a page for every soldier whoever got in trouble there would be a million of them. Not enough to establish notability, 3)A pic or two on the internet does not mean notable.--Looper5920 07:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Reference added to article. Probably still not notable enough. Fagstein 07:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are marines in trouble right now for doing gay porn, but are we going to see articles on each one of them? No? Why not? Because it doesn't rise to the level of notability required by an encyclopedia. --Ruby 17:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Demoted for mud wrestling?" Let me know when she's been "shot for sodomy." BrianGCrawfordMA 19:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well, unless you have the mud wrestling photos. . . UncleFloyd 03:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Camp Bucca. --Lockley 06:01, 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. Banez 11:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Ridout[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete small time business man. If he was notable the companies he worked for wouldn't all be red-links. Camillus (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC) (BTW, I'm not the nominator)[reply]
    • In your definition of "small time", how big does a company have to be, before its no longer deemed "small". I assume you checked into the size of the companies (e.g. aren't voting blindly), and didn't actually base your voting solely on the presence of redlinks. --Rob 07:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Camillus --Ruby 17:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Camillus. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Camillus. --Ardenn 06:07, 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. Mailer Diablo 11:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desi uncle syndrome[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No hits on Google. The Professor Ali isn't identified. I don't understand the article, it defines "Desi" (unnecessarily since it could have linked Desi) and sort of defines uncle, but doesn't define what a "desi uncle" or a "desi uncle syndrome" is supposed to be. It also throws in ABCD (American Born Confused Desi), FOB (Fresh off the boat), and the neologism ABCA (American Born Confused Arab - two hits on Google) without spelling them out or relating them to the subject. Schizombie 05:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Schizombie. It doesn't explain the concept, which probably doesn't exist in common parlance anyway. The author Shebazishkhan also has no other contributions to Wikipedia, so this is likely a failed vanity and protologism attempt. --Kinu t/c 07:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOR. What a great neologism, though! I know many people with Desi Uncle Syndrome. -- Samir ∙ TC 09:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu. Pavel Vozenilek 11:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the article doesn't explain what it actually means. Arundhati bakshi 16:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This has to be a joke --Ruby 20:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. utcursch | talk 11:19, 21 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 11:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drake Management[edit]

Delete. Looks like an advertisement for a non-notable company. EdGl 20:30, 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 d3l3t3. Mailer Diablo 11:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F4rming[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Redirect to Farmer (gaming) --lightdarkness (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is this really widely used in gaming terminology, to the point of needing a redirect? Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just thinking of all the "|337" kids out there, if concensus is to delete instead of redirect I won't mind :D --lightdarkness (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable |337 spelling. What, create redirects for all possible |337 spellings for all words? Weregerbil 09:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • D313t3, n0t 4 r34l w0rd kthbye. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft and patent nonsense. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete World of Warcruft --Ruby 20:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:23, 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. Mailer Diablo 11:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gloom rock[edit]

Delete. Advertisement, probably made-up music genre. EdGl 05:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN Cruft term, Last FM shows that the tag is only used by one person, to be put on one band (probably the "Inventer") --lightdarkness (talk) 07:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Forbsey 11:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the name is plausible but this doesn't exist as a genre, possibly except to the extent that the two bands advertising here have labelled themselves. Would welcome any evidence of it existing independently though.--TMMABPTY 15:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Ruby 17:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as patent nonsense and advertising. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:23, 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. Mailer Diablo 11:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glorathril[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Entire text: "Glorathril was a rather dainty and affected elf in a Middle-earth Role Playing (MERP) campaign that ran from 1988-1991 at Keele University. He was often referred to as Gloria for his effeminate ways, and was often the brunt of Emyn Longbeard's quick wit." --Lockley 06:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per not for lack of context.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  10:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn't an elf in Middle Earth mind you, this is an elf in a game --Ruby 17:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not the place for fond memories of crap no one finds important. BrianGCrawfordMA 20:19, 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 redirect to Google. Mailer Diablo 11:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googlit[edit]

  • What is this term?? Is this an article created by a Wikipedian who just thinks this is interesting to have?? I suggest delete if no one can show this is a real term. Georgia guy 21:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Use of this word in the wild seem more to do with Google and an obscure brand of clothing. I remain to be persuaded if anyone can find real-world use. --Billpg 23:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Only in the sense that it is a colloquial term for "google hit" rather than the numerical sense. Gamextheory 17:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't need a merge for that. Only do a merge if content needs to be carried over, which (if I understand correctly), does not apply here. If this article ends up deleted, you can make a new article containing a redirect to Google. --Billpg 19:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Google. Science3456 00:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Google per Science3456. Facts&moreFacts 04:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Googol and Googolplex are real terms, but Googlit is probably something made up in school --lightdarkness (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as made-up silliness. Do not redirect. Vslashg (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Google per above. The term is real, but it relates to the Google search engine, not a number. DecGon 13:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to google. 64.192.107.242 18:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lightdarkness --Ruby 20:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to google. DecGon 18:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to google per above. StarTrek 20:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to google. Car salesman 21:40, 21 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. Mailer Diablo 11:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helsinki Vodka[edit]

This is a blatant advertisement DanLitovPhD 01:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No point trying to rewrite it. Only 35 google hits. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like a legitimate brand of vodka. Cnwb 06:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, pending further research... seems like a legitimate spirit, per Cnwb. I took a stab and cleaned up the article a bit (removed the obvious advertising, provided a corporate link to replace the distributor's one). Not much to expand on, of course, due to its limited popularity. --Kinu t/c 07:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete forcing a rewrite, per nom.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  10:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisement. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see what is wrong with this. I don't see why this is advertisement. I don't see what rules this violates. I don't see why it shouldn't be here. Therefor I must say I think we should keep it. --CyclePat 02:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CyclePat. Can't see any reason to delete. Stifle 22:16, 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 redirect to Helsinki Vodka. Mailer Diablo 11:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helsinki vodka[edit]

This is clearly an advertisement, not an article DanLitovPhD 01:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously an ad Delete Fan 02:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Helsinki Vodka if that article gets kept, as it is less of an ad at the moment; delete otherwise. --Kinu t/c 07:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant ad --Ruby 20:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete per Kinu. Smerdis of Tlön 00:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect & merge as already sugested. --CyclePat 02:58, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 11:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical disaster[edit]

WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball) Choess 20:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This page describes a term; its purpose is not to chronicle predictions. "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" guideline does not apply.
  • Keep This article only describes the disasters listed, it does not predict them. Storm05 14:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of disasters. This subject is too broad and...well...hypothetical, to be of much use. There also isn't that much meat in this article. It's skin and bones. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 22:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think the nominator misinterpreted the article. It simply presents various disaster scenarios that have received considerable scientific attention rather than predict when they will happen. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup; BJAODN the bit about "Sudden loss of gravity." Daniel Case 05:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and really, really cleanup. Its full of guesses and suppositions which could be replaced by actual information eg regarding 9+ on richter scale it stated "Many sciencetists doubt that this kind of earthquake will happen". Well, there was that 9.5 in Chile (sorry - forgot the timestamp) Psud 05:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: I can't speak to anything else that might justify its deletion, but it certainly doesn't fall under "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". savidan(talk) (e@) 06:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Oh no! Could we really lose gravity! -- Samir ∙ TC 09:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and add links to gravity-boot merchants; I'm worried now : / . Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, ties well to existing articles of past and future disaster scenarios. Doing a bit of cleanup on it. Weregerbil 09:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as potentially verifiable and not infinite list. Batmanand 12:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's looking good now thanks to some cleanup. Sad to see the gravity failure gone. Not that I'm planning on putting it back. Psud 12:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Dang, I ran into these: End of civilization and Human extinction. Some overlap here... Weregerbil 14:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of Disasters. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the above user means List of disasters. Batmanand | Talk 13:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but clean up. --Janke | Talk 08:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep — Yeah, serious clean-up still needed. Introduction states that "there is no known historical or geological evidence", then the article proceeds to cite evidence of such. The sentence be restricted to recorded historical evidence only. :) — RJH 16:08, 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 DELETE. Banez 11:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Job for a cowboy (band)[edit]

Non-encyclopedic myspace band. No allmusic.com entry. Gamaliel 08:27, 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 Speedy keep as result of withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 01:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Bastardi[edit]

Changed my vote to Keep seems to be some bad blood spilling out on Wikipedia from two rival orgainzations. Please disregard the nomination. San Saba 20:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not vanity, 171,000 Google hits for "Joe Bastardi." Most of the IP addresses editing this article are from the NOAA, a rival organization. Recommend restoring to an earlier version before these edits, or sending to cleanup. --Quintin3265 20:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 05:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Qualifies for speedy keep as nomination withdrawn & no delete votes. -- JLaTondre 19:39, 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 no consensus, but I'll merge this University of Guelph since student publications typically don't have their own articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thecannon.ca[edit]

Is an online college publication really notable under WP:WEB? I don't think so Daniel Case 04:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. I think it's as notable as any student newspaper, and it is student funded. Ardenn 19:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Student publications are rarely notable, although they may deserve a brief mention on the University page. Alexa rank is 641,000. AndyJones 11:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AndyJones and WP:NFT. Stifle 22:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with University_of_Guelph#Student_Media. Kappa 13:06, 23 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 11:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki fixers[edit]

Prod tag removed without comment. No need for this page as we have WP:CU already. Group and website are not notable. Daniel Case 05:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==== Responce ====
1. Im new to wikipedia, the banner thing said to delete it if we dissagreed and i do.

Yes, but that means it goes over here.

2. we are mearly trying to help, we are aware of the clean up campain, this is just a suppliment, 2 is always better then 1, and 3 is better th4en 2. so anyone elce starts one, that wont be a bad thing either. think of it like a milita, theres the army whitch does most of the work, we just try our best to do more then our fair shair.

All of us here are by default part of the cleanup crew.
I never thought I'd watch myself type this, but Wikipedia is not an MMPORPG. You are certainly welcome to have your group and website and do what you do. It just doesn't merit an article, especially seeing as we work hard to avoid self-referentialism here. I would commend you to the project namespace but, as I said, we already have something for that.

3. daniel case is a known obsessive deleter. he puts more deletion noices up then their are articles, ive been here a week and ive seen 3 deletion banner put up by him.

And this is a slow week, too :-). Like you said, there's the army and there's the militia. Daniel Case 05:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Hammerfist0 05:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN and should not be part of the main Wikipedia. I am also a little concerned about people claiming to be fixers when they can't spell or use English grammar in their posts. Maustrauser 05:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete,clearly, per Maustrauser. Makemi 05:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD, A7. Group is extremely non-notable and Wikipedia-specific. Content might be appropriate for a user page. dbtfztalk 05:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable Wikicruft (is that a cromulent word?) per nom and the excellent irony noted by Maustrauser. --Kinu t/c 06:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. —ERcheck @ 13:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, though I suppose it could be Userfied as an unofficial thing. Maustrauser has a point though! -- Mithent 16:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Maustrauser. --Maxamegalon2000 21:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, doesn't belong in main namespace. Pavel Vozenilek 22:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy if the user wants that - user space is better for this kind of stuff. It really has no reason to be in main namespace in any case. If not userfied, Delete. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - don't need this further paving the road to Hell. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Surely well within the scope of A7. I'd be happy to see this userfied first if User:Hammerfist0 would like to do that. AndyJones 11:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy. Redundant to WP:CU. Stifle 22:17, 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 speedily deleted as patent nonsense. Next time, Kukini, feel free to tag such nonsense as {{db|nonsense}}. FCYTravis 07:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discosnacks[edit]

This is nonsense Kukini 05:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Nonsense. Cnwb 06:21, 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. Mailer Diablo 11:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Naboo (Imperial War)[edit]

Redundant to Second Battle of Naboo. No point in making it a redirect, since nothing links to it and "Imperial War" doesn't actually exist (see the AfD vote here). Delete. BryanG 05:38, 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 speedy delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 09:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Baldry[edit]

This appears to be a personal bio. Not sure though. Kukini 05:50, 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 Speedy Keep. Tawker 05:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Baldry (2)[edit]

delete - Many similar articles on non-notable people have been deleted in the past and there is no reason why this article should be kept on Wikipedia. Vandals have already removed this AfD tag before and it should stay on this article until the matter is resolved. Lughguy 22:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Well known presenter. -- 9cds(talk) 23:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Same user added a mass number of these presenters. -- 9cds(talk) 23:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per 9cds. SaltyWater 23:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per above. Article does have some POV issues and needs a cleanup. However, this is another reason why notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as a criteria for inclusion in or deletion from Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 23:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Are all of these really good faith nominations? I don't believe they are. At best, I think we're well in WP:POINT territory; at worst, this smacks of vandalism. -- Captain Disdain 00:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is a relisting of a nomination from February 2006, which was nominated by Kukini and closed as "Speedy Delete" without any discussion (!) by the administrator Sceptre. This re-nomination should definitely mention that it is a re-nomination, and it would be good if Sceptre could explain the rationale for closing the original nomination. --Saforrest 02:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original article was only the following content: "Lee started out as a marine engineer officer before travelling the world and living in Thailand. He later became a top model, presenting live shows for Barclaycard, Sony and Vodafone. You may recognise him from 90s boyband, Northern Live and his stints on Bid TV and Sky Vegas Live." Sceptre, not unreasonably, felt that this was not quite enough to establish notability. I think the current article makes it more clear, though. Just because something was speedied once does not mean it can ever be created again; speedy deletion is a way of cleaning out the thousand obviously bad/fake/wrong articles we get per day at Wikipedia, sometimes a few things slip through the cracks. (If they are really notable subjects, then someone will soon create a new article about it. Which seems to have been the case here.) --Fastfission 04:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Cnwb at 06:12, 18 February 2006, Reason: (A1) --lightdarkness (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph F. Vidulich[edit]

this appears to be the beginning of a personal bio Kukini 06:09, 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. Mailer Diablo 11:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FEASTS OF THE LORD[edit]

This page is just a duplicate of Feast day, except with a very heavy POV. There's nothing really here that I think can be salvaged. Additionally, most of the days listed have much more detailed pages already. See:

A category may be appropriate for the individual pages on this subject though. Lankiveil 06:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; Wikipedia isn't a pulpit. Sandstein 11:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Sandstein - methinks this may be www.wiki4christ.org at work... Camillus (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. No prejudice against the creation of a properly spelled and NPOV Feasts of the Lord, which would be a legitimate topic. Lukas (T.|@) 13:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. KHM03 14:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork --Ruby 15:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CPMcE. Stifle 22:17, 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. Mailer Diablo 11:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Langdon Lafleur[edit]

Delete. This looks like a vanity page for a self published author with a few PublishAmerica books. Deborah-jl Talk 06:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable author. Though listed on Amazon, her book (2005) has a zero sales rank. —ERcheck @ 12:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, close to speedy as CSD:A7. Stifle 22:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AuthorNote, Author is not notable via online public sources, but is a credible children's author listed with the Library of Congress. Proper spelling is Mary LaFleur-Langdon. Slangdon603 10:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 11:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magikawai[edit]

Makes no claims of notability, isn't even spelled correctly  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:47, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 11:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dog Dies at the End[edit]

original research-cruft-vanity about a nn book. Contains such goodies as "J.J "Big Dick" Johnson and "This book was really published. really". Obvious hoax. Kill the redirect page too. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only it never said "Big dick" any where in the article. That's completely made up. I don't even know why I said that. Apparently jokes between friends aren't allowed on Wikipedia, and we need to delete it, just incase the feds ask us to prove the facts we don't have to prove thanks to THE FISRT AMENDMENT JACKASS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Criplercrosface9 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 18 February 2006.
  • Delete Per nom, per comment above, per article text :-P --lightdarkness (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per comment above from original author. Lankiveil 07:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC) (this is fun!)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense. BobbyLee 07:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Dog Dies at the End ISBN 0060186313 No, just kidding. Delete There are better uses of the First Amendment. Maybe try Uncyclopedia if they go for In-jokes. Schizombie 07:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They don't!  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  07:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really didn't call him Big Dick though. What the hell is that about? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Criplercrosface9 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 18 February 2006.

What kind of world is it that I get in trouble for adding nonsense, while there are people adding "Big Dick" to people's names. Oh yeah, and then I get blamed for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Criplercrosface9 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete, and encourage User:Criplercrosface9 to envision a calm blue ocean ... Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think I'll write a book (or maybe a short story) with this title. And I'm gonna kill the damn dog at the end too. Weregerbil 15:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everybody Take a deep breath, then Delete. --Maxamegalon2000 21:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and put this article and discussion out of their collective misery. Daniel Case 01:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the love of all that is Wiki, delete! --Avery W. Krouse 05:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 06:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense. --Dogbreathcanada 09:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable and not verifiable, and article reads like a blog post. JIP | Talk 15:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per JIP. Knowitall 18:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Optichan 22:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:nmagod Keep this article, I enjoyed the book very much.

    • Above user's only "contributions" to Wikipedia are to this AfD and vandalism. But you knew that already. --Kinu t/c 00:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though it is hilarious User:Coinman


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 11:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cute formalism[edit]

Lacks primary sources. I don't think it's so much crufty as it is non-notable.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  07:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Upon searching google, the term "Cute formalism" gets aprox. 111 hits, which many of the links are from free dictionaries, livejournal/blogs, and wikipedia itself. Right in the article it states that one guy came up with the term 5 years ago. For a term that is 5 years old, you'd think if it were gonna catch on, it would've by now! --lightdarkness (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ill-fated neologism. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism Forbsey 11:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:26, 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. Mailer Diablo 11:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Japanese film credits into English[edit]

Delete. Re:WP:NOT, not a guide or definition list.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  07:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Going by the WP:NOT it simply has to go. Barryvalder 11:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Freshgavin. Forbsey 11:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a multilingual dictionary. It's probably useful, but not here. -- Mithent 16:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -Satori (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move. The article has been moved to my User space, so this discussion is moot now. See [[User:Nihonjoe/Translation of Japanese film credits into English]]. Moved: Glossary of Japanese film credit terms. --nihon 18:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article actually fits very nicely under the definition of a glossary as listed in the Wikipedia is not a dictionary section, point 2. --nihon 19:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Go ahead and recreate it in the namespace if you're going to put it up as a glossary. The wording matters; there's just too many pages listing translations for words that have no real place in wiki, but as a glossary this could be useful. (I probably should have noticed that it should be a glossary in the first place, instead of AfDing it. Pardon me!)  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  00:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, I recommend discussing it on the approriate talk page before marking an article AfD. It's much better to argue semantics (which is all this is) on the talk page than to cause problems by marking it AfD without thinking about it or discussing it first. --nihon 02:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your sentiment is correct but I didn't consider it a semantic issue at first. Regardless I have already apologized. I choose to take the positive POV that AfD obviously provides quick results, although at the same time, it is obvious that votes come in too quickly and without enough thought. AfD is allowed as a judge of an article's worthiness because it allows for discussion of its merits in a period of five days. This is simply a case of bad timing.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:22, 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 Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usyukuro label[edit]

This was {{prod}}ed by User:Cnwb as a "non-notable record label", and indeed, it gets very few google hits, but I looked in the deleted history (it was previously deleted as nonsense, being fairly incoherent) and noticed links to Japanese and German versions of the article, which I copied and pasted back into the article. The German one doesn't seem to exist, but the Japanese one does. It all just appears as question marks in my browser, so I can't make any kind of judgement about it, but I thought it deserved a day on AfD for that alone. Maybe it can be cleaned up, by someone who can work with the Japanese version? No vote. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can read Japanese but there's no Japanese article for it, and the name is spelled wrong anyways (should be Ushukuro). Delete as non-notable indie label at the very least.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  07:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as CSD:G1 (patent nonsense). Stifle 22:22, 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. Mailer Diablo 12:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GreenLlama[edit]

Delete. WP:NOT a crystal ball.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  07:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Crystal Advertisment, It's a new term! --lightdarkness (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete it's future is murky...---J.Smith 08:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Email companies with wierd names.. how very 2003..... doktorb | words 10:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Yay, another e-mail host, I'm so excited! Obli (Talk) 15:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 16:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even if it were up and running it would probably be non-notable. The fact it isn't around yet isn't helping. -- Mithent 16:32, 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. Mailer Diablo 12:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjad "Mosquito" Ali[edit]

An entertainer from New York that Google hasn't heard of (Note, this is not Sajjad Ali, the famous Pakistani singer). His supposed feats include appearing on Cool Runnings, but imdb hasn't heard of him either. Zocky | picture popups 07:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No claim or evidence of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Had (now deleted) suspect claims of movie role and child with a famous person (apparently she has one child and it is this guy's only in his wet dreams). Weregerbil 15:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but not per Weregerbil. Stifle 22:41, 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. Mailer Diablo 12:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo gasperini[edit]

  • Delete Seems insufficiently notable, and created by a user with who includes 'gasperini' in their user name. JGF Wilks 08:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Content seems to have been taken from here, that was the only relevant google hit I found. Forbsey 11:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this "man of rare artistic sensitiveness" and probable vanity author gently, gently. --Lockley 23:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Stifle 22:41, 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 to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 12:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omnibenevolence[edit]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is not referenced, and mostly someone's opinion. Not encyclopedic. Cuñado - Talk 08:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - this is an important and widely discussed concept in philosophy and theology. Not a neologism (contrary to what the article currently says). Article is (now) reasonably well-written and cites references. dbtfztalk 08:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- well done with the re-write, dbtfz. Respectfully suggest withdraw AfD. It's a legitimate entity. -- Samir ∙ TC 09:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't take credit for the rewrite--I haven't edited the article myself. dbtfztalk 09:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, assumed you edited the 1st paragraph and see also. My bad. -- Samir ∙ TC 09:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A concept that deserves a place in an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not paper. Mostlyharmless 09:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a neologism created to be parallel with the words "omniscient" and "omnipotent" to make it easier to explain the problem of evil, which I can explain very easily. Q: Why is there evil in the world if God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and completely good? A: There are no good people. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... which proves either that there is no God, or that your "if" clause is false, since He created people (per your Book) and could have created them good, knowing in advance that the creation of non-good people would result in vast amounts of avoidable misery. Barno 21:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - who cares if it's paper or not? This is OR. ---J.Smith 20:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. A concept in philosophy and theology, etc. See Cal Poly's Phil 342 (Philosophy of Religion) notes on Omnibenevolence and the Divine Command Theory (Prof. Lynch). —ERcheck @ 23:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Omnibenevolence is one of the top 20 or 30 concepts discussed in virtually every Philosophy 101 class. Hardly a neologism, it is a term/concept used and widely discussed by professional philosophers and theologians, as the recently added bibliography items illustrate. dbtfztalk 23:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good little referenced article on notable topic. Capitalistroadster 02:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I learnt something new. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyclePat (talk • contribs)
  • Keep The articles on arguments about god need something to link to for a concept of benevolence, and benevolence is some unrelated crap about phrenology. Infinity0 talk 19:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think people are missing the point. It doesn't matter if Omnibenevolence is a major theological idea, or if it is taught in a 101 class. See Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and think whether or not Omnibenevolence has material to make it an ENCYCLOPEDIA article. This can always be moved and linked to Wiktionary. Currently the only encyclopedic information is one single sentence:
The notion of an omnibenevolent, infinitely compassionate deity has often been attacked based on the problem of evil and the problem of hell.
The rest is badly written and actually says that Psalms 18:30 is contradicted by Hebrews.8:6-7. If that's not original research then I don't know what is. Cuñado - Talk 20:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While this is an important topic in Christian theology, the idea can be very briefly summarized, and, in fact, is on God, theodicy, the problem of evil, etc. Besides which, while omnibenevolence traditionally is one of the attributes of God, in Christian theology, it generally has been considered only one of the perfections of God. In short, this content belongs elsewhere. Ig0774 20:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aside from the other comments above, the term is a neologism used by relatively few people. In the history of theology and the philosophy of religion, the term "benevolence" has been used without problem; "omnibenevolence" seems to have been coined simply in imitation of "omnipotence" and "omniscience". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Omnibenevolence, though a strange word I admit, has stronger meaning (for lack of a better word...implications? I'm tired) than benevolence alone. Omnibenevolence is a key premise in some formulations of the Ontological argument for the existence of God. In courses and some primary literature on religious philosophy, the word is used and addressed in and of itself. It deserves an article here, regardless of the quality of the current peice. Shaggorama 10:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One of my main teaching and research areas is the philosophy of religion; the term "omnibenevolence" is of recent coinage (within the last decade or so), and until even more recently was mainly confined to undergraduate esays. Not one of the major writers on the ontological argument, for example, uses the term; they use "goodness", "benevolence", etc. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per ERcheck and Shaggorama. Barno 19:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The three sources in the article's Bibliography section are from the mid-1980s. If it weren't for that, I would change my vote to "weak delete per Mel Etitis". Barno 04:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, "last couple of decades". Three citations (two from the same journal) out of literally thousands that don't use the term aren't exactly overwhelming, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:37, 23 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 12:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestforum[edit]

Delete seems like a non-notable website to me J.J.Sagnella 08:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I'm gay.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  10:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, this page is only has 31 link-backs. [15]. Seems fairly unknown. ---J.Smith 11:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertisng Forbsey 11:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per my original reasons for requesting speedy deletion, ad, non-notable. American Patriot 1776 18:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As one of the fastest growing fashion websites on the net we ask you not to delete this page. We are viewed by 20,000 unique users a month and this number is growing exponentially. In addition, our site has some impressive projects which it has done and will continue to do. Honestdave
  • Delete with extreme prejudice despite Honest Dave's no doubt altruistic objections. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a really useful venue and has experienced explosive growth over the past 6 months and will continue to. If presence of adverts alone is reason to remove a page, then someone should go remove google. Small websites have to pay for themselves, so it seems asinine to list the presence of google adwords as a sole reason for removing a listing in wikipedia http://www.google.com/search?q=honestforum&sa=N&revid=896041765&qpos=0&oi=revisions_inline
  • Keep the site! It's not for profit and helps innocent would-be eBay shoppers from being scammed by illegal, counterfeit merchandise.
    • Comment Above user has only one edit. J.J.Sagnella 20:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This site is amazingly useful, and full of valuable resources.
    • Comment Above user has just 1 edit. J.J.Sagnella 07:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Total votes so far

  • Delete- 6 votes
  • Keep- 3 anons and the article creator.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Wirkus[edit]

No clear indication of genuine significance; User:Scott free (previously User:Flashrockin man, the article's creator) has been removing the {{verify}} and {{cleanup}} templates, and is possibly the subject of the article. [There's also a problem with The Dan & Scott Show, but material from this article could be merged there.] Delete.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:54, 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. Mailer Diablo 12:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Nin-Tao[edit]

Delete. Seemingly non-notable religion. Claims 12 members and offers no references. Google returns no hits. Vslashg (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. They can have their article after they commit ritual mass suicide, or do whatever else microcults do to become notable. Sandstein 11:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN, (hoax?) — Kimchi.sg | Talk 12:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I prefer my cults notable, like Alcoholics Anonymous. BrianGCrawfordMA 22:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BrianGCrawfordMA, and as nonsense. ergot 02:18, 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 redirect to List of people pardoned by Bill Clinton. Rumor has it the content has been merged. — Feb. 26, '06 [15:37] <freakofnurxture|talk>

James Lowell Manning[edit]

Delete. Non notable person. We probably do not want to have list of all people pardoned by all presidents around the world. It would be thousands of stubs. Only former Czech president Havel pardoned thousands of people. Jan Smolik 11:11, 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. Mailer Diablo 12:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norbiesworld[edit]

Was proposed for deletion by Kusma with the reason "Webforum with less than 600 members, does not appear to meet WP:WEB"; the PROD tag was removed by the original author. Sandstein 11:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per original PROD. Sandstein 11:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by my original reason. Kusma (討論) 13:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn-website, under 600 users and less than 1 million page views in almost 2 years. --lightdarkness (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you trying to get this deleted?? -- Previous unsigned comment added by N0rbie. Sandstein 21:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an index of websites; we only carry articles on notable topics. In particular, this article fails to meet the notability standard for web content. Please don't take this personally; you remain invited to create article on notable topics. Greetings, Sandstein 21:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per original PROD, does not appear to meet WP:WEB -- Dragonfiend 07:10, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 12:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addison Trail High School[edit]

Delete - Article does not assert notability of the school. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 12:00, 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. JIP | Talk 17:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tweak3d[edit]

Website, Alexa rank 115,146; fails WP:WEB. Sandstein 12:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It meets criteria for web content 1-5. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.160.218. Sandstein 09:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No, it doesn't. There are only 3 criteria at WP:WEB, and it is not demonstrated that (1) "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works", (2) "the website or content has won a well known and independent award" or (3) "the content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators". The article itself must provide proofs that its subject meets one of these criteria; which it doesn't. -- Sandstein 09:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proof - http://www.timesnews.net/columnArticle.dna?_StoryID=3594579:supamant3d 3:21, 20 February 2006

  • OK, looks better already, but this isn't yet a mention in "multiple non-trivial published works". Sandstein 10:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just google search tweak3d, you'll find enough information. supamant3d 11:07, 20 February 2006
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: maybe rewrite --MaNeMeBasat 14:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable forum cruft. — Feb. 26, '06 [15:44] <freakofnurxture|talk>
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eve of Genesis[edit]

Looks like a hoax, would be not notable if it weren't. Sandstein 12:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable or game someone is trying to invent. Can't find a single mention with google, while real games get thousands or tens of thousands of hits. Kids chat about their games. Weregerbil 16:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Apart from the supposed rumor, this article appears non-notable. WP is not a crystal ball. Also the rumor appears on the Volition, Inc. page, presumably added by the same author. The page can be rewritten if the game ever develops some notability. :) — RJH 16:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable yet. See the article's talk page - the article authors seem to be saying it's under development. Well, if it does get developed and published and popular, we can make the article then, but until that time, it's not notable. By the way, I restored the RfD notice which was removed by User:Kevinrf87. GRuban 14:32, 23 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. Punkmorten 16:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goliza[edit]

Inept non-english dicdef. Sandstein 12:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — there is an identical page on wiktionary.[16] — RJH 15:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Already transwikied... and what's the London Free Press have to do with it? (ESkog)(Talk) 12:28, 22 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. Normally I'd relist this, but graffiti groups are generally non-notable, and this one is no exception. JIP | Talk 17:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SBA CRU[edit]

Graffiti group; no evidence of notability except possibly to other local gangs of spraypaint vandals. Sandstein 12:44, 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 Merge and redirect to Negroid. Deathphoenix 13:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congoid[edit]

A little used synonym for the widely used Negroid. A google scholar test yields 30 hits versus Negroid's 4,800. --Nectar 12:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Negroid perhaps, where it is already briefly mentioned. 31 hits on google books, 42 on amazon's search inside this book.Schizombie 22:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Negroid, but a delete wouldn't hurt my feelings either. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:03, 22 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 REDIRECT to Seven Wonders of the World. JIP | Talk 17:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Wonders of the Modern World[edit]

There have been many lists of the seven wonders of the world for modern times, this page lists one possible list. The list is already mentioned at Seven Wonders of the World and does not need its own article. -- Astrokey44|talk 13:01, 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. JIP | Talk 17:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judæo-Aramaic language[edit]

Delete? I don't see a Judaeo-English article, and the English Jews use, has been Hebrew-influenced in the say way. As in people say "Shabbat" or "Shabbos" instead of "Sabbath." ems 13:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Solution - merge all 5 subset articles. (Why didn't I think of this before submitting afd?) ems 13:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Actually there is a Judeo-English Article: It's called Yinglish, just like Judaeo-German is called Yiddish. I'm not sure that many people will have the knowledge to say much about it, but that's not why we delete articles on Wikipedia.
      • Comment - interesting. Added redirects. ems 11:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against - Leave it alone SF2K1 01:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The real solution here is to expand this article as well as the other 5 articles, which cover daughter languages of the article that this one is supposed to be about. Tomertalk 05:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand.--DieWeibeRose 08:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am convinced keep the article and expand. ems 11:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: vote change by originator of this AfD. Tomertalk 12:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Can we call this a keep? or just leave it open and let it run its course? Tomertalk 12:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I am not an admin, but so far everyone thinks it should be a keep, include that wacko that submitted this AfD, hehehe. ems 15:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — these are real languages. I wrote the original articles on the different Judaeo-Aramaic languages. They have much in common, but lack overall mutual intelligibility. Combining the articles would be a retrograde step. It is useful to have an article that can direct the reader to the articles on the individual languages, but could also discuss their position. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and it would be careless to kill off something that is in development. This really is not the kind of article that should be submitted to AFD. --Gareth Hughes 21:07, 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 speedily kept. Rob Church (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asha Bhosle[edit]

Salute to all - I nominate this article for deletion becoz:

- (1) this singer is not very notable . she is not as famous as madonna, britney or even lata mangeshkar.

- (2) she is not worth a wikipedia article

- (3) she was nominated for grammies two times but lost because she is such a bad singer!

This statement was made by User:203.115.91.106 [17] on the articles for deletion log, presumably because anons cannot create pages for AFD or anything else. I'm completing this nomination for them. Kappa 13:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP -- This nomination was made in bad faith. Asha Bhosle is one of India's most famous singers. Please remove this AFD. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP -- As per above. - Aksi great 14:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep please. Bad faith nom. Tintin (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep what an insult to Asha! DaGizzaChat © 08:02, 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 Speedy keep after withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 03:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Lyman[edit]

Delete as NN bio. {{prod}} tag was removed. Changing vote to keep after cleanup of article. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 13:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Noam Chomsky thinks his contributions are worth mention [18]. Kappa 13:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:BIO - "Published authors... who have written .. in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more". Has published in the Wall Street Journal, the Houston Chronicle[19], and more. Article needs expanding and references. (Note - he writes under the name "Eric J. Lyman") —ERcheck @ 13:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the subject of the article is notable as mentioned above, I retract my vote to delete. However, the article needs a vicious scrubbing to be kept as very little information on the subject's notability is mentioned there. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 14:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made some additions to the article (selected publications) to show notability (meeting WP:BIO). More work needs to be done on cleanup and expansion. —ERcheck @ 16:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree some works needs to be done. I added some more links. Does anyone know where he was born? Why "near" Camden? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.218.31 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 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. JIP | Talk 18:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZeldaPower[edit]

Seems like a non-notable fansite of a popular game. All of its claims are general and unsourced. PJM 14:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Any fan site that has a community doesn't automatically mean they get a spot on WP. Unless there is a solid percentage of the world's population actively visiting the website, or if mentioned by officals (of Zelda?), then in which case it would be notable. Kareeser|Talk! 16:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Ruby 17:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the community surrounding the Zelda series is notable enough, and their forum is pretty big. --Snargle 17:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — One question, however: I don't see why a large forum would automatically be worth of a Wikipedia article. I always thought that the acid test for WP Inclusion was "notability", and not "community size", or rather, "quality" over "quantity". Just want to clarify... Kareeser|Talk! 20:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Sandstein 10:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, check out the webarchive, they have been around since 1998. They were the biggest fan site with having the number two spot, after the official site, on the google search engine for some time. The site appeared down for many months due to lack in funds to keep it running. The community is big and appears to have good "quality" traits. The reasons for taking the entry down lack integrity. Please clarify why it should be taken down. What would this article need for it to stay up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.249.202.217 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Life[edit]

Non-notable webcomic, fails WP:WEB. Delete. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 14:45, 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 The result of the debate was Delete all. This AfD was messy. Deathphoenix 13:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tukuma national championship[edit]

The regional floor hockey league in a remote area of Latvia seems not to be relevant enough for an article in the English wikipedia. Gf1961 14:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doesn't actually appear to be a national league. Average Earthman 17:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Four hits in google, all of them from wikipedia. No evidence of notability. Article is not sufficiently developed to demonstrate otherwise. I can't see this article ever being expanded significantly, assuming it even exists. — RJH 15:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FK Kandava A single team playing in the regional floor hockey league in a remote area of Latvia seems not to be relevant enough for an article in the English wikipedia. Using abbreviated names does not help. Gf1961 15:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are in the national championship. I vote keep, and we can merge player details into it. However, I don't like the 'I think' that is included in the article. Are we not sure whether the team is Latvian? James Kendall [talk] 16:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, that the term national championship is fake. Tukums is a town in Kurzeme region in Latvia, all towns, rather villages of the Tukuma "national" championship, that I could identify on a map, come from places not further than 30 miles from Tukums. This is a district league. --Gf1961 16:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, OK. Delete then. James Kendall [talk] 17:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable sporting team and delete all of the players below. Capitalistroadster 03:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — RJH 15:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girts S A single player playing for a single team playing in the regional floor hockey league in a remote area of Latvia seems not to be relevant enough for an article in the English wikipedia. Using abbreviated name does not help. Gf1961 15:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — RJH 15:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

such is the case for:

Āris M

  • Comment I've been smacked down for nominating athletes before so no vote --Ruby 17:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. — RJH 15:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mārcis C

  • Delete nn. — RJH 15:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andis C

  • Delete nn. — RJH 15:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andis H

  • Delete nn. — RJH 15:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edgars H

  • Delete nn. — RJH 15:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gatis L

  • Delete nn. — RJH 15:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gatis C

  • Delete nn. — RJH 15:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girts S

  • Delete nn. — RJH 15:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edgars K

  • Delete nn. — RJH 15:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mārcis C

  • Merge/Redirect minor sportspeople into their relevant team, or else Delete; I don't feel that playing a sport makes you intrinsically notable. -- Mithent 16:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How notable is this team/league? We don't seem to have any verifiable evidence that this is more than an amateur team of not particularly great importance. Average Earthman 17:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These don't appear to be notable. Even the league article may not be notable. Vegaswikian 07:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes they are all non-notable, almost cloned pages with no biographical information or evidence of notability. — RJH 15:48, 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. — Feb. 27, '06 [06:51] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Buzzerquiz[edit]

Tagged for prod as not provably extant, contested. Bringing here instead. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete, appears to be WP:VSCA. Stifle 23:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not convinced it needs deleting, it does exist, probably needs a rename to BuzzerQuiz Jw6aa 02:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go to www.buzzerquiz.com, and see the shell of a Web site that is there. All it says is "new site coming soon" and that was back in March 2005. The link is circular, and there is no indication that there is any plans for this organization to conduct any contest of any sort in the near future. This is bollocks, plain and simple. ~~LynnW
    • Only what you say if having an up to date web site is a requirement. ACF and NAQT have pages on Wikipedia.
  • Redirect to Quiz show or something similar. Too obscure and inactive to have its own article, in my opinion. BobbyLee 14:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would you suggest? It's not a quiz show. Jw6aa 15:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, that's precisely what this article seems to be suggesting it is! What about Quiz bowl? BobbyLee 21:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you're reading it wrongly if you think that. It talks about quiz shows but doesn't suggest that BuzzerQuiz is one. BuzzerQuiz quiz tournaments are similar to some quiz shows in format, but from the article it is clear that they are not quiz shows.Jw6aa 21:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems like a case of deletion for the sake of deletion, many people have taken part in BuzzerQuiz tournaments, I consider it notable and something that will be expanded.Jw6aa 21:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have an exact figure, over 100 I think.Jw6aa 23:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is in terms of quiz in the UK.Jw6aa 00:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I get just under 1,000 Google hits for Buzzerquiz. It seems like it thrived at one time as described, but I am having trouble finding any information on Buzzerquiz dated later than 2003 or so. I'm thinking that we should mention and link to Buzzerquiz from Quiz bowl, but I maintain that Buzzerquiz on its own does not seem to warrant an entire article. BobbyLee 03:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 15:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete 267 Ghits excluding wikipedia and most of those are unconvincing. Doesn't seem to have been more than a concept that didn't fly. Dlyons493 Talk 16:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was very successful - your assumption is incorrect.Jw6aa 19:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been, but I'm not assuming - I'm Googling. If you can provide us with some good references we can close this as a speedy keep. Dlyons493 Talk 20:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The events were typically over-subscribed. As for references, I'd suggest you talk to people who went to the events. If you want web references, there's probably a few out there, but there's a big world outside the Internet (not all views/information are/is posted on-line).Jw6aa 21:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an advert. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree it reads a bit like an advert. I think it needs to be improved rather than deleted. As I said before, I think it's a case of deletion for the sake of deletion.Jw6aa 21:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I love quiz nights myself but there is no verifiable evidence that these quiz nights were any more notable than the average. Capitalistroadster 03:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • BuzzerQuiz events are not quiz nights and are on a completely different scale to quiz nights in terms of organisation and the distances travelled for participation. They are also (at the name suggests) buzzer-based, unlike most quiz nights.Jw6aa 05:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want the article kept, improve it and reference it. All of your comments have been assertions, I'm sure perfectly correct ones, but not evidence. Dlyons493 Talk
  • If you ask me, User:Jw6aa has a vested interest in this Buzzerquiz; perhaps he/she's a representative for that organization or something? As far as I'm concerned, mention BuzzerQuiz from the Quiz bowl page, but no more than that - from all the evidence that has been gleaned by users here, BuzzerQuiz is not so important as to merit its own page. BobbyLee 12:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems like you're talking about evidence from people who appear to have have no direct experience and comments based on google searches. There is more to this than is currently available on the www and thus if you only went by that route, you might form a different view than if you'd actually been to the events. My interest is in making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia and not deleting things for the sake of deletion. I've been to the events, that is my reason for commenting. I didn't create the article, so I'd imagine I'm not the only person that thinks it is worthy of one.Jw6aa 14:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or perhaps rename to BuzzerQuiz per my comments in previous listing and all over this page.Jw6aa 14:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You've already voted once above. Dlyons493 Talk
      • Apologies for my lack of depth knowledge of procedure. I thought it was re-listed.Jw6aa 15:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My oversight - I'm not sure what the process is in a re-listing. Sorry. Dlyons493 Talk 15:42, 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. Mailer Diablo 12:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Football History[edit]

Non-notable website, possibly a vanity article. FuriousFreddy 16:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed per nom. Make it speedy! James Kendall [talk] 16:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. I particularly enjoyed the fact that it is, in fact, listed on Google. -- Mithent 16:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Ruby 17:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Daniel Case 18:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —ERcheck @ 02:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 07:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable OsFan 17:52, 23 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. -Splashtalk 19:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Allaby[edit]

Yet another university student starting yet another student group. Calton | Talk 16:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - CSD A7, tagged as such. --lightdarkness (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per lightdarkness --Ruby 17:40, 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. Mailer Diablo 12:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Chicken Alliance[edit]

Not encyclopedic (WP:WEB) geocities internet cartoon/website/card-game. feydey 22:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and Wikipedia is not a How to guide. 82.16.87.28 22:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMPERIALX5: If thats a reason to delete a page, than many pages should be considered. Namely any one about a card game or website. Homestar Runner Pokemon Trading Card Game

True, but there's a third reason we haven't mentioned yet: Pokemon and Homestar Runner are famous. Your site and game are not. Come back when your counter has broken six digits. (Delete.) Marblespire 04:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMPERIALX5: I still don't see why this would have to be deleted. And the site did have 5 digits in the counter. Do people just run around looking for entries to shut down? I find that a little rude and unnessesary. Also, just because you don't know about this game and site doesn't mean others don't. I also don't have the capability to use MediaWiki and host my own.

Keep, this is a card game that I know of and play, and I believe it deserves a place in the Wiki encyclopedia. Squirrelfiend (User:Squirrelfiend's 1st, 2nd & 3rd edits. ~Mbsp)

  • Delete, per 82.16.87.28. Stifle 23:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No reason to delete. Imperialx5 (talk) 1:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems harmless enough and notable enough to keep. Turnstep 16:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, further note the low quality "Originaly a book report project for English class based off the book Murder on the Orient Express". The topic is not encylopedic, the article looks like it was written during a recess break in the playground. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Pete.Hurd 05:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMPERIALX5: Just because thats how it originated means nothing.

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 16:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Sure, it means something. WP:NFT makes it clear that made-up games don't deserve a spot on Wikipedia unless they are notable. And in your case, it is not. Kareeser|Talk! 16:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, Not for things made up in school, website doesn't me WP:WEB, previous discussion's keeps were all original article edits/sockpuppets/specificly asked by creator to vote. --lightdarkness (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable, only 93 Google hits. -Satori (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn site hosted on geocities for Pete's sake --Ruby 17:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Kareeser and Lightdarkness. James Kendall [talk] 18:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, people do run around looking for entries that violate the Wikipedia inclusion guidelines to shut down. And your opinion that it is unnecessary has been noted. Go express it on the deletion policy talk page, too. -ikkyu2 (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Interesting enough, but not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. –Sommers (Talk) 18:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Patent nonsense. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Once upon a time there was a boy named Jon Caswell." My vote was made right there. --Kinu t/c 00:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nonnotable. —ERcheck @ 02:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 07:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kareeser, Lightdarkness, and James Kendall. --Nkcs 07:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --OneEuropeanHeart 02:11, 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. Mailer Diablo 12:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum Game Fun[edit]

Neologism. Only 739 Google hits. Alr 17:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -Satori (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Phrase with little life outside of a game forum --Ruby 17:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. –Sommers (Talk) 18:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a stupid neologism for a stupid concept. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:58, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 12:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XML-RPC Implementations[edit]

Collection of external links. Since they are sorted nicely, I decided to use {{prod}} instead of asking for speedy deletion by CSD A3, but the prod tag was removed without a change to the article. Wikipedia is not a directory of external links. Delete. Kusma (討論) 17:41, 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. Mailer Diablo 12:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colt's disease[edit]

Possible hoax. A google search for information found no hits using the name as given in the article,[20] and removing the apostrophe resulted in this sports article that uses the name as a pun. Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims of this article. --Allen3 talk 18:13, 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. Mailer Diablo 12:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School from our eyes[edit]

Possible student film. Google search for the film turns up zero hits.[21] Delete as per unverifiable unless reliable sources are provided to verify the information in this article. --Allen3 talk 18:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and the horse it rode in on per nom. BrianGCrawfordMA 20:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per lightdarkness --Ruby 20:19, 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 both. Deathphoenix 13:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ScottieSharpe and Aspiregold[edit]

The President and CEO of a small corporation (Rosenvick, Inc) that probably does not come close to meeting the criteria at WP:CORP and the company's primary product. A search for the product turns up a number of hits, but all appear to be either press releases or sales ads.[22] Delete as per Wikipedia is not a soapbox and as unverifiable unless independent sources are provided for the information in these articles. --Allen3 talk 18:50, 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. JIP | Talk 10:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emilia (Bulgarian singer)[edit]

This contains a marginal assertion of note, and possibly reaches WP:MUSIC, but is a substublet. Was tagged for nn-bio speedy. -Splashtalk 19:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC) "[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletions. -- Kappa 19:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems like a legit artist, and someone's gone to the trouble of making a video clip available at bulgariancds.com [23] 17:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am the author and I updated and revised the article (Discography Included). -- LuckyAfterAll 17:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)LuckyAfterAll[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lee Johnson[edit]

A {{prod}} tag has been removed, but I think there is doubt as to whether this person passes WP:BIO. Kappa 19:11, 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. Mailer Diablo 12:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gender and technology[edit]

This article began explicitly as a shared workspace for a single academic class at Rutgers. The author was politely alerted that Wikipedia is not a shared workspace; thereafter the references to the class were edited out but no actual information on the topic has appeared in the article.


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. JIP | Talk 10:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Shulman[edit]

Delete. not notable by any given criteria, and no attempt to document notability in article; only 820 Google hits, shared with at least two other people named "Daniel Shulman" Steve Casburn 04:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I think there's a claim of notability, but it's nothing more than a claim. Stifle 23:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 19:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Shulman is not a member of Garbage, he's just played with Garbage. And you know what you get when you play with Garbage. --Lockley 20:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand as notable session musician. Apart from Garbage, Allmusic.com says he has worked with Run-DMC and Warren G. [24].

According to Google, he has made a reasonable contribution to Garbage as well. [25]. Capitalistroadster 03:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; session musicians working with major commercial artists generally prove to be notable in their own right, even if they don't share celebrity status. Monicasdude 04:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Garbage, Garbage, Garbage... So Merge with Garbage (band). If you think he's just as related to Run DMC, then just Delete. There's enough real members of bands that don't have articles that a guy with no band doesn't need one either. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CapitalistRoadster, he's also credited on Shine (Meredith Brooks album). Kappa 13:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or merge, but by no means keep. — Feb. 27, '06 [08:04] <freakofnurxture|talk>
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 10:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ReTorrent[edit]

Original research from [26]. At best, NN per Google. JLaTondre 19:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is an article about a nn feature in a bittorrent client --Ruby 20:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio, probably. Delete either way. Stifle 11:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyright status is problematic. The website it's from states that it uses any "free" license (i.e. CreativeCommons). The any and i.e. are a bit contradictory. Also, copyright review will probably result in the obtaining of permission vs. deletion. Not that I disagree with you sending it to copyvio, I'd just rather see it get deleted here. -- JLaTondre 23:20, 21 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 all articles. Mailer Diablo 12:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discount Freight et al[edit]

user:Shanevess has created many obviously spam articles. All very similar with a link to the same company. Speedy delete all if possible and warn user:Shanevess for spamvertising. Complete list:


  • Speedy - SPAM Tawker 19:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Pure advert --Jorvik 19:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - ads for a shipping company *Dan T.* 19:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant advertising. Clean up the whole hornet's net. --Ruby 20:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete the lot of them as Spam Dlyons493 Talk 20:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete — I hate spam, and it's even worse when it contributes nothing Kareeser|Talk! 21:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Blantant spamming. Qualifies under G3 pure vandalism --> spam. —ERcheck @ 02:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spammity spam... UncleFloyd 03:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete all. Blatant spam. AndyJones 12:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Trash. --Talain 11:11, 24 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 12:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footie threads[edit]

Web forum with 2000 users. The article looked like spam when I read it, so I cleaned it up. However, I don't see much potential for expansion without getting into forumcruft. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Traffic Rank for footiethreads.com: 4,382,087 --Ruby 20:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. See Alexa rank per Ruby. —ERcheck @ 02:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 07:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nomination. UncleFloyd 03:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ruby. Stifle 11:34, 21 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 and redirect to Howard Stern. Deathphoenix 13:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blumpkin[edit]

This article about a slang neologism created by Howard Stern to describe an act of fellatio received while defecating on a toilet should be deleted, since there's already an entry for it at Wiktionary. BrianGCrawfordMA 20:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom James084 20:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC) I'm going to agree with the Merge and redirect camp. James084 18:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The wiktionary entry is pathetic compared to this article and might be deleted, but this should be saved. The article has sources and gives the context required to understand the impact of the issue for Stern, which could have cost him his license. That's the beginning of an encyclopedia article, not a dictionary entry.-- JJay 20:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep preferably, or merge any relevant information to Howard Stern and redirect. It may be a minor neologism but it's important to Stern because it's the reason his station was fined. Stern cited this fine in exhorting listeners to vote against Bush in the 2004 Presidential elections. --Tony Sidaway 21:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Howard Stern Schizombie 22:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even I have heard of this term, and normally I would not encounter this in my circles --Ruby 23:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it earned a half million dollars in fines from the FCC, it's probably notable. Night Gyr 00:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a mere dictionary definition and has been ever since it was created. A previous version has already been transwikid to Wiktionary. If the Wiktionary version is not good enough, go fix it. Don't pervert the Wikipedia goal by trying to include prohibited dictionary entries. (Okay, that was a bad pun but I couldn't avoid it.) There's no encyclopedia article here and never has been. Note: I would accept a replacement of this definition with a redirect to the Wiktionary entry. Rossami (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This I don't get. Could you explain why you think an article providing this level of cultural context is a "dictionary" entry? I almost feel as if you and I are looking at two completely different articles. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Compare it to Truthiness; as Lar says below, how much more could be added to blumpkin? Compare also to Kid Rock and Married by America, both of which were hit with high FCC fines, but the specific incident triggering the fine does not have its own article. As I voted above, I have no problem with the whole article being put into Howard Stern (though whichever user does so will be giving him a blumpkin!) Schizombie 20:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with redirect I'm not sure the info currently in this article would be suitable for Wiktionary, it's encyclopedic in nature. But I'm also not sure there is enough more that could be said about this topic to justify a whole article. So merge with Howard Stern and leave a redirect, or a disambig that points to the Wictionary entry and to the section of the Stern article. ++Lar: t/c 17:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Lar -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 18:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. People should be able to go to Wikipedia to find out what a "blumpkin" is. More than a mere dicdef, due to the Stern/FCC case. dbtfztalk 01:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel that this article should be kept for informative purposes for the multitude which are curious to practice the act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.220.183 (talk • contribs) and was inserted into the middle of the debate which makes an assumption of good faith difficult Deiz 03:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Stern has had plenty of controversial moments which don't deserve their own page and are in the body of his main article, this should definitely be no exception. Perhaps a "controversy" section on the HS page could include this stuff. ++Deiz 15:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: People should be able to learn about everything on Wikipedia. Not just things in line with good taste.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.10.172.239 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 20 February 2006.
    The question of deletion is not whether it's offensive or not (there are plenty of tasteless things on WP), but of other issues raised above such as notability. To a HS fan, it's notable I suppose. To people interested in issues of free speech and censorship and the FCC in the united states, it's of some note perhaps. To everyone else, pretty much not at all. Hence my vote above to move it to the HS entry. Schizombie 18:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear merge candidate. Not a "neologism" because it's been around a while, but as it was the first time this was debated, totally not notable outside the HS zone. Oddly, this is almost exactly the same article that was vociferously kept before. How does that happen? - brenneman{T}{L} 00:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Howard Stern. Friday (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Howard Stern, not otherwise notable. Barno 21:18, 21 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 01:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turd-Ad[edit]

Was originally prodded, but contested by author. Now listing on AfD. Original reason: NN forum website that would probably fail WP:WEB. Article is poorly written, although that isn't a reason for deletion... Kareeser|Talk! 20:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be done if this article is to remain? Sweet Clyde 20:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — The reason that I listed "Turd-Ad" on WP:PROD, and then Articles for deletion was simply because I do not consider your band/website to be particularly notable. On the other hand, if you can provide proof that your band has done something notable, or that something notable has happened to the band/website, and can assert that nobility, then by all means, you may keep your article (after the AfD debate concludes).
At any rate: Wikipedia isn't a hosting space, nor is it a fan page, but if proof is provided that shows that Turd-Ad merits an article of its own, then the community will decide in your favour. Kareeser|Talk! 20:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't regard them as my band, but I am the proprietor of the record label to which they are assigned. Anyhow, I'll see what I can do. Sweet Clyde 20:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Advertising for a non-notable pair of buffoons. BrianGCrawfordMA 22:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quote:"has never attained even moderate success". establishes its own non-notability. Camillus (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Camillus. --Kinu t/c 00:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable, no album released. Possibly the creation of a 15-year old (and friends)[27]. —ERcheck @ 02:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The album is pending a release very soon, so when it is released the band will be notable? Ercheck:"possibly the creation of a 15 year old". You are incorrect although I fail to see what bearing the age of the author or contributors has on the quality or relevance of the article.JohnOHara 12:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — Hi, John. To meet notability guidelines for music bands (including independant bands) for inclusion into Wikipedia, they must meet the guidelines as stated here (WP:MUSIC). If Turd-Ad can meet the criteria for inclusion, then you will be able to argue for your side. As for the "15 year old" comment, I believe that ERcheck was simply referring to the fact that most 15 year-olds aren't the kind to produce something notable, much less WP-inclusionable. Kareeser|Talk! 14:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
michael jackson did! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.48.246 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment — Hence the "most" in the above reply, =P Kareeser|Talk! 18:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would regard the phrase "non-notable pair of buffoons" quite offensive and believe that such blatant effrontery has no place on Wikipedia. I would simply like to add that Turd-Ad has a quite significant fan-base and, as aforementioned, is working on the release of an album with contributions from a wider group of affiliates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Romano (talk • contribs)



Wikipedia is criticised on the following issues: 

   * Usefulness as a reference
   * Anti-elitism as a weakness
   * Systemic bias in coverage
   * Systemic bias in perspective
   * Difficulty of fact checking
   * Use of dubious sources
   * Exposure to vandals
   * Privacy concerns
   * Quality Concerns
   * Flame wars
   * Fanatics and special interests [see note 1] 
   * Censorship [see note 2]

Note 1: I don't think dance music, Turd-Ad's main output, can be classified as specialist. Note 2: Yes, censorship. The act of disallowing someone's right to free thought and speech and freedom of information. This is what Wikipedia is once again doing, going against its very reasons for being.

Another point I would like to put to you regards the nature of your style of moderation. You seem to be working against us, not with us, trying to get this article deleted in an effort to flex your authorative muscles and show who's "boss". Your opinion is not better than ours. Wikipedia is a mass of human information and therefore should contain information that all humans want, whether it may be "specialist" to some it would not be to others. Surely going with the majority feeling or opinion is not in the best interest of the minority? Instead all tastes should be catered for. This page does harm to no-one but helps and pleases others. We kindly ask you not to delete this article. JohnOHara 20:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The Wikipedia community (and I believe I represent several peoples' opinions here) isn't all against you. In fact, while I may have sounded rather harsh in dealing with this, the listing on AfD and the ensuing discussion is simply following guidelines detailed in Articles for Deletion. Wikipedia isn't a space for free speech (as that may sometimes violate the NPOV policy), nor is it (and this is important) a free web-hosting service. Non-notable entries are entirely that: Non-notable, and therefore, should not be included in Wikipedia until they can be proven to be notable. Kareeser|Talk! 20:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But some of reasons for being notable are hardly clear-cut. 30 minutes on a radio broadcast? What if Turd-Ad was featured for 29? (I believe it was featured on 2FM). Surely the rule should be: "Featured for a notable amount of time on a radio broadcast" I know you don't have the power to change that rule but you can see where I am coming from.81.129.71.209 20:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The reason behind the clear black-and-white distinction in the criteria for notability under WP:MUSIC is due to the fact that it is not good form to say "a notable amount of time". Being an ambiguous phrase, exceptions can be made, and if exceptions are made, then the standard is lowered, and later on, many articles that formerly would have failed the guidelines set out through WP:MUSIC would make it through. It is unfortunate to say that if you've been on 29 minutes, you've failed the test, but that's the rule. Kareeser|Talk! 20:50, 19 February 2006 (U


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

The result of the debate was delete. — Feb. 27, '06 [08:08] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Winpopup_LAN_Messenger[edit]

I say leave it alone, this self promotion claims occur too often on wiki. self promotion Crea7or 20:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • For everyone's info, if it means anything, all of this nom's contributions are related to LanTalk XP and [[LanTalk NET] (See their deletion logs. Thanks. --Perfecto 02:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I cringe at some of Crea7or's contributions, this seems to be non-notable software. --Karnesky 09:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per others. UncleFloyd 03:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not agree with deletion: Fomine 10:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Crea7or is direct competitor of the Winpopup LAN Messenger.
  • This page is not promotion. It is short information only. See this page [28] if you are looking promotion.
  • "this seems to be non-notable software" - the software is contained in non-large segment of the market (LAN Messenger). But it is significant in this segment. So it is well founded to have this page if the wikipedia have LAN Messenger page.
    • Can you explicate the significance in the limited segment? Approximate marketshare? Or userbase compared to other products in the market? Or do you have notable press on the product that wasn't sourced by the company who makes the software?--Karnesky 11:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are right, there is no public info about userbase, downloads or sales. I have no objective comparison. I have only stats for two softwares in this segment and my subjective vision about competitors. Have I ineterest ? - Yes. Am I expert in this subject ? I guess - Yes. That is why I edit common topics like LAN Messenger, Winpopup, etc. and I do not touch my competitors pages. Fomine 14:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Vitaly, you have commercial interest here ( As me some time ago ). One of wiki admins has told me about wiki policy and commercial interest is not acceptable here at all. Links to commercial sites I also not acceptable as Perfecto told me. Please understand me and delete your links if you want to keep this article - but it have no encyclopedic info and will be deleted by the other users I think ( and I see the conforming answers here). This is not a software archive like "1000 new programs".crea7or
          • Pavel (Crea7or), this article is just short facts about the software (not promotion). The homepage url is fact also, and the description will be partial without the homepage. I do not understand what wrong with this link ?! Each commercial org promoute its products at theirs homepages. Do you offer to remove all external links ? I see the difference between wikipedia and my site, thanks Perfecto too. Fomine 20:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Pavel (Crea7or), it is ok, when independent person initiate such deletion process. But you are my competitor, and you have your commercial interest that is opposite to mine. You think that this article is advertisement. All others contributors has some doubt in "significance in the limited segment" only. What do you think is the Winpopup LAN Messenger adequate item of the LAN Messengers ? 20:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
            • I will not initiate deletion again if your page will not be deleted. But I know and you know that all these articles about winpopup, Net Send, Winpopup LAN Messenger only for keyword catching from google search results. Net send is a part of net command that relevant to your messenger, Winpopup LAN messenger is relevant words for your messenger, the real name of your messenger is Fomine Messenger. It's a game, but not the real knowledge. When I found your page in the wikipedia, I have created my own. My page has been deleted. I just wanted to check your too. --Crea7or 21:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • All these articles winpopup, Net Send, Winpopup LAN Messenger has no spam links. Fomine 23:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • "...that relevant to your messenger" - Yes, my knowledges is relevant to my software. Fomine 23:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • "the real name of your messenger is Fomine Messenger" - it is incorrect statement. Everyone can download and install it to see the name. Fomine 23:00, 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. — Feb. 27, '06 [08:11] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Softros_LAN_Messenger[edit]

self promotion Crea7or 20:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Crea7or's original nomination comment was deleted by serlogin. I readded it, above. --Karnesky 20:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertisement, no encyclopedic value. Pavel Vozenilek 22:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For everyone's info, if it means anything, all of this nom's contributions are related to LanTalk XP and [[LanTalk NET] (See their deletion logs. Thanks. --Perfecto 02:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I cringe at some of Crea7or's contributions, this seems to be non-notable software. --Karnesky 09:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ad spam. UncleFloyd 03:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save, what's wrong with it? Where is the different between posting info about ICQ, MSN or this Messenger? (--unsigned post by User:serglogin)
  • Save, I can't see any promotional ads. They presented a program description. That's all. (--unsigned post by User:Alexrey)
    • And it was his 4th edit. His first was to the article, itself. His second and third were to put a link to a Softros program on other pages. --Karnesky 20:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • May be you are worried about external link through the description, now I have moved it to "external links" section bottom the main text. serglogin
    • Advertising your own products on Wikipedia in any form is frowned on. Please see WP:SOFTWARE for suggestions on what software warrants an article. IF it was notable softwre, have the external link would probably be O.K. (on this page only--not the other pages you and Alexray added them to). I don't think it is "notable." --Karnesky 20:17, 24 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 13:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MISSION[edit]

This page is just an advertisment for an online game. It is not properly formatted, it not written as an encyclopedia entry, and no pages in Wikipedia link to it. Jorvik 20:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it was created by User:MISSION whose user page is an exact copy of the arcicle. Jorvik 20:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Advertising.  (aeropagitica)  20:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with haste. When oh when are we going to make advertising a CSD criterion? Zunaid 21:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic. Camillus (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous comments. It may be of interest to note that this is an exact recreation of a previously deleted page (I deleted it after it was listed uncontested for five days at WP:PROP). --RobertG ♬ talk 16:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, MISSION is not a GAME it's an online cartoon and NOT an advertisement. I don't make any money off of the site and have placed this article on wikipedia to provide further information about the cartoon. I figured since other comic book type sites have THEIR own entries, I can make one for mine since thousands of people watch this cartoon. You might want to check out the entry for 'Sacred Pie' which is similar to my site, yet it has an entry too. I don't see why my entry is considered an 'advertisement' and being singled out for deletion while sacred pie is essentially the same thing. Please clarify this for me.


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 02:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Pacific Association of Bible Colleges[edit]

This is a list of certain schools, which WP:Is Not. There is already a list of Bible colleges so this is a fork to promote certain Australian bible schools. If this group of schools is notable it isn't demonstrated. The group's webpage fails to explain notability [29], which is also just a list of "independent" schools. Arbustoo 22:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Arbustoo 22:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Ruby 22:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is more than a list. It is an association in existence since 1969. Capitalistroadster 00:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we keep this, we will slide down a slippery slope and end up with Tri-state Association of Bible Colleges and Five Corners Free Will Reformed Association of Bible Colleges and Buddhislamic Association of Christian Synagogues of Vishnu Bible Colleges --Ruby 01:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other than a date, how is it more than a list? Arbustoo 01:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you, Ruby saying that these associations exist? This organisation does exist! Paul foord 05:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think his point was we don't know what educational clout/recognition this "association" has or why it is Wikipedia worthy. Arbustoo 20:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its such a slippery slope...as if writing an article about this institution would cause other institutions to be created. Then we would have to write more articles. Oh, the horror. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the association exists, it is international in scope with some notable members, the list can be put on the list of Bible Colleges if desired, but the Association at least deserves a stub. -- Paul foord 05:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable association which has been in existence since 1969. Cnwb 06:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per all of the above Jcuk 22:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its not just a list. Its an article about an association, which is notable. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP is not lists, but this is a valid, international organization with numerous members. Sandy 15:50, 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 Result : Speedy deletion as CSD A7 JoJan 19:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The War Upstairs[edit]

Delete. I realize this page was just created today, but the band is completely non-notable and does not fit the guidelines set forth in WP:NMG. I got 71 Google hits for "the war upstairs" [30]; most (if not all) did not refer to this band. Also, the page was very likely created by the musician himself (see the article's history [31]). Imaginaryoctopus(talk) 21:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7 --Ardenn 06:09, 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, with no prejudice toward (a) including this information in the University of Central Lancashire article and (b) making it sound a hell of a lot less like an advertisement. — Feb. 27, '06 [08:15] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Frequency 1350 and Pluto (Student Newspaper)[edit]

Article about a student radio station. Although well written and neatly formatted, the article shows no evidence to demonstrate why this radio station is important. Zunaid 21:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wrote the article. The radio station has a potential audience of over 100,000 people. It is well known in the Preston area and similar radio stations have pages on Wikipedia that have not been scheduled for deletion. Please do not delete it. Joebloggsy 21:19, 18 February 2006

The same goes for the Pluto, it has a massive audience and similar articles exist already that have not been deleted. Joebloggsy 21:21, 18 February 2006

  • It's not so much that we don't believe you, Joebloggsy, as much as is that the article doesn't show evidence of what you state here. Also, isn't "potential audience" a funny measure for a radio station's noteworthiness? Couldn't any radio station in the area make the same assertion? --Maxamegalon2000 21:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As could any other student radio station listed on Wikipedia. It isn't possible for student radio stations to ascertain correct RAJAR figures as that centralises on commercial radio and BBC radio stations. Perhaps if you could explain what is meant by evidence and examples of what we could provide then we could reach a more amicable solution. (Unattributed)

  • Check out the Student Radio Association page for other examples for student stations on Wikipedia. The university is the fourth largest in the UK. What would you suggest I add to the articles to make them worthy? Cheers, Joebloggsy. --Joebloggsy 21:50, 18 February 2006
  • Plus, Pluto has three celebrity writers, which is of interest. Joebloggsy 22:41, 18 February 2006
  • Here's my case for keeping the articles...

1. They are integral parts of one of the UK's largest higher education institutions.
2. Frequency is one of only a handful of radio stations in Preston, a major North-West city.
3. The university has one of the best journalism courses in the country, so these media have, and will continue to develop journalists who go on to be significant.
4. Other student radio stations and newspapers have been on Wikipedia without being deleted. (See the Student Radio Association page for examples).
5. Pluto has guest writers that include Mark Lawrenson, Tom Finney, and Jim Bowen and has been mentioned several times in the national press because of this.
6. Frequency often hosts meetings for the Student Radio Association, and is an integral member.
7. The two media get as many readers/listeners as any non-student media, and would not get deleted if they weren't student-based.
8. Pluto has been running since 1985 - making it one of the country's oldest student newspapers.

Joebloggsy 00:31, 19 February 2006

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mailer Diablo 13:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Obregon[edit]

Appears to be vanity page for owner of a Travel Agency Ten Dead Chickens 21:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vanity page and advertising. BrianGCrawfordMA 23:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. Creator has removed 'attention' and 'verify' tags twice. Red flag. Monkeyman 02:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable article, fails WP:BIO. Stifle 11:37, 21 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 and redirect to DuPont Manual Magnet High School. Deathphoenix 13:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DuPont Manual Crimsons[edit]

High school football team - I'm not convinced that such teams are notable enough for articles. Delete CLW 21:29, 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 Speedy keep, as the nominator withdraws and there are no delete votes. Stifle 11:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Muhaidib[edit]

Unencyclopedic and POV advertisement. Delete. –Sommers (Talk) 21:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - serious POV issues. Can be fixed, maybe? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose it could be whittled down to an NPOV stub if everything but the "History" section were deleted. But is there enough information in there to be worth salvaging? It would probably be more like a sub-stub. Perhaps it would be better to delete the article as unusable and let someone re-create it later as a more informative stub, if they can. Discussion is welcome. –Sommers (Talk) 22:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have done exactly this, and it appears to be a reasonable stub now. I'd prefer to keep it now. GeorgeStepanek\talk 22:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Switch to no vote as it stands. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed – change my vote to keep the rewrite. Thanks, GeorgeStepanek. –Sommers (Talk) 22:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GeorgeStepanek's rewrite Dlyons493 Talk 22:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rewrite. appears notable. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorry if I violated any rules, I don't mean this as an advertisement, it is just a company bio, sorry and thank you again, to reach me personally please send an e-mail to [email protected] --Muhaidib 01:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Hi there, I can see it as a (company stub) and I might expand it, but I am afraid to violate any rules while doing so which I don't want to do. So what should I always keep in mind while expanding this stub? and may I create (mini articles) of the branch companies? Thank you --Muhaidib 16:21, 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. Mailer Diablo 13:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro9[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. Promotion. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as ad ComputerJoe 21:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Traffic Rank for pro9.co.uk: 441,417 --Ruby 23:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What on earth is 9-ball? Stifle 11:38, 21 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. Deathphoenix 13:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of US railfan jargon[edit]

Delete Not encylopedic, dictionary definitions WestchesterGuy 21:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing Admin. Seven delete votes are from users that have made no contribution to wikipedia since July 2005 (User:ConeyCyclone, User:WashingtonWillie, User:UncleFloyd) and August 2005 (User:SquirrelKabob , User:Toasthaven2, User:FunkyChicken!, User:Frühstücksdienst) Three more are from very new users (User:Talain, User:ShyLou, User:JER53Y). -- JJay 05:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a List of UK railfan jargon Schizombie 22:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC) Incidentially, they seem to be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains. Schizombie 22:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic and indiscriminate. Unreferenced. No context. -- Krash (Talk) 02:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lack of references is not grounds for deletion. Several current Featured Articles lack references. Although their featured status is now being reexamined, they are not being considered for deletion because of it. Slambo (Speak) 11:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason to delete good, focused slang lists. Delightfully encyclopedic. -- JJay 02:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I realize that this is our nom's first day at wikipedia, but he should have indicated that this list and the British jargon page were spun out after extensive discussion from Railfan. -- JJay 02:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is a widespread and notable hobby (Railfan). Monkeyman 02:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. While Railfan is notable, WP:WINAD applies to this particular article. If not transwikied, please consider this a delete vote. --Karnesky 09:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For reasons stated in the British railfan jargon debate ("Pages like this have wide and longstanding precedent; see Computer jargon (created September 30 2001), List of baseball jargon (March 11 2003), List of lumberjack jargon (November 4 2003), Mathematical jargon (October 5 2004) and Poker jargon (April 18 2001) for other examples of this type of article. If this article is deleted for the reasons stated in the nomination, then all of these need to be deleted for the same reason."). Slambo (Speak) 11:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Comment I am going to call for those pages deletion, as they don't belong. Will this make you happy? Frühstücksdienst 03:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If they are deleted, then I will change my vote, but not until the policy is evenly enforced. Slambo (Speak) 13:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about we handle one AfD at a time? --Karnesky 05:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is not relevant because this is not a dictionary definition.Choalbaton 13:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencylopedic, unsourced. Perhaps merging with railfan ariticle would be better? TVXPert 15:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, just read the damn guidelines. I am also voting against the UK version, too. FunkyChicken! 01:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nomination. UncleFloyd 03:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nomination and others. NYTVGuy 13:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless, needless, and seems to go against the policies of the Wikipeida. ShyLou 17:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: User's fifth edit -- JJay 19:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a slang/jargon dictionary, or a list of words. Stifle 11:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Most if not all of the problems with this article can be rectified with a little TLC. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful explanation of concepts in rail culture. Kappa 17:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are several webpages dotted around the internet with slices of jargon, some with just one or two entries some with more. There is no central respository. As Slambo said, other lists of jargon are accepted, even when we are duplicating effort. This and the UK railfan jargon article were recently spun out from the main railfan article as the two lists were starting to take over. There is also no point in merging the two lists as rail terminology is probably the area where British and American English are the most different. Thryduulf 18:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just because there are some fan sites on the internet doesn't mean it belongs in an encylopedia, especially when people say it doesn't fit its guidelines. JAA01A 18:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per guideline violations. WashingtonWillie 22:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like nearly every other list of slang we keep. Carlossuarez46 01:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful glossary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't care how useful it is or how many other web sites have lists, since it violates established Wikipedia policy it should be removed as soon as possible. ConeyCyclone 18:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT and others. Toasthaven2 19:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the article violates the Wikipedia guidelines why shouldn't it be deleted? Those who want to keep it must want to kill the Wikipedia by subverting its rules. That is just wrong! WestchesterGuy 21:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only reason I haven't AFD'd the precedents I mention in my vote reason is to avoid making a WP:POINT. If this article is deleted, the others should be too for the same reason. Slambo (Speak) 21:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't think your vote should count. It seems not to make any sense, as you seem to think that just because other things are, this should be. It needs to go just like the others! Frühstücksdienst 03:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note: user's first edit since August 2005. Slambo (Speak) 13:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Note: I started editing under another name in August 2005 to avoid deletion wars, since there are some crazy people (like you) out there and I took a break. So sue me. You really seem to like this article even though it violates at least two Wikipedia policies, most likely as you seem to be a foamer. Frühstücksdienst 14:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It goes against the rules so bye-bye. And all the other jargon lists should meet the same fate. Frühstücksdienst 03:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think people are voting for keep for this because they like the article but it violates at least two Wikipedia guidelines. Just because something is useful or essential should not be kept if it violates established policy! Frühstücksdienst 14:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per FunkyChicken! SquirrelKabob 20:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:WINAD makes this seem pretty cut and dry. --Talain 11:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WINAD JER53Y 23:33, 25 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 13:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Poche[edit]

Lots of disputes on whether article should stay or not, so I brought it to AFD. J.J.Sagnella 22:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 20 Google hits (not all of which are relevant) says delete to me. GeorgeStepanek\talk 23:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable. His "official site", Poche Pictures, notes that they were the official videographer for the 2004 Miss San Francisco Bay Area Teen USA and Miss San Francisco Bay Area USA Pageant. Local video company making non-notable indie films. No Gnews hits. —ERcheck @ 00:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN as per Sagnella Maustrauser 00:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 01:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nomination. UncleFloyd 03:42, 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 Speedy delete as nn-bio. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Hart[edit]

Not notable Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:11, 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 all articles. Mailer Diablo 13:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd-Warshall algorithm/C implementation[edit]

I'm bundling two other implementations into this AfD since they should all be treated in the same way. Floyd-Warshall_algorithm/Python_implementation and Floyd-Warshall_algorithm/C_plus_plus_implementation Dlyons493 Talk 22:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is the point to this article. I doesn't really have an encyclopedic purpose. No Categories, stubs and not wikified. Maybe merge if it's valuable to a specific article, but delete if it's nothing important. Moe ε 22:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Floyd-Warshall algorithm which already contains pseudo-code. I don't see the need for separate language implementations. Dlyons493 Talk 22:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move to WikiBooks as per similar articles. Thanks for the ref Pavel. Dlyons493 Talk 22:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quicksort implementations for another sibling. In the past source-code-only articles have been deleted, AFAIR. There's no chance to maintain source code examples in Wikipedia (who and how is one going to test them?). Links to external pages should be used instead. Pavel Vozenilek 22:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pavel --Ruby 23:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pavel. —Ruud 01:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pavel. --Allan McInnes (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If somebody didn't put it up for deletion, I would've; three implementations are more confusing than just one. --bmills 04:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems, as the nom suggested, directionless. -- Greaser 06:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a source code repository —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-20 13:12Z
  • Delete per, well, everyone. --Mgreenbe 13:57, 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 Speedy deletion by User:Pathoschild Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward clay[edit]

Blank page Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:15, 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 all. I won't protect the deleted pages because these pages haven't been deleted then recreated. I have no prejudice against a future page protection if users recreate these articles after deletion. --Deathphoenix 16:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruin Mist, The Kingdoms and the Elves, In the Service of Dragons, Ruin Mist Chronicles, King's Mate, Doamanse, Magic Lands, List of Ruin Mist characters, List of Ruin Mist articles, The Alders, The Tyranths, The Brodsts, The Duardins, The Rivens, The De Vits, The Fraddylwickes, Adrynne, The Froen d'Gas, Amir & Ky'el, Elves (Ruin Mist), Eagle Lords (Ruin Mist), Titans (Ruin Mist), Dragons (Ruin Mist), The Tabborraths[edit]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Stanek

Please note: This AFD applies to a large number of pages. There are also various redirect pages (eg, Ruinmist) not listed; a vote to delete the lot will be interpreted as including those.

This one is a bit odd, so please bear with me. Basically, Robert Stanek is an almost entirely non-notable author, with hordes of obscure fantasy books coming from a small press, which he may or may not control. But he has a very good PR machine, which makes him seem like a major author; dedicated fans fill Amazon with glowing reviews, vaguely threatening 'legal' letters mysteriously get sent to places that mention that his books are not very good, and so forth. And in December, this PR machine hit Wikipedia; see WP:AN. Hordes of links to his material from unrelated pages; hordes of pages on his stuff. A lot of the cruftier stuff got trimmed then - I know, I did some - and we left it.

Last night, a couple of the authors of these pages started blanking Talk:Robert Stanek, demanding that comments suggesting astroturfing were removed. Fun ensued; see WP:AN/I. So I got to thinking about our pages on his works... hence, this AFD. I've been reflecting on these articles, and they're just not worth keeping.

  • I'd be uneasy with anything running to this detail on a "real" novel... and as it is, given the obscurity of Stanek's books, I really feel we're just being used for astroturfing. WP:NOT a soapbox; astroturfing is self-promotion in all but name, IME. It's certainly not motivated by improving the encyclopedia.
  • The obscurity of Stanek's work means that these pages will likely suffer the fate of vanity pages - even if they weren't created by him, they are of interest to a very small number of people, and will likely be left unmaintained for long periods. Many of them haven't been touched at all since the frenzy of creation, with the rest maybe getting a typo fixed or a link disambiguated.
  • Merging and redirecting without going to AFD was possible, but I know that would just result in me being yelled at (you should see Talk:Robert Stanek), and trying to see if community consensus agreed with me seemed smarter. Plus, this way I get to shift the buck to "Wikipedia". :-)
  • The books are, IME, non-notable... but due to the nature of the situation that's hotly debated. It is something to bear in mind, though.

Thoughts? I do feel we'd be better off without them. Shimgray | talk | 22:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added The Tabborraths, which I missed earlier. Shimgray | talk | 00:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Eakers4 added Robert Stanek to the list of deletions here. I feel it needs to be considered seperately - very different arguments for deletion apply to it (and I for one am ambivalent over deleting it). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Stanek.
  1. Delete the lot! Off with their heads! Egregiously non-notable vanity articles. Zora 22:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    <looks at Zora; shakes head> Off with thier heads? Moe ε 22:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Delete this entire self-published "universe" --Ruby 22:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Delete vanity articles. Moe ε 22:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all; God will know His own. BrianGCrawfordMA 23:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot. Dlyons493 Talk 23:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Looks like his dad also was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross [32]. That's impressive - can't be many other fathers and sons with similar awards. But it doesn't make his books any more notable unfortunately. Dlyons493 Talk 23:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per all above. --Kinu t/c 00:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expunge with flame  ALKIVAR™ 00:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, as above. --Carnildo 01:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Robert Stanek is infamous throughout science fiction publishing. What tends to happen is that a completely non-notable book is put out in the Stanek name, and then hundreds, if not thousands, of positive reviews begin to flood web-based reviews websites. Oddly, these reviews are all identical. Now, I'm not saying that Stanek himself has anything to do with these reviews, any more than I'm saying that the sudden flurry of Stanek-related articles on Wikipedia are anything to do with him personally, but the long arm of coincidence stretches only so far. (Heh. "Astroturfing" - must remember that...) Grutness...wha? 01:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it all, and lets move on to more important stuff. Eakers4 01:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, self-promotion, no context, unmaintainable, waste of time, et alii. -- Krash (Talk) 01:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • verify: This deletion is out of process. I didn't even see a verify sign or a sources need. Come back once that's been done and please take a look at WP:DENSE. --CyclePat 02:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I confess to being quite baffled by a) what the link to m:Don't be dense is meant to tell me, and b) where this specific process to which you refer sprang from when I wasn't looking... Shimgray | talk | 03:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is, given CyclePat's track record of imperfect (to be polite) understanding of how AfD works, it means nothing at all to worry about. --Calton | Talk 03:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete aggressive self-promotion/aggressive fancruft, take your pick. --Calton | Talk 03:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Calling the fiction of this author "obscure" would be elevating its position far above what it deserves, and it's clear from my following of the backtrails and other contributions of his supporters/sockpuppets earlier today that their ONLY contributions outside his specific topics have been to weasel references into other non-related topics. This disease is already rampant on Amazon and Usenet - It's pure astroturf, it has no business here.
    Also, note that the "author" topic had a history of either copyright infringement (the posting of the covers of multiple novels without permission of the publisher) or blantant promotion (if the publisher was the individual posting them). I made the edit deleting them just before the start of the current revertwar. 69.213.249.15 04:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)     69.213.249.15 17:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC) New perm ID Synthfilker 03:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, blank, and redirect to Robert Stanek After reading Monicasdude's comments below, I have to agree. Redirect to the author's page, allow a single mention of the fiction (as opposed to a listing of every single edition and variation of each book), perhaps one thumbnailed cover as an example, and there maintain as well the record of the astroturfing here and on Amazon and the attempted supression of/retaliation for bad reviews and commentary questioning the validity of the reviews. 69.213.249.15 17:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC) New perm ID Synthfilker 03:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Elaboration Thatcher131 has it right, I think. I've been trying to figure out a concise way of saying that myself. There's also going to need to be a general housecleaning to remove astroturf from articles like this: [33], (under the "In Modern Literature" heading, left only to provide an example) Synthfilker 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Delete the lot! Deepd 04:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of the articles, per nomination. Sandstein 10:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I still vote delete, but bear in mind that some of the users urging deletion are anonymous or very new, which is odd. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Stanek. Sandstein 10:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, blank, and redirect to Robert Stanek. This guy is the Angelyne of the fantasy/sf world and is therefore, for better or worse, notable. The deletion alternative simply makes Wikipedia his silent accomplice (which is why the author's apparent anon/sockpuppets are pushing deletion). Monicasdude 16:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all? I can see a reason for redirecting, say, his book titles, but there doesn't seem to be any benefit to redirecting things like Titans (Ruin Mist). Shimgray | talk | 20:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, blank, and redirect, per 69.213.249.15 and Monicasdude. ergot 18:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank, redirect and protect pages that are the titles of his books. Delete pages that refer to characters or situations within the books. Thatcher131 16:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (to Robert Stanek) and protect book titles; delete character names and monster types. Barno 21:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • K,B,R per Monicasdude and Barno. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, protect. Pavel Vozenilek 05:27, 24 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. Deathphoenix 13:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Smith Landscape Architect[edit]

Seems to be a nn article. <<"ken smith" landscape architect>> gets 5-figure hits on Google, so this might be a borderline notable person. I've never heard of the guy, but then I don't live in his stomping grounds of NY or CA. It needs a solid cleanup if we keep it. Draeco 23:01, 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. Deathphoenix 16:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Safe sex makespan[edit]

Mildly funny example of pure bullocks...and it seems it went through AfD once before, according to the talk page, but there is no indication of what the verdict was. --Ruby 23:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is the "safe sex" version of the "glove problem", see [34], as Kappa pointed out in the last discussion debate about this topic here. It is a real combinatorics / optimization problem, and the mathematics presented is sound. It would need somebody to check the sources given in the MathWorld link, to find out all the alternate names, and to turn this more into an article about the problem than about wrong solutions for it. At the very least, consider transwiki to an appropriate Wikibook on operations research. Kusma (討論) 23:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am no longer convinced that this is more than an example for an OR textbook. It should be proved to occur more prominently to deserve an encyclopedia entry of its own. Kusma (討論) 03:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete Earlier VfD is at [35] It's certainly the type of problem Operations Research deals with but I haven't the time to see if it's a real or joke variant. Highly likely to be original research and also apparently is unverifiable. See below. Dlyons493 Talk 23:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any event the talk page needs a banner with the final disposition of the debate, or someone will come along and do this a third time. --Ruby 23:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Counting up the votes would appear to give it no consensus. I don't know enough about the topic myself, so no vote. GeorgeStepanek\talk 23:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The mathematics is valid, but it definitely needs sources to prove that the contributor didn't simply invent the problem statement on the spot (in which case it would be non-notable original research). Deco 00:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Mathworld site has this reference for the glove problem: "Vardi, I. The Condom Problem. Ch. 10 in Computational Recreations in Mathematica. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 203-222, 1991." so (if that is the same thing) there seems to be somebody else giving it a similar name. Kusma (討論) 00:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In any case, this article should be renamed to something more accurate. Kusma (討論) 00:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about rename to Glove problem and list it as a sub section. --Salix alba (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per above. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless serious references can be found. One man wearing N condoms, and another one starting with no condoms and progressively piling on N condoms left at other women by previous men... Gross... Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems like a legitimate—albeit peculiar—problem. But I can't find any legitimate sources on it so it seems to smack of original research. -- Krash (Talk) 01:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One of many Operations Research problems. This is no more notable than any other. Monkeyman 02:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep: source it or kill it. --CyclePat 03:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem is mentioned at rec.puzzles Hall of Fame also sci.math Dlyons493 Talk 15:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Equations are the Devil's sentences. (Unsigned vote by User:BrianGCrawfordMA)
  • Keep The problem is notable. I first saw it (in a family-friendly reformulation) in one of Martin Gardner's puzzle books (published in the '80s, at latest) and it's shown up in many places since. —Blotwell 05:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know nothing abou operations research, and I've heard of this before. On mathworld, it is called the [Glove Problem]. As to notability: right now, the defacto Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics "notability" criterion is set at a level whereby, if a paper or two has been published on the topic, its notable. For something to be in a book means that there have been dozens of papers at least, and so is clearly notable. Although, ahem, it might be more appropriate to reword this into talking about gloves not condoms. Although I admit the reason I remember hearing of it before was the "gross-out" factor. Actually, think I heard about re-using latex gloves in Soviet hospitals, and maybe 3rd-world hospitals. They certainly reused "disposable" needles. linas 01:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, assuming that nobody rewords it, does it kept the way it is or not? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since I don't know what a "makespan" is, I suggest moving article to glove problem. The language doesn't concern me much. Wether te content is accurate.... actually, that I did not investigate. At least the problem was posed in a coherent way. linas 01:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course if it is to be renamed to "glove problem" it will have to be reworded. If no one is interested in doing so then it should be renamed to "condom problem" with a redirect from "glove problem". Paul August ☎ 15:15, 23 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. This was extremely borderline, but the credo of AfD is "when in doubt, keep". Deathphoenix 16:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automotive design terminology[edit]

This is nothing more than a glossary. James084 23:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that it is best to be consistent. Unfortunately, that does no seem to hold true here. I disagree that it is best to keep a bunch of glossaries in a encyclopaedia. That's what Wiktionary is for. James084 01:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pretty useful glossary of terms. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary (which is a better match than wiki source). --Karnesky 06:17, 24 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. Mushroom (Talk) 00:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Sellyn[edit]

Delete: nn bio, and WP is not a crystal ball. JackyR 23:49, 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_18&oldid=1116878817"