Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 21 February 23 >

Purge server cache

February 22[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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Weapons Timeline[edit]

This is an unsourced textdump, which could very likely be copyvio. This is the only article edit of the user who uploaded it. Therefore, it's unlikely to be research but simply a copy-paste job. Regardless, it's in an incorrect namespace (should be: Nuclear weapons timeline), and it essentially duplicates the purpose of History of nuclear weapons. I propose delete and redirect to History of nuclear weapons. —thames 23:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. We have this at History_of_nuclear_weapons. Monkeyman(talk) 00:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jim62sch 01:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I certainly believe that if the author took the time to read the History article, he definitely wouldn't have written it. --Jay(Reply) 01:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. But, unless it gets verified as copyvio, I'm going to archive it at the History page.--ragesoss 02:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No evidence of a copyvio: some users prefer to work in a word processor before creating articles. An incorrect title is also not a reason for deletion: simple move the page to the correct title. We also frequently have separate articles for [[History of X]] and [[Timeline of X]]. That having been said, this aritcle does not appear to be an actual timeline. However, I would vote keep on an actual timeline of the history of nuclear weapons as a subarticle of History of nuclear weapons. This article does appear to contain a lot of the appropriate dates. Perhaps its just needs cleanup. No vote at this time, though. Just pointing out that the reasons given for deletion aren't that compelling. savidan(talk) (e@) 02:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete without prejudice; doesn't seem to be evidence of copyvio, user's first substantial contribution, and there may be something in there that could in fact be profitably merged into History of nuclear weapons. Smerdis of Tlön 04:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Userfy" to an anon? Lupo 09:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    History suggests the author is User:Wagam. Smerdis of Tlön 12:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Nuclear proliferation. --Off! 06:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete without prejudice; per Ihcoyc. pschemp | talk 07:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup, rename and wikify. This reads as an essay rather than an encyclopædic article. It really needs to be cleaned up before it can be easily read - textdumpers should preview their efforts in the Sandbox before choosing to save pages. I don't think that it can be merged with History of nuclear weapons without a severe edit. Renaming to Nuclear weapons timeline would also be consistent with WP article entry style.  (aeropagitica)  07:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 07:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup/wikify per aeropagitica Nobody has bothered leaving a message for the contributor asking about sourcing? It looks like a class paper or something, and could easily be massaged into a good article if confirmed as having been written by the contributor. Phr 08:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added paragraph breaks (they were already in the pasted text but no blank lines, so got squashed) which helps readability, and left the contributor a message. Also added "vote". Phr 10:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lupo 09:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Delete per nom" shows up here several times and would seem to mean "I agree with the nom that this looks like a copyvio". That's awfully non-WP:AGF since the nom never asked the contributor about where the text came from. I left a note just a few hours ago, no answer yet. Phr 13:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right. Perhaps I was a bit hasty. I didn't think the author was likely to respond, as they only made one real edit ever, and that was several months ago. I figured the account was abandoned, but I should have checked. BTW, I moved your welcome and inquiry to the user's talk page, where they'll get a proper talk page notice.—thames 14:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Phr 14:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge relevant bits with Nuclear proliferation, delete article. It also looks too much like copyvio. --Mecanismo | Talk 17:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is "looks like" with zero concrete evidence of copyvio, grounds to delete an article? What happened to WP:AGF? While the article is interesting, it does not look like a professionally written article to me and so I don't know what the source of copyvio would be. My best guess is the contributor is a student and the article is a class paper written by the student. Phr 21:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Mindbender 22:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or maybe userfy if the creator wants it as a scratch pad for expanding other articles, since some effort has apparently gone into researching this. Just zis Guy you know? 22:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect. If someone wants to go through and add relevant, sourced info to History of Nuclear Weapons, great, but merging would be a lot of work, and I don't know that it would add a lot to History of Nuclear Weapons.--Gjc8 03:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm getting less and less patient with contributors that can't be bothered to click on the link under every edit box, where it says content must be verifiable. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This article is simply not notable in WP's coverage of nuclear weapons. Georgewilliamherbert 20:14, 26 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 00:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Cortez[edit]

Brought this (was CSD) to AfD since google has hits with the name and group FARSUCT. No vote. feydey 23:59, 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. Ifnord 01:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid_Hassani[edit]

Delete.Does not meet WP:BIO#People_still_alive. Most edits are coming from 217.218.65.x. Mahanchian 00:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Given the verified CV, why do you argue he isn't notable? Monicasdude 00:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has a claimed 6 books - at least some of these are verifiable see Linguist List and there seems to be no reason to doubt the others. I'd expect an Iranian Lexicographer to be underrepresented on Google. Dlyons493 Talk 00:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Monicasdude and Dlyons493. dbtfztalk 02:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, WP:BIAS &c. Smerdis of Tlön 04:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. pschemp | talk 07:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. --Terence Ong 07:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obscure character, article fails to quote sources, fails the google test (140 hits, being the second hit the article on wikipedia). --Mecanismo | Talk 17:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Myles Long 18:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Requirements for notability say that his books must have been bought by 5,000 people. Reading his page does not suggest that. Cuñado - Talk 00:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --James 01:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person is a non-notable one. Thinker2006 14:28, 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 Merge with God of War. Babajobu 06:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desert of Lost Souls[edit]

Gamecruft, part 1. Delete or merge to God of War. Zetawoof 00:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - If it's worth mentioning it at all, put it in the main article. --lightdarkness (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with God of War. Kappa 00:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Kappa. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. pschemp | talk 07:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into a list of God of War locations. Precedent to keep fictional locations in some form, but merging this with the main God of War article might clutter it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep per Kappa and Sjakkalle. --Terence Ong 08:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant information and delete article. Gamecruft. --Mecanismo | Talk 17:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid vote - "merge and delete" is incompatible with the GFDL. You probably want merge and redirect. Zetawoof 20:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge then delete. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid vote - "merge and delete" is incompatible with the GFDL. You probably want merge and redirect. Zetawoof 20:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Honestly, putting this into the main article will cause less clutter than having a whole ton of different articles about different areas. --Talain 11:14, 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 merge. — Mar. 3, '06 [06:42] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Blades of Chaos[edit]

Gamecruft, part 2. Delete or merge to God of War. Zetawoof 00:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - If it's worth mentioning it at all, put it in the main article. --lightdarkness (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep, real game item. Kappa 00:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Kappa. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above if anything is worth keeping. pschemp | talk 07:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into a list of God of War locations. Precedent to keep fictional items in some form, but merging this with the main God of War article might clutter it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant information and delete article. Gamecruft. --Mecanismo | Talk 17:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid vote - "merge and delete" is incompatible with the GFDL. You probably want merge and redirect. Zetawoof 20:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant information. --James 02:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there in no important info here that isn't already in God of War, and that article is long enough already. --Cornflake pirate 13:32, 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 00:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neros[edit]

I prodded this as unverifiable but an artists name has now been added which does throw up a small number of Ghits (although none for that inconjuction with the article name). So, I'd have to say not sufficiently notable at this time.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monsterworld comic[edit]

Non notable Wonderboy fan fiction webcomic, found here. There are no Alexa stats for the page, the search "Monsterworld webcomic" (without quotes) gives 16 Google hits. Shows no sign of meeting any sort of WP:WEB guideline. - Hahnchen 23:54, 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 00:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entertain-Dome[edit]

This is the second time that this webcomic has been nominated for deletion. The first time can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entertain-Dome. Reading the arguments in the original nomination, we see the argument for keep being based on the defunct WP:COMIC "alternate proposals" and was purely judged by the fact that it had over 100 strips. It's current Alexa rank is 3 million, although a sister site nominated below has a rank of around 550,000. Google search only brings up 166 links. Like the previous nomination, I just don't think this site is any more notable than the other swathes of websites out there. - Hahnchen 00:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non notable. --Jay(Reply) 01:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as repost. Sorry, misread the nom. savidan(talk) (e@) 02:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't a repost - it's a relisting on AFD; the previous AFD concluded in a keep. Zetawoof 07:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no references to reputable sources, I haven't been able to find any, does not appear to meet WP:WEB notability guidelines. -- Dragonfiend 03:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 04:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. pschemp | talk 07:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The potential in this article for expansion is there. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Siva. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 14:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable and void of any encyclopedic value --Mecanismo | Talk 17:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. --Mindbender 22:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Webcruft. -AKMask 23:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no 3rd-party verification. Ziggurat 06:15, 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 00:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre Uprising[edit]

A sister website to the nomination above, this webcomic can be found here. As mentioned in the previous nomination, the Alexa ranking is roughly 550,000. A google search for "bizarre uprising" gives 180 links and none from a respected source. This is also the 2nd nomination for the comic, it's first nomination was identical to that of Entertain-Dome's in terms of the points made and can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bizarre Uprising. - Hahnchen 00:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless notability via mentions in major media, reputable online sources, etc can be demonstrated. - brenneman{T}{L} 01:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another one? Whoever it is, please stop posting web comic articles - you surely won't attract more hits. --Jay(Reply) 01:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This webcomic has been on Wikipedia since last March. The recent spate of webcomic AfDs has nothing to do with a sudden influx of new webcomic articles. They're just being targeted for a clean-up. A misguided one, IMNSHO. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no references to reputable sources, I haven't been able to find any, does not appear to meet WP:WEB notability guidelines. -- Dragonfiend 03:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. pschemp | talk 07:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel that this is notable enough. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not trying to be argumentative, but based upon what? If you give a clear indication of what your argument in based upon, then someone else who comes along may be swayed by your reasoning. The difference between "D - NN" and "K - N" is subtle, but the former depends upon facts already in evidence while the latter depends upon... well, we don't know what yet. Even if you just say something like "Alexa over 500K is good enough for me." Thanks - brenneman{T}{L} 12:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't see a good reason to delete. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable and void of any encyclopedic value --Mecanismo | Talk 17:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB.--Isotope23 17:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no verification. Ziggurat 06:18, 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 00:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psycheverse[edit]

Now something a tiny bit different, a non notable fictional universe. This fictional universe is shared by 3 comics, 2 of which have already been deleted, both here and here, the last of the 3 is mentioned in the nomination below. A google search for psycheverse gives back 70 links. Is this a notable fictional universe? Are its inhabitants notable? I don't think so. - Hahnchen 00:13, 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 00:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apathy (webcomic)[edit]

The final webcomic in the Psycheverse series mentioned above, it can be found online here, it's forums can be found here. The website does not have an Alexa rank, and a Google for Apathy "Andrew Taylor" gives 190 links, although many of these links are nothing to do with the webcomic at all. Is this a notable website? Are there respected sources which mention this website? No there are not. - Hahnchen 00:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (websites). Monkeyman(talk) 00:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as having made no impact, not having been reviewd (or even mentioned?) in any media of major on-line source. - brenneman{T}{L} 01:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. - brenneman{T}{L} 02:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete, no references to reputable sources, I haven't been able to find any, article does not appear to meet WP:WEB notability guidelines. -- Dragonfiend 03:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. pschemp | talk 07:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable and void of any encyclopedic value --Mecanismo | Talk 17:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello! Apathy is my comic and I'd like to say exactly three things. 1. I didn't put this entry up. That must say something. 2. Since this article was considered for deletion my hits from Wikipedia have increased. Thankyou. 3. You might want to look more carefully at the wordings of your policies. The dream of "[building] a comprehensive and detailed guide to webcomics on Wikipedia" is somewhat at odds with the notability guidelines for websites. It might even be worth sticking in stubs for lesser-known webcomics that link to the Comixpedia articles. Just a thought. Andrew 12:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Additional: Oh, and Hahnchen, your punctuation is appaling. Any good editor will tell you that posessive its has no apostrophe, "no, there are not" should have a comma, and you only put one space after a full stop. I know it's picky but if you want to be considered a good editor these are the sorts of things you should know. Andrew 23:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable per Andrew. (Hmmm? He didn't vote? Well, he would have, it must have slipped his mind.) Ifnord 01:03, 27 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 20:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GameCheetz[edit]

A webcomic, found here. What makes this website any more notable than the others out there? Alexa ranks it at 1.3 million, and a Google for the word GameCheetz comes back with 100 links. This is not a popular nor influential comic, but just one of the millions of websites that exist out there. - User:Hahnchen 00:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (websites). Monkeyman(talk) 00:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom with the note that bulk nominations are always unpopular. - brenneman{T}{L} 01:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. - brenneman{T}{L} 02:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete, no references to reputable sources, I haven't been able to find any, article does not appear to meet WP:WEB notability guidelines. -- Dragonfiend 03:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. pschemp | talk 07:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Doesn't Hahnchen have any sort of vocabulary beyond "This webcomic is not notable."? I mean, first he says this about Pokémon X, now this comic. I think we really need to just accept that Hahnchen is unfit to be in any position of power at Wikipedia due to his completely stupid bias against webcomics (don't like them? Don't read them. they aren't harming you with their existance, and neither are these wikipedia pages). I also quote from a proposed Wikipedia policy about website articles, specifically the part about webcomics. "Unusually large readership. If a webcomic is exceptionally widely read, and this can be verified, it should be included. If this is verified by means of Alexa, it should have a ranking of 100,000 or lower." Now this is either a really stupid mistake on the part of the author, or it's currently proposed that GameCheetz is considered widely read due to it's Alexa ranking below 100,000. So biased idiot Hahnchen aside, get all of your useless policies on the same page. Furthermore, the google search with 100 links brings back the site in question first. Now, if it gave the link to this site, but on the 3rd or 4th page, then I could see the point behind that argument. But it's the first link returned when you google for gamecheetz, so getting 99 other links is really unimportant if you were looking for this site. Guess what, you google it and find it easily. No point in mentioning this google search except to create a false image of unpopularity. mjc0961 13:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's sixth edit,[2] all of which are to AFDs or his user page. Postdlf 20:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, his edits aren't to his userpage, they're to mine. - Hahnchen 20:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Hahnchen is non notable, Alexa doesn't even rank him, and when doing a google search 100 gay sites came up. --70.185.237.167 13:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above IP should be aware that we look unfavourably on people who make personal attacks in this or other forums. He would be better served making an argument about how this site meets WP:WEB. At the moment it doesn't. Capitalistroadster 17:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable and void of any encyclopedic value --Mecanismo | Talk 17:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB.--Isotope23 17:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Vote As the creator of the comic, I've been asked by fans to put a few statistics here. As the creator of the comic, I doubt I have much say on the matter of the Wikipedia article's deletion, so I did not put a vote. Sites that link to mine: 231. Average monthly hits: Aprox 1,000,000. Unique IPs per month, range about 7,000 to 14,000, not counting the month it was 31,716 (during which I advertised). The reason for such variation is the dip it took when I ended it for a couple months (I later changed my mind about ending it). These numbers are all statistics straight from my webhost. 24.45.158.238 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 2:26PM[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. What makes this webcomic different than any others? The amount of hits you get from Google cannot accuratly represent the popularity of the comic. I assure that if you were to type in a search for any other webcomic, a good percentage of those sites will either be fan-made or have no relationship to the comic at all. Also, looking through the categories of webcomics that are listed, a good few of them have not been updated in quite a while and seem to not have a chance of ever being updated, while Gamecheetz is still being updated, and people read it. There's my two cents. 139.55.28.135 23:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn -AKMask 00:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Last time I checked, we were trying to get as much information about anything as we could here in Wikipedia. I think it's a great idea to have an encyclopedia with even obscure information.
  • Just so you know, as an anonymous editor, identified only by IP, your vote in these discussions does not count. Anons and new users go through a period known as 'suffrage' whereupon they prove they are committed to the project, by staying on for a certain amount of time and/or edits. As it is now, you are just distracting from the true debate. -AKMask 01:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not quite correct. This isn't a vote, it's a discussion that's composed of two parts: examination fo the facts, and examination of editor's opinions about the facts, with emphasis on the former.
    • Very new or anonymous editors are always welcome to contribute evidence, and ten long-time contributor's recomendation of "delete as not notable" can be blown away by a single IP recomendation of "keep as notable as evidenced by (insert link to new york times article)".
    • It the second half of the debate where very new contributors tends to have less say. Understanding of the complex interactions between the policies and guidelines takes time and experiance. Thus the closing admin will listen more to the opinions expressed by someone with two years and twenty feature articles than to those of someone new.
    So please do join in, very new people, but best to do so by providing facts to sway the opinons of long-time contributors. And welcome to Wikipedia!
    brenneman{T}{L} 02:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete 24.33.8.52 01:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Stratospheric Alexa rank, under 70 unique Googles, no credible evidence of notability. Wikicities is thataway ----> Just zis Guy you know? 10:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Vote I nearly forgot to mention, the two most notable links to the site come from I-CON, where it ranks high on the links page, the site for a large convention that regularly has celebreties like shown here on their main page, and Bob and George, one of the two largest sprite comics on the internet. 24.45.158.238 16:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Wikipedia's entire purpose is to include obscure and hard to find information. This is one of those 'Hard to find' things. 70.28.57.119 17:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Comixpedia, then Delete, since it doesn't appear to meet our inclusion guidelines for webcomics (awards, syndicates, etc.). -Colin Kimbrell 04:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 01:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (not a vote) Please change Do not Delete to Keep wherever it appears in the above voting to be consistent with what Wikipedians are used to seeing. Georgia guy 01:09, 27 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 00:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Floorcloth[edit]

Article has been transwikied to wiktionary:floorcloth. King of Hearts | (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, notable cleaning item, and a missing 1911 Britannica article. Kappa 00:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notable cleaning item? I must have missed that notability guideline. This is a dicdef, and it's wiktionaried. End of story. -ikkyu2 (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he was joking.  :)
    • What, wikipedia users aren't supposed to be able to find out what people use to clean floors? Kappa 01:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dicdef at most. You there, fill it up with petroleum distillate and re-vulcanize my tires! Monkeyman(talk) 01:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Carpet. The article has it backwards -- a Google search suggests that the cleaning-item meaning is out of fashion, while the floor-covering meaning is common. --Allen 02:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep using the floor covering sense-- this is a big enough topic to support an article. Crypticfirefly 05:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as floor covering type. pschemp | talk 07:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as a floor covering, how is it different from a rug? OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Kappa. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. If the 1911 Britannica had an article on it, we could certainly have an expanded article. Capitalistroadster 11:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. This is a notable enough to be on an encyclopædia. --Terence Ong 11:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Ah the day we argue about the notability of a piece of flannel used to clean the floor. Isn't this one of the signs of the apocolypse?--Isotope23 17:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Ikkyu2 --P199 19:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa and Capitalistroadster. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as (a) blindingly obvious and (b) factually inaccurate: my floor cloth is not made of flannel. Just zis Guy you know? 10:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Historically significant. Let us not be the encyclopedia of everything that happened from the third millennium on. BD2412 T 23:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If a "carpet" meaning has become common usage since the 1911 Brit came out, we should either make this a disambig page or add a graf explaining the term's functionality creep. Treat this as a keep, I guess. -Colin Kimbrell 04:13, 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 merge. — Mar. 3, '06 [06:48] <freakofnurxture|talk>

AutoDesk Inventor 8 Professional[edit]

This article refers to a specific version of the program, but is nothing more than the marketing propaganda of the company. There is already a very good article over at Autodesk Inventor, which has all necessary information. Marcos Juárez 00:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge any relevant info to Autodesk_Inventor then redirect. Monkeyman(talk) 01:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Monkeyman. James084 03:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant info per Monkeyman but delete after merging, don't redirect. Redirect spam isn't better than article spam. Phr 08:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reason to have redirects for every version of a program. Isopropyl 03:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. pschemp | talk 07:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Monkeyman. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Monkeyman. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant information and delete article. Articles on niche subversions of software aren't notable encyclopedic information and therefore void of any encyclopedic value --Mecanismo | Talk 17:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete per Phr and Mecanismo -- Samir ∙ TC 07:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Monkeyman. Just zis Guy you know? 10:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Merge and Delete" isn't a valid option; all merges get redirects, to preserve contributor history. -Colin Kimbrell 04:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As such, Merge and Redirect to Autodesk Inventor. -Colin Kimbrell 04:18, 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 both articles. Mailer Diablo 00:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SpotCast, Spotscout[edit]

It looks like spam and/or a dictdef. At a minimum it should be merged with Podcast. James084 00:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason above:[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Z-card[edit]

Originally prodded as WP:CORP. Saved because it "seemed notable". I think until we know what it is used for or something more than is here it is not notable. James084 00:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kappa's merge proposal with Z card seems reasonable. I would be open to that. James084 02:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear as if all those hits are for their company, though...no vote. savidan(talk) (e@) 02:48, 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 no consensus to delet the article. Mailer Diablo 00:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic athletics[edit]

I originally nominated this for speedy deletion but the creator of the article laughed at it due to the nomination of several of his articles yesterday for deletion. However, this article should be deleted because it is an empty or very short article providing little or no context. There really is no such thing as Islamic athletics, no specific relationship between Islam and athletics. joturner 00:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note also the copyright violation pointed out by Deiz. joturner 04:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the submission of the possible copyright violation was incomplete - Deiz has to follow the instructions at the top. Additionally, I'm not sure if there is a violation, since the site has a pretty lenient policy: "Permission is granted to all to take material from this site, subject to the following two conditions: (1) Material used must be attributed to www.islam-qa.com , (2) Material must be reproduced faithfully and without alteration or omission." Schizombie 10:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally have nothing against this article, indeed it's interesting and scores well on the anit-systemic-bias-o-meter. However the copyvio (which is a section of rather than the whole article, I have now listed it at the relevant copyvio problem page) does not reference its source, rather it says "one scholar says..." which is as good as saying "my mate thinks..." or "this bloke down the pub said...". If it is properly referenced per point (1) from Schizombie then it's probably no longer an issue. However, the article still needs lots of work and it would be a credit to those who are spending time blowing hot air defending it on this AfD page if they focussed their efforts on wikifiing the article. For starters a going over by a native English speaker familiar with the topic and au fait with Wikipedia style policies is urgently required. Deiz 11:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, queit it will ya? Why are you so gang ho on deleting? Stop making me answer to all of this, please! You saw it yourself, i expanded Islamic athletics to a full article in no-time, and the same can be with the other articles. As you said YOURSELF: "Islam is considered a dīn (way of life) rather than a simple religion, we could connect Islam with practically any topic". YES, YOU ARE CORRECT! --Striver 02:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Someone added additional articles to be proposed for deletion above, after people had already begun expressing opinions (below) on this AfD. I've removed those additions, because it appears to me that adding articles to be deleted after people had already expressed opinions is a very improper abuse of process. The closing admin may wish to review this page carefully to ascertain which votes were cast before, during and after these changes. -ikkyu2 (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ikkyu2, I think you are over-emphasizing the significance of that move regarding the related articles. You deleted the additional articles which was reasonable. But then to go back four hours later and add another comment regarding the move as well as clarifying your vote (which after your deletion was not ambiguous) is just rubbing it in. I talked to the editors whose votes appeared to be ambiguous or split between the original and related articles and they have all responded. Clearly all of the votes below relate to Islamic athletics as they all clearly refer to the name of this article in some way, were cast before the addition or after the removal of the related articles, or were fixed after contacting the respective editor. To say adding the related articles was a "very improper abuse of process" is a complete exaggeration. Clearly, no harm was done and no careful review of this page is necessary. joturner 11:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, if this issue is not explicitly and comprehensively addressed by the closing admin, I will submit this AfD for deletion review on the grounds that the normal process was interfered with in a way that could be construed as improper. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

Comment If they hade their own distinct laws forcing to do certain things, yes. If they have a distinc history to tell, yes.
  • Delete as I am not aware of any muslims-only stheltic competition.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete --HappyCamper 02:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So what are we doing now that the afd is all of the sudden about 4 articles? Must i spend 4 houres RIGHT NOW to show that there is potential in the articles? Bro, please end this! Go and make yourself usefull, go and google some information and help me CREAT article about Islam, rather than wasting everyones energy one afds! --Striver 02:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Relax, and simply trust the system! Now that a copyright violation has been raised, I might actually speedy the article, but since my internet phone booth is charging me lots of money per minute, I must log off and do it later. --HappyCamper 05:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Don't create an aritcle until you have something to say. savidan(talk) (e@) 02:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Islamic athletics page and expand it to cover genuine Islamic athletics, because in 1980 there was a one-off Islamic Games for results of which see [4], followed by the new Islamic Solidarity Games held in 2005, the results of which can be seen at [5]. The competitors were only from Muslim countries and the games were held in Makkah. The Islamic Solidarity Games were established by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference with a resolution to be found here -> [6], so pretty much a Muslims-only athletic competition. Green Giant 03:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as Copyvio at [7] and [8] among others. Deiz 04:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having fixed the copyvio (or more accurately having improved Schizombie's attempt to fix the copyvio) it's no longer a candidate for speedy. However, it does need cleanup up per the tags. But as long as it doesn't get any worse I'm outta here... Abstain. Deiz 13:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Green Giant. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and speedy delete per all reasons already stated. Plus the whole concept and context for the article (as well as the content) and just bad and tragically this user will never "get it". And trying to teach this person the actual purpose of wikipedia is fruitless. Just keep deleting, ignoring his pleading as attacks of bigotry and he (and his kind) will hopefully go away. MiracleMat 08:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely possible to vote on a VfD and even to give a rationale without resorting to personal attacks. --Sneftel 09:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An admirable attempt at filling in the article, but as it stands it's a confusing jumble. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Also, I just added to the article, not noticing the copyright violation header contained a note not to make edits until after I made one - sorry. Schizombie 08:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. The article makes a decent case for its own notability, and distinguishes itself from Athletics in general. --Sneftel 09:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with cleanup tag. has references, could make a decent article -- Astrokey44|talk 11:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Green Giant. Bobby1011 12:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No content has been added, just text (which is not the same thing). -- GWO 12:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with clean-up tag -AKMask 00:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure what Striver is trying to achieve, but my comment about keeping the article and expanding it has resulted in Striver copying my comment to the article (see Islamic athletics#1900 CE) without bothering to rewrite it in an article format - it still has the words "so pretty much a Muslims-only athletic competition" at the end which was referring to the comment by BInguyen. Green Giant 00:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just adding material in a panic, sorry if i offended you. --Striver 03:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not offended, just you should rewrite it so it fits into the context of the article Green Giant 21:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Athletics in Islam, then Keep. A sport can't be particularly Muslim any more than one could any other religion - what if a Jew plays a Muslim sport, is it still purely Islamic? zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i argue it does. As long as the sport is in accordance to the Sharia laws, it is Islamic, no matter who is practicing it. Just as food is halal, even if a Jew eats it.
  • Keep and Move to Athletics in Islam or Athletics in Islamic doctrine or Athletics in Islamic history. The article needs reorganization and improvement, but the topic is encyclopedic in nature. MCB 02:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I guess, but it certainly needs a lot of work and probably a different title. Sounds like the creator is motivated to fix the problems, so I say give him a shot at it and review in a while. Lots of apparent OR in there and it needs to be more specific about the ways in which Islam informs athletic endeavours. Some notable Islamic athletes in various disciplines would be good, too. Just zis Guy you know? 10:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brief discussion[edit]

  • Comment I have uppdated the article, it is now nothing like it was when the previous votes where cast. Please considere that i just made a hasty work, let it show that there is lots to add regarding athletics distinctly governed by Islam, and how it formed during the history of Islam. Also note that this article is a part of the Islamic studies --Striver 01:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remain unconvinced. Somehow I think any topic could be protracted to appear more significant than it really is. The information you added to the article could easily be condensed into a single paragraph and, at best, be small section on another article. Note, also, that being linked from another page is not a reason to prevent deletion. In fact, I'm not even sure why it belongs in Islamic studies. Are athletics studies? joturner 02:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nominators comment "There really is no such thing as Islamic athletics, no specific relationship between Islam and athletics" really shows how little he knows about this topic. Just look at this: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16].

Again i become upset at geting articles deleted due to not knowing enough about the subject --Striver 01:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I apologize if I am not educated enough about a topic. When an article sits unattended for two and a half months and when it pertains to something I believe I should have some knowledge of (in this case Islam), I have no choice but to come to the reasonable conclusion that there really is nothing noteworthy about the topic. But Striver, you also should not take offense at a request for deletion. It simply offers a chance to discuss the merit of an article. You, however, seem to be defensive whenever this arises. Given that Islam is considered a dīn (way of life) rather than a simple religion, we could connect Islam with practically any topic. But we don't need an article about Islamic shopping, Islamic space travel, and Islamic web-surfing just because some (trivial) relationship exists between Islam and those respective subjects. joturner 02:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commment made by me moved to my talk page --Striver 02:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know everyone is going to get annoyed by this. Everyone... protracted AfDs are not my intention. I have added several AfDs and don't continue discussions unless absolutely necessary. I will respond to comments irrelevant to this AfD on Striver's talk page. joturner 02:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are athletics studies?. Bro Did you read the fatwa section? Did you read the article i added? Did you read about how athletics got formed in the historical Islamic world? Sure you can say that in two sentances. If needed, i can say the whole Islam article in two sentances. But we are not here to delet, we are here to add, to create. Remember?--Striver 02:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Man, im going to sleep. But i urge you again: Go make yourself usefull, go google and EXPAND articles, not AFD them since you are are not sure if they can be expanded. Why do you think we have {{islam-stub}}? --Striver 02:53, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saipem Nigeria[edit]

Originally prodded as WP:CORP. Saved as "Sounds notable". It is pretty broken English so I don't think it sounds notable. James084 00:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, sounds notable. Kappa 01:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My son sounds notable too but he doesn't get to have an article here. James084 01:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He doesn't sound very notable from what you've told me so far. Kappa 01:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Saipem is present in Nigeria but that is only one of many places they are located. They are an Italian company. Listed on FRA ISE exchanges [17], 62k google hits for "Saipem SpA", 20k+ employees. I'd completely accept an article titled Saipem, but not this one. Monkeyman(talk) 01:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. They meet WP:CORP as shown by Monkeyman above. Capitalistroadster 04:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood me. Please reread my vote and comment. Monkeyman(talk) 13:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Monkeyman. Saipem is notable; Saipem Nigeria is not. There needs to be an article on the whole company, which would meet WP:CORP, but not on one of its subsidiaries. It would be like having an article on Exxon Venezuela, for example, separate from the main Exxon-Mobil article. Not the best analogy, but reasonable. --Kinu t/c 06:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge. Saipem might be notable, it's Nigerian division should just be treated in the main article. — mark ✎ 07:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge with Saipem. Country divisions of multinational companies are not notable to have an article on its own. --Terence Ong 08:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable subsidiary executing hundred-million dollar contracts in Nigeria [18], [19]. ergot 15:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge as Mark --Mecanismo | Talk 17:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Monkeyman. DCEdwards1966 02:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Monkeyman, or possibly move to Saipem, clean with vigour and tag for expansion. Just zis Guy you know? 10:48, 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 00:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choc Bahbbles[edit]

This is about a non-notable fictional character in a non-notable film. Possibly a hoax. Delete Makemi 01:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ghits=null set [20], [21]. Makemi 01:17, 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 merge. — Mar. 3, '06 [06:53] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Tó Madeira[edit]

prodded, deprodded, redirected and reverted. Brought to AfD for debate and a final decision.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio's Blue Belt[edit]

This was originally prodded without comment so I am moving it here. The information looks good but needs references. If it survives it should probably be merged with another article. James084 01:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if can be cited - article is noteworthy but needs citations Tawker 01:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Can't seem to find any evidence that Blue Belt is a widely used term in reference to voting patterns in the United States, and especially not with Ohio. Wikipedia should not be the one connecting the dots, making a conclusion, and giving it a name. — TheKMantalk 02:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless referenced, per TheKMan. CDC (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Appears to be a neologism. As someone living in the middle of the so-called Blue Belt, this is the first time that I have encountered this term. Avogadro 04:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tawker. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable protologism. A Google search pulls up absolutely nothing that matches this. --Aaron 05:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as above. pschemp | talk 06:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, neologism. --Terence Ong 08:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced, vague, and a neologism. What, precisely, does the map reflect? It isn't the presidential vote, that's for sure. --Craig Stuntz 14:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Ohio Democratic Party. Useful info, just not "its own article" useful. youngamerican (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism, original research. Former Ohioan, Postdlf 20:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle 01:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Ohio Democratic Party. With regards to the map: Core blue belt counties are those that have voted Democratic three out of the last four elections, and are verifiably trending left. Secondary blue belt counties have voted Democratic in presidential elections when Democrats won (i.e. 1992 and 1996). Accuracy of elections and trend information can be verified at http://www.uselectionatlas.org/ The term "Ohio's blue belt" is typically used within Democratic circles, so it would be fair to merge with Ohio Democratic Party. The term points to the reality of a significant difference in the socio-political climate of northern and eastern Ohio when compared with the state at large. floridahistory 09:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide a reference for the usage of the term "Ohio's blue belt"? Thanks — TheKMantalk 16:37, 27 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 State of Khayrpur. Mailer Diablo 00:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khairpur State[edit]

  • Delete this page because it is an attempt to avoid scrutiny on a similarily-named page. User:Arsalanrkazi originally posted what appeared to be a copy-and-paste job with extensive POV sections on the State of Khayrpur page. I reverted the changes and asked the user to moderate the tone and avoid POV edits. Instead the user went and created an alternate page called Khairpur State on which s/he has pasted the POV sections together with the infobox which links the article to a series called Historical regions of Pakistan. The infobox was copied verbatim because the name at the top still says State of Khayrpur and the links still point to the State of Khayrpur page. I can only conclude that this user has a personal agenda which they wish to promote but there are plenty of free websites for this purpose. Green Giant 01:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to State of Khayrpur. Green Giant is right that this is an inappropriate fork, but it does get 129 Google hits and seems to be a plausible spelling/misspelling. --Allen 02:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Copyright violation from [22]. Cnwb 02:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect per Allen. Michael Ralston 02:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Allen. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. as above. pschemp | talk 06:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and blank POV material. There is no need for a fork to have formed for this material.  (aeropagitica)  07:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Allen. --Terence Ong 08:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The editor has now added a paragraph at the top identifying himself and his interest in the article. It has become an attempt to publish original research. Green Giant 00:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kindly Check out the site www.khairpursindh.org and click the history section. I have been blamed of 'copyright violation'. A visit to this site would clear me of atleast this allegation. User:Arsalanrkazi


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Freeman[edit]

Article prodded without comment so I am moving here. Also, the article makes some pretty valid claims to notability. I would have to vote Keep. James084 02:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Obviously notable. AfD is only for contested deletions. If it was prodded without a reason they you are under no obligation to move it here. savidan(talk) (e@) 02:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is by all evidence one persistent vandal who keeps blanking it without explaining themselves. Given the subject matter, possibly (but not clearly known to be) connected to the subject of the article. There's nothing apparently wrong with the article (it's critical, but not abusively non neutral point of view). It appears to meet bio standards for living (at least slightly) notable people. An AfD of any sort is the wrong way to deal with this. I recommend you just close this AfD down; if the vandal keeps it up, sanctions can be applied there. Georgewilliamherbert 02:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep and cleanup. --Aaron 03:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Expand, clean, cite reserach etc... pschemp | talk 06:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable, expand, and cleanup. --Terence Ong 08:50, 22 February 2006
  • Keep, Clean Up and Expand — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:KnowitallWiki (talk • contribs)
  • Delete or change The author has NO proof of their alligations and accusations. This IS a biased article. I have previously edited biased info out, and it always gets edited right back in. If the biased comments were left out, there would be no problem with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Aubbit (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per others. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but by no meansa shoo-in - I'd say AfD was the right call here. Subject is locally controversial, but wider notability is open to question. Needs better citations, I think. Just zis Guy you know? 10:53, 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 keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable habitat[edit]

  • This article was orginally prodded without comment, therefore I am moving it here. The article looks pretty good actually. I'm voting Keep. James084 02:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. The article has only one incoming link, from permaculture, the permaculture page originally linked to the two terms Sustainable and habitat individually. Both of those articles are much better and more extensive than this one which dose little more than say it is a habitat which is sustainable. The article was created by the owner of the only web page it links to The new Shire Institute (the other link is a similar wiki-style entry by the author on another site). There are no (0) google links to this web site, which just consists of a single page. The page could be expanded a lot. But currently it is a case of the whole being much less than the sum of its parts and a clever case of non notable link spam. (proder) --Salix alba (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've heard the term. This biological concept is very similar to the (very good) sustainable development article, but just needs a cleanup and some more information. The fact that the one site that is linked by the article is non-notable is not grounds to delete. Googling the term produces 23,700 results, one of which is the Canadian government. Granted, that link refers to sustainable development, but with a rewrite this article could be a feature someday. Isopropyl 02:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. It's a legitimate term and a legitimate concept, and the natural aspect distinguishes it from sustainable development. The article should be expanded, not deleted. bcasterlinetalk 04:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. 21,500 Google hits for the term [23] Does well in Google books [24] and Google scholar so plenty of verifiable resources [25]. Capitalistroadster 05:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Expand, clean, cite reserach etc... pschemp | talk 06:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, --Terence Ong 08:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalist and Bcaster. JoshuaZ 22:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a legitimate, expandable, and encyclopedic concept. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep consensus to keep seems to have bee arrived at, and I withdraw my objection. No point prolonging the debate, better now to improve the article. --Salix alba (talk) 08:01, 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 00:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impact Baseball[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Box Head Comics[edit]

nn web comic, fails WP:WEB --lightdarkness (talk) 02:35, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bammer[edit]

This is probably nonsense, given the name of the author, and doesn't seem to be written seriously. It is some neologism at best, and gives 477,000 google hits, mostly for people's surnames.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:41, 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 00:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grobanites[edit]

Prodded and de-prodded without comment so moving here. Does not look notable. James084 02:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fan club of non-notable person. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as protologistic silliness. I would have voted to merge into Josh Groban, but I don't see a single sentence in the article worth saving. --Aaron 03:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Probably some die hard fan, delete nonetheless. --lightdarkness (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Groban fans that resemble troglodites. silliness. pschemp | talk 06:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lightdarkness. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:26, 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. There are more Keeps than Merges, and those two votes are simply votes not to Delete anyways. Whether something should be kept or merged is a discussion that doesn't require an AfD anyway. Deathphoenix 12:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Anti-Masons[edit]

This article was tagged for "prod" deletion. Reason was "list with only one item". Note per Anti-Masonic Party that the party's members actually held governorships of Vermont and Pennsylvania as well as running another candidate for President of the US. List could be populated with at least three other notables, and probably others. But is it notable encyclopedic content? It might be especially of interest to people interested in "third parties" in USA politics, and to people interested in the influence of Freemasonry on politics. Bringing it to AfD for discussion. Barno 03:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Improve - Glad to finally vote keep on something. Jaxal1 03:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft. Bobby1011 03:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per below Keep: the list can be expanded, and the topic is not trivial. bcasterlinetalk 04:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Anti-Masonic Party. We don't need another list and neither of these two topics have a lot of info. pschemp | talk 06:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP and improve. Not EVERYONE is part of an american political party. Jcuk 09:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Pschemp. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Pschemp. GWO 12:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP and improve. as per Jcuk - not all of these are in the party! Paki.tv 13:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. As noted above, you don't have to be a member of the Anti-Masonic party to be against Freemasonry (of course, as always, only notable and outspoken individuals should be added to the list). EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per pschemp. Four members will easily fit into the parent article. Just zis Guy you know? 10:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a standalone article, since Anti-Masonic Party is already pretty big. Additionally, this one fills my "things I never knew" quota for the day; I love AFD. -Colin Kimbrell 04:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that I would Delete the article if it's used as a catch-all for any people who dislike Freemasonry, since that's neither encyclopedic nor verifiable. My support for keeping it extends only to the political party. -Colin Kimbrell 17:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not solely for lists, and this material does exist elsewhere. MSJapan 18:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On further citation hunting, there seems to be very little (or no) evidence for the classification of some individuals as Anti-Masons - Moody seems to be there because he was an evangelist, but nothing is stated in his wiki article about his position on Masonry at all. According to this page, many people apparently think Marx was a Mason. However, as an atheist, Marx would not qualify - this does not, however, make him anti-Masonic, and I have not found any reliable evidence to support that claim. Bordiga seems to be on here because he was a Marxist ("Marx was anti, so is he") - no corroborating info is available. Hitler, Mussolini, JQA, Finney, and 'any' Pope, for that matter, are documentable. Morgan is debatable for many reasons. See his WP article. Masonicinfo has a pretty exhaustive list of historical and contemporary individuals with an anti-Masonic POV ('sans' Popes, however), and other than those mentioned above, the others do not appear on that list at all. Furthermore, there is an insinuation that John Paul I "died mysteriously while trying to purge the Masons from the Vatican", which is simply a conspiracy theory (see the relevant WP articles) that has no place here. So, out of nine entries, five are reliably citable, four are not, and except for JQA (not added yet) and Finney (nn as far as anti-Masonry as a movement goes, it seems), the others appear in the Anti-Masonry article already. So, apart from the subtle POV-pushing, the lack of citation and the incorrect information, what is correct is already covered. Most importantly, almost none of these people were notable 'as' anti-Masons (save Finney, who published his book 48 years after he quit his Lodge). MSJapan 07:29, 26 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. -- RHaworth 19:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban camping[edit]

Patent nonsense? At least not a well-documented phenomenon. Czyl 03:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the article seems to be more about perversions than actual camping Green Giant 03:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nearly contentless, perhaps even speedy as already tagged. Turnstep 04:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The words exist, but most google hits are talking about camping IN a suburban. Its just nn. pschemp | talk 06:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism? Minor cultural fad? Appears to be non-notable in any event.  (aeropagitica)  07:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bordering on nonsense. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This IS a nonsense article! I am surprised that it is not underspeedt delete. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure nonsense. --Mecanismo | Talk 17:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Francisco Valverde 18:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merged. — Mar. 3, '06 [07:08] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Chief Joe Byrd[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spankwuss[edit]

This article was originally prodded as neologism. The prod tag was removed and then added back. Since an article can not be tagged with {{prod}} twice I am bringing it here. BTW, it is still neologism. James084 03:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, hopefully the contributor will move on to more established topics. Kappa 04:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 04:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, probably something made up in school. --lightdarkness (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable neologism. Makemi 06:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dicdef slang. per nom. its not even very nice sounding. pschemp | talk 06:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per common sense. --Off! 06:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN neologism. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I feel that it is somewhat notable. The term had been used quite a few times. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kappa. Proto||type 11:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ten google hits, nn -- Astrokey44|talk 12:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- neologism. Reyk 19:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable neologism Just zis Guy you know? 10:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Grand total of One Google hit, certainly NOT a widely-used term. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 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 00:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saxon Day[edit]

This does appear to exist in some form or another, as a google search for "Escondido Charter High School" and "Saxon Day" does turn up one hit (out of 5) that tends to prove its existence, but a single event that takes place at a single school is certainly not deserving of an article. Indrian 04:08, 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. — Mar. 3, '06 [07:29] <freakofnurxture|talk>

The Amazing Race rules[edit]

Just some quotes from others AdamJacobMuller 04:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

full of BS

"speculation, repetition [and] simple hot air"

indiscriminate information

  • Merge into The Amazing Race joturner 04:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Detour is a choice between two tasks, each with its own pros and cons. Your choices: Purge It or Merge It. In 'Purge It', the entire article under discussion is simply wiped out. In 'Merge It', anything not in The Amazing Race is moved to the appropriate sections." And since I can't see anything here not in the main article, I say Purge It. --Calton | Talk 04:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge It I think one big issue is that all of the information is unabashed speculation, it has no place in the main article, am I supposed to vote on my own AFD? AdamJacobMuller 04:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as self-admitted original research. Everything is already covered in the main AR article anyways. Turnstep 04:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually the section on the top of the page was added by me as a disclaimer. I don't know how whoever created the page got those rules, i was only making an educated guess about it. AdamJacobMuller 05:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, thanks for the clarification. Turnstep 14:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Already covered in the Amazing Race where people would tend to look for it anyway. Capitalistroadster 05:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant. pschemp | talk 06:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Joturner. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing even worth the merge. Radagast 12:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster. Pepsidrinka 14:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments on the talk page. Royal Blue T/C 14:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge per Calton. Reyk 19:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philiminate per Capitalistroadster. No merge, as all non-speculative information is there. Also, not a reasonable search term to warrant a redirect. --Kinu t/c 21:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge It per my comments by, like, everyone including myself. --HansTAR 22:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. if there were a concrete set of rules for the Race (and it was released for the public) then you could have such an article, comme the sub-article for Settlers of Catan. Otherwise, the current sub-article really doesn't really expand on what is already presented in the main article. --Madchester 04:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge No need for a separate article for this. Jtrost (T | C | #) 14:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant and since there is no officially released list of rules, it is entirely self-research anyway. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need to merge; all information is already on main article. --CrazyLegsKC 12:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All info is already in the regular amazing race article. And whatever isn't is wrong info (as seen on the discussion page of this article) And also, I believe on one season's website is a short list of 10 rules that are basic and probably already mentioned on the real article.-PURGE IT TeckWiz 22:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a link to this? I'm extremely interested in seeing it AdamJacobMuller 22:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But like I said, I'm pretty sure it's already on the site. This one is on season 7's page: Amazing Race 7 Glossary It's very general. TeckWiz 21:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep. Interesting and useful. Stifle 00:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely interesting, in a way, but also redundant (already in the main article) and unverifiable, and most unencylopedic. I guess I was getting my hopes up of not seeing a single Keep, oh well, consensus is so much neater when it's unanimous :P AdamJacobMuller 01:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • This should really be deleted. We've had 13/16 say delete it, 2/16 say merge it, and 1/16 say keep it. 13/16 is a pretty good consensus. Someone should delete this already, unless the Amazing Race discloses the official rules to the public, which they probably won't do anytime soon.
    Oh, i'm pretty sure that it's going to be I just wish it would have been unanimous, since it seems like a no-brainer IMHO AdamJacobMuller 02:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ugh, please delete this now! It has become a pathetic page of fancruft and original research! --HansTAR 01:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. There are more Keeps than Merges, and these are just votes not to Delete. Whether an article needs to be kept or merge doesn't require an AfD to decide. Deathphoenix 13:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Catch-22[edit]

This page has gotten out of sync with the list of characters already on Catch-22. There are also dozens of separate articles for characters from the book including minor characters. Someone obviously likes the book quite a lot and did a bunch of work on those articles but I think they should be merged. While I understand some books like LOTR have lots of separate articles for their characters, those situations are somewhat special and I don't think Catch-22 is significant enough these days to warrant that unusual treatment. Phr 04:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and merge several minor characters into it (like Nately's Whore's Kid Sister and Maid with the lime-colored panties) per WP:FICT. Nifboy 04:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete need not exist in duplicate. Bobby1011 04:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like a textbook case of merge (if needed) and delete. Turnstep 04:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is also partly a question of what to do with all the separate articles about the minor characters. Merging them to this "list" article is a reasonable option. I don't have the energy to put up separate AfD's for all of them until there's been some discussion. If merging them all is a popular choice then maybe I'll make putting up the AfD's into an exercise in bot programming. Phr 04:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't need AfD for that. Just be bold and start merging, leaving redirects in your wake. Nifboy 05:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't even think it's appropriate to leave a billion redirects. The list of the characters in the main article (with merged descriptions) is enough. Phr 05:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and clean up redundant redirects. pschemp | talk 06:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and cleanup per Pschemp. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By "expand" do you mean merge in all those separate pages about individual characters and delete those? Phr 11:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Needless incomplete copy of information already in Catch-22. Weregerbil 16:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No merge is necessary as every item in the list is already in Catch-22. No information will be lost with a straight delete. Weregerbil 16:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and reduce the list on Catch-22 to cover just the major characters, leaving a link to this list. Confusing Manifestation 02:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this and Merge some of the smaller character-related stubs into it. Also, be sure that you DO leave redirects in place, so that the chain of contribution is preserved. -Colin Kimbrell 04:39, 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 all articles. Mailer Diablo 02:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic entertainment,Islamic movies and Islamic comedy[edit]

This article, and the other two that follow, are about trivial subjects that have no encyclopedic meaning. Given that Islam is considered a dīn (way of life) rather than a simple religion, we could connect Islam with practically any topic. But we don't need an article about Islamic shopping, Islamic space travel, and Islamic web-surfing just because some (trivial) relationship exists between Islam and those respective subjects. But we shouldn't. In the same way we don't have Hindu entertainment or Jewish entertainment, we should not have Islamic entertainment, etc. joturner 04:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete as nominator. joturner 04:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom., unless someone can find examples of Islamic comedy, movies or entertainment Green Giant 04:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment after the debate yesterday about muslim and islamic lists and so forth, I've decided that I'm not touching this with a 10 foot barge poll. There should probably be some official policy governing what makes an article significant when the subject already has an article but this one gives it particlar emphasis on religion. There is no Christian entertainment, nor is there a Jewish entertainment article. Bobby1011 04:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a fairly substantial article about Christian music. Phr 04:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a fairly substantial article about Muslim music, which really should be moved to Islamic music. joturner 05:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice I could imagine an encyclopedic article about Islamic entertainment that would be appropriate to keep, like the existing extensive article about Bollywood. It could also discuss related cultural issues like the prohibition of music under the Afghan Taliban. But the current stub isn't worth keeping. Phr 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Don't create an aritcle until you have something to say. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Islamic Music. pschemp | talk 06:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why is this not {{db-empty}}? The article says nothing about the subject. The author should use the Sandbox to develop their ideas before publishing an article of this type.  (aeropagitica)  07:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as empty. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete All of these islam articles have no content, just links to each other.
  • Delete all without prejudice due to lack of content. For example, I can certainly conceive of there being Muslim comedians who write their humor in such a way as to comply with Sharia, but so far these articles don't say anything informative about these subjects. --Metropolitan90 08:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Entertainment in Islam is very common and notable. There is potential for this article to grow. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Siva1979. This is a stub. Remeber what a stub is?--Striver 13:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and savidan, but don't hold this AfD against any future article that actually has some content. Turnstep 13:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Joturner and savidan. Pepsidrinka 14:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as neologisms. No evidence that these terms have any usage in relation to the intended subject matter. If it can be sourced that there are established genres of "Islamic Comedy" et al, I will reconsider... but I live in an area that is heavily populated with muslims and I've never heard this term used... that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but I need to see it sourced.--Isotope23 17:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Savidan, Isotope23. Sandstein 21:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs) 02:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Islamic comedy is now updated, and no longer a empty stub, as it was when nominated, and all above votes where cast.

In other words, all votes regarding this particular article need to be re-evaluated. However, the article itself needs heavy editing before it can be called a good, or even ok article. --Striver 03:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'll reconsider on the Islamic comedy article, I'm still not convinced this isn't a neologism; I've never heard Mullah Nasrudin referred to as an Islamic comedian before this article. Give me some time to read through the sourcing though before I make a final decision. It needs a cleanup for sure if kept.--Isotope23 14:37, 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 keep. Babajobu 07:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scifi Modelers Club of New Zealand(now at Stella Nova)[edit]

Delete - Non-notable. Google search brings up three hits, all from old Wikipedia pages. First link provided does not match description, and search on "Phillipa Boyens" with relevant items from the article turns up no hits. Other than images on author's website that claim to be from this project, nothing is verifiable or sourced anywhere else. MikeWazowski 04:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no problem with the Stella Nova article, as they do seem to have a verifiable presence. I still can't find any references to Boyens' involvement online, though. MikeWazowski 05:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 04:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Furthermore, the article is mainly about fan videosSpeedy delete as no assertion of notability is made. Further, it appears to be an unverifiable. I will tag it with a nn-bio tag. On second thoughts, the claim that a video is available is an assertion of notability as is the claim about Boyens working on Lord of the Rings so I will stick with my original delete. Keep as Stella Nova following Grutness's stirling work. Capitalistroadster 05:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. I don't think making a fan video is a claim to notability. Changed vote as now group claims membership and has Google hits. I still don't see notability. Does it hold conventions? What exactly are the membership levels here? Ifnord 14:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ifnord. Changed vote to Keep. There are many google hits, reinforcing its notablity. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Philippa Boyens (not Phillipa) was the screenwriter of the recent Lord of the Rings movies. -ikkyu2 (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Stella Nova. I'm pleased to be able to cast this vote; I think this is the sort of notable yet somewhat obscure organization that deserves not to be overlooked by Wikipedia. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. i note that this is not listed in her credits on IMDb. There are real verifiability problems with this article. Capitalistroadster 18:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than the Star Trek "fan videos" that seems to be singular rather than plural, this is a "nn-club". No indication of notability (since non-canon fanfic doesn't meet WP:FICT) except an unverified claim of involving someone who later became somewhat notable. Delete per WP:FICT, not speedy since anything Star Trek of the claimed scale is notable to a bunch of fans even if not canon. Barno 19:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed vote to Keep moved article, and expand, per Grutness' corrections. Could use more documentation of notability inside SF&F and within the broader world, such as major-media coverage of their conventions and fav-videos. Barno 03:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable - I can't find any independent references to this anywhere. Boyens' "involvement" was added for this entry, but again, I can find no independent evidence of it. The club may have been renamed into this (based on a mention here), but nothing on their site mentions this project. The current article is fine with me, so long as the information included can ve verified. TheRealFennShysa 16:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn club.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - but move to proper name. The club is called "Stella Nova" - and gets many thousands of google hits under that name. It used to be called the "Science Fiction Modellers' Club of New Zealand" until about five years ago, and has never been called "Scifi" anything, or spelt its name incorrectly with only one "l"! This is New Zealand's second biggest science fiction society, BTW. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Modelers" is an acceptable spelling in American English. Not in Kiwi, apparently ;) -ikkyu2 (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Club's magazine appears to be held by a couple of libraries. --Limegreen 03:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My connection with this New Zealand scifi club was several years ago with it's fan video, Uss Essex. If you want first hand info contact the Thomas' Kimihouse website. I am glad my initial entry could be helpful to start the ball rolling. I think this is how Wiki should work. Netwriter 07:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at Stella Nova, since it seems sufficiently notable. -Colin Kimbrell 04:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at Stella Nova per Grutness. -- Avenue 00:25, 26 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 01:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retro Fusion[edit]

Crystal ballism, yet to be published (and non-notable) magazine. Spam to boot. I would have used {{prod}} but there were already speedy tags that were placed, removed, etc. Ifnord 04:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 04:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable, once circulation is notable then an entry would probably survive, but not until then. --lightdarkness (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 04:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikispam. Phr 04:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. pschemp | talk 06:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Maustrauser 12:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Mecanismo | Talk 17:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable future magazine. MartinRe 14:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Have suggested to author that it might be better merging several of the topics he's just created under one article, rather than create separate articles for each. MartinRe 14:31, 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 01:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talibangelical[edit]

Prodded, tag removed, tag restored. Bringing here as a contested deletion. NickelShoe 05:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete adjective coined by Britain's The Guardian newspaper Admitted neologism. Bobby1011 05:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Green Giant 05:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment comments like that make me seriously wonder about the sincerity of comments at AfD. Delete per nom? The nomination was bringing from prod. I gave no reason to vote either way. AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion. Give a reason. I hate AfD. NickelShoe 05:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Not offence Giant, but you should at least read what you're agreeing to. Bobby1011 05:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Sorry for bothering to vote. What makes you think I didn't read what I am agreeing to? By bringing it to this page you (NickelShoe) are nominating it for deletion whther it's contested or not. Bobby1011, I note that you used Delete. as per nom. several times for example, the Retro Fusion nomination just above - should I assume you didn't read what you were agreeing to either? No offence, but don't insult my intelligence by making comments like that. Green Giant 05:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment You're supposed to give a reason. It's not a vote, it's a discussion. "per nom" means for the same reasons as the nominator. I gave no reasons. NickelShoe 05:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In context, what he said was, delete because Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. What you said was, delete because the prod was contested. You see the difference? NickelShoe 05:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not even a neologism; it's just a Protologism, with all of 125 hits on Google. --Aaron 05:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dicdef. Not even a neologism yet. At best transwiki to wikitionary, but I remain skeptical of its notability. pschemp | talk 06:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as protologism. I find one article in which it was used. Doesn't seem notable. --Kinu t/c 06:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pre-neologism. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did put the first prod tag: I agree with deletion --Melaen 12:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote. I removed the prod tag, because I thought a move to Wiktionary might be appropriate, but I'm unsure even of that. Deco 10:47, 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 01:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vasiliy Golosov[edit]

Exact same story as Ivan Sidorenko, somebody decided to take advantage of Westerner's ignorance of famous Soviets, and inserted false/theirOwn names as "great famous Soviet snipers". Wikipedia is unfortunately being used to spread misinformation, instead of combat it. Google turns up 5 unique hits, 4 wikimirrors, and somebody pasting our info onto a messageboard. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 05:07, 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. Deathphoenix 13:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was No consensus. Woops, momentary brain cramp there. 2:1 ratio of Delete vs. Keep is still only a 67% consensus to Delete. I'm going to restore the article. --Deathphoenix 13:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rail Sim Pro[edit]

  • Advertising. No internal wikilinks. Ad is for proposed software that does not yet exist. Article was PRODded but an anonymous IP removed the tag and made no changes to the page, so I'm listing it here. Aaron 05:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam -- Tawker 05:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Tawker. Bobby1011 05:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No more an advertisment than any other software article on the wikipedia, deletion is an over reaction Sforget 06:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Until product exists, it should not have an article. pschemp | talk 06:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I seem to recall Duke Nukem forever having its own page. Stormscape 06:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perhaps this would be best merged into the trainz article. tommylommykins 07:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable product. Phr 08:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Stormscape. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge then redirect to Trainz. Turnstep 13:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Merging with a separate product line makes no sense. RSP is not part of the Trainz Software line Sforget 15:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Product currently announced and under development articles which wikipedia seems to be fine with see: Category:Computer and video games in production for a few hundred --Nicklinn 15:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Until Auran states that they have cancelled the product we can only assume that it is still an active project. Atsfrr3000
  • Delete - It was a thought two years ago and nothing more has been said by Auran since. Two years + no word = not going to happen. It's a bit of bloody false adverstising.
    • Please only vote once and sign your vote GogMadog. --69.176.63.103 03:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • to comment further on the above - Auran has mentioned on more tan one occaision that they are still working on RSP Sforget 23:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment to comment - One need only read the Trainz users forum to witness numerous posts made by members that cast doubts that the sim will ever appear and even subjecting it to ridicule.
      • Comment to comment to comment (I'm pretty sad eh?)...What does it matter what the users are saying? Auran, the ones that will ultimately be making the game, are still saying that they are developing it. Atsfrr3000
  • Delete-Duke nukem is a reel game. Consider for now RSP is spam. User:GogMagog
    • I have yet to see proof Duke nukem Forever even exsists. Stormscape 02:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have seen with my own eyes Auran at work on this project. Phil_C
    • Vote was made by an unregistered user; Phil C apparently does not exist. Deltabeignet 23:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 23:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete falls under advertising or other spam as listed. JakeBrakes
  • You guys should practice what you preach. Duke Nukem Forever shouldn't be on WikiPedia according to you guys either. In fact, no sfotware should be here, cause it's 'advertising'.
  • Delete, due to equal parts crystal ballism and spamification. Duke Nukem Forever is an entirely different animal, since its status as iconic vaporware has produced an independently notable amount of media coverage (such as this). -Colin Kimbrell 04:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. 159.134.245.26 00:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Unregistered users can't vote[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE as hoax. Rd232 talk 22:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gal Av-Gay[edit]

Non-notable hoax bio. --Martyman-(talk) 05:29, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Word Superiority Effect[edit]

  • Keep The article has since been worked on and provides a great deal of important information on a subject that was previously not found on Wikipedia. It discusses the history of the effect, and also discusses how one can test the word superiority effect. RIT_Group 11:45, 24 February 2006 (ET)

Original research, in the clearest sense of the term. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. Daniel Case 05:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fightindaman 05:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a Google search brings up 10,500 hits for the term [27], so it's deserving of an entry. But the tone and approach of the current article are clearly inappropriate for an encyclopedia per WP:NOR. I've tagged it for cleanup. bcasterlinetalk 06:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean. pschemp | talk 06:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bcasterline. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bcasterline. Lukas (T.|@) 09:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep some editing has been done, and the content is much more general now. Andy 23:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bcasterline. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 10:50, 26 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 03:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nickels[edit]

Made up in school. Daniel Case 05:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Made up game. pschemp | talk 06:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all above. -- Arnzy | Talk 06:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as made up in school one day goodness. --Kinu t/c 06:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is so not made up in school one day! It's almost a time-honored tradition. Keep per the pencil fight precedent. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Find a reference for this and I will keep. pschemp | talk 07:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Adrian. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not something that is made up in school one day. --Terence Ong 12:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. This is a well-known game the world over (naturally it's not called "Nickels" outside one nation), though trying to find references is not easy as search engines give screeds of stuff about heads-and-tails type coin tossing. I will find references, I will... Tonywalton  | Talk 12:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a well-known game, emphatically NOT made up one day by bored schoolchildren. Or perhaps it was, if it was done so many, many years ago and has since spread to thousands of schools and people. Needs a cleanup, a reference, and a possible renaming, but not a deletion. Turnstep 14:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rubbish.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a common marbles game, otherwise known as "Wallsies". I've never heard of it being played with nickels, though, and I've been a teacher for 25 years. My hunch is to delete. Denni ☯ 02:52, 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 02:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Handball[edit]

NN-Game, probably something made up in school. It's early version was tagged for speedy deletion, but tag was removed (Thus listing here and not prod'ing). --lightdarkness (talk) 05:42, 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 01:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Adams[edit]

Delete - No verifiable facts - likely creative writing. Please see the talk page Shenme 05:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I searched google and amazon and could not find one instance of a person by this name who had ever written anything about China. pschemp | talk 06:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No specific google hits. -- Arnzy | Talk 06:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 07:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, hoax. --Terence Ong 12:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Mecanismo | Talk 17:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: uncontroversial deletions like this one are good candidates for the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process currently being tested out. Consider using that simpler process for the next similar nomination. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:15, 27 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 really confusing. I'm relisting Ami Cusack and Kim Mullen and deleting the rest. There is a strong interest in creating redirects at these titles. Please do so if you find an appropriate target (which has not been specified anywhere in this discussion). — Mar. 3, '06 [07:54] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Brady Finta, Travis Sampson, Ami Cusack, Scout Cloud Lee, Jolanda Jones, Jeff Wilson (Survivor), Kim Mullen, Angie Jakusz, Ibrehem Rahman[edit]

  • Delete all everyone except for Cusack and Keep Cusack as per Yankees76. Looking at Mullen's hits on Google, she was indeed a one time Miss USA contestant, but not being a winner, runner-up or let alone in the top rankings, I'm not sure if that warrants her own article. As for the rest, delete or I would not mind a redirect without merge, as they are nn survivor articles which had very few sentences written and has no way of being expanded. furthermore, other reasons as per the AfDs for other nn survivor contestants here and here also apply to this AfD. Those articles should only be on their respective contestant pages only (Amended date:-- Arnzy | Talk 11:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC))-- Arnzy | Talk 06:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as nn. pschemp | talk 06:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as reality-cruft. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All nn. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all nn. --Terence Ong 10:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them. not notable and void of encyclopedic value --Mecanismo | Talk 17:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all except Cusack to the appropriate season of the show and keep Cusack. youngamerican (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I intended to vote delete all for reasons I gave at one of the cited previous AfDs, but because WP guidelines say "redirects are cheap", I would also accept redirect all Survivor and American Idol (and similar "reality" show) losers. Probably the winners, too, if they haven't attained some other notability, but I feel less strongly about that. Barno 20:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The "redirects are cheap" guideline was my justification, btw. youngamerican (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest keeping Amy Cusack. Cusack is a minor figure in the fitness industry, as an employee for EAS and girlfriend of Bill Phillips. She was also in the July 1996 issue of Playboy Magazine. Thanks. Yankees76 04:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cusack and Mullen as standalone articles, as both have non-Survivor notability (for Playboy (magazine) and Miss USA respectively). Redirect the rest to the appropriate season, per Barno. Wilson also makes an indipendent claim of notability, but the role's not listed on the IMDB, which leads me to question whether he's anything but ambulatory scenery on the show. -Colin Kimbrell 05:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ami Cusack. Her online interviews as well as those she sent packing are eye-openers on all fronts. Messy Thinking 04:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to the appropriate season of the show. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 10:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ami Cusack. per above. She is notable enough to have her own article. Jtrost (T | C | #) 17:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all, except for Cusack. Keep Cusack. For all others, I prefer delete over keep should redirect not be the consensus decision. --MikeJ9919 18:46, 28 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 hoax/patent nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 15:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bohotziadam Ghussaytis[edit]

I smell a hoax, no hits on google --Xorkl000 06:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom: any 2005 study by "prominent German, French, Chinese, Japanese, British universities" found to affect "1 in 10000 people globally" would turn up more than 0 Google hits [28]. Tagged as hoax. bcasterlinetalk 06:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as obvious hoax with pseudoscience crap thrown in. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A hoax. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as hoax. --Terence Ong 12:40, 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 01:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bootland[edit]

Doesn't seem very notable to me as per WP:WEB --Xorkl000 06:54, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romnichal[edit]

Basically there are way too many unsupported claims in this article. Some info could be hoax.DeleteTheRingess 06:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Some unverified claims do not justify deletion of the entire article. The existence of Romnichels is clearly not a hoax (Google: [31][32]), and the article seems accurate as to their location at least. No reason to delete, only verify. The accuracy tag is sufficient. bcasterlinetalk 07:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bcasterline. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not a hoax but needs references though. --Terence Ong 11:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Confusing. One or two sentences, if verifiable, could be added to the info about the United States in Irish Traveller, which seems to be an already existing, better written article about this group, and which gives more context. Asclepias 18:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, add tags as needed. Real term. Pavel Vozenilek 22:00, 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 01:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Business Scorecard Manager[edit]

Just not notable enough for me, and i'm sure bill can pay for his own advertisments --Xorkl000 07:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Kcordina 13:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in agreement with Xorkl000. If the program's publisher would post the source code under the GFDL (or good ol' GPL) on WP or WikiSource, and do the same with the source code for the program's operating environment, then I would be persuaded of their commitment to collaborative projects using open standards and open public review. That would make me change my vote to "keep" articles about their less notable pieces of spyware malware bugware. Barno 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not a notable addition to Balanced Scorecards. MLA 09:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. James084 22:27, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 03:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VFunk[edit]

Looks like non-notable website advertising to me. --Martyman-(talk) 07:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - ADVertisment. --lightdarkness (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable advertisement. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re-write per Adrian, even though the site does have some notability to it, it still is probably created by someone promoting the site. Perhaps a rewrite to make it no so advertisy --lightdarkness (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. --Terence Ong 08:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as per Terenceong1992 and Lightdarkness. -- Arnzy | Talk 11:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The site is merely a link repository and I can't see how an article can give any further information than could be gained by visiting the site itself. Also, I don't think the article can be any more than an advert. Kcordina 13:20, 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. Babajobu 07:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Math of Quran[edit]

Only one source quoted, lots of figures with no source. Unless sources are provided and article is rewritten it seems too much original research.Delete TheRingess 07:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as original research. --Terence Ong 08:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to United Submitters International#The number 19 Schizombie 08:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "source" is just an edition of the Quran itself. This is original research. Delete. GeorgeStepanek\talk 08:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is a new article, I havent had the time to add more references, I need some time to add quality references to this article,please Do not delete (202.69.193.66 10:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The potential for adding new information into this article is there. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR or a POV attempt to claim scientific supremacy for a given religion - the numbers could be used to prove some other completely wrong ratios also.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article isn't even nn, it's just pointless. I could count words in anything and probably come up with a mathematical pattern. In fact, without context, it comes awfully close to nonsense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjc8 (talk • contribs)
  • Do Not Delete Just because some of us do not believe in something that doesn't mean its wrong.. There are people who say Armstrong did not land on the moon does that mean he didn't?. Lets give this article a chance for sometime and see whether it improves.. And if you are voting for something please put your signature. otherwise I will remove it!! I mean it. Because same person can go on putting several delete votes(Mystic 06:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Note:Author of the article.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I reinstated the above comment with the unsigned template. Mystic, you are not allowed to throw out other's votes - it is up to the presiding admin to do that if there is an allegation of fraud.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if numbers are correct (365 occurences of day etc) then that tells us something about the intentional writing of the Quran. Work needs quality references and expansion. Oh and Arsath aka Mystic please notify your bias if you are the creator/major contributor of the work - else all of your pleas to keep will be worthless (that includes if you are also 202.69.193.66). VirtualSteve 06:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is nonsense.Zaheer89 07:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:V, WP:NOR. Note that if it is somehow kept, it should be moved to Mathematics of the Quran. Proto||type 12:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It isn't so much mathematics of the quran, but mathematics of the quran according to a small sect of islam, the United Submitters International, a break-off sect of Qur'an alone#Dissident Submitters and some individuals who agree with it. The majority of muslims and non-muslims don't see what they see because of inconsistent counts, etc. There might be some counts of nineteen that are accurate, but to most they are not significant. Schizombie 18:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentIf you guys are so determined to delete this article please go ahead..I don't care.. The IP edit 202.69.193.66 is my friends and we use the same internet connection as we work in the same office. Our effort was not to promote anything but to share our knowledege on the subject matter. As we have come to understand that there are too many opinionated Admins and users. I cant be bothered to fight all these people to share my knowledge. (Mystic 08:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
      • If you want it to stay, you should work on it. The second section doesn't follow from the first. What does a count of 24 occurrences of the word Rejul/Man have to do with 19? Why is it significant (should we count how many times "man" is used in every book?). Also, were the arabic words counted, or were the english words counted? A translation might use the word man for more words than just rejul, and might sometimes translate rejul as something other than man. Additionally, the translations sometimes add words that aren't in the arabic because they are somehow implied by the other words, which they'll put in (parenthesis). Schizombie 22:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point taken (Mystic 10:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment If we decide to keep the article, does anyone know of a verifiable source for the numbers? TheRingess 06:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hey The Ringess why dont you read the quran and verify for your self.. (Mystic 10:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
      • Reply Perhaps I could have phrased my question better, because either I'm projecting or you seem to have taken my comment in the wrong way. Unfortunately, I cannot verify for myself. I do not speak Arabic. As far as English translations go I have only read bits and pieces. A quote comes to mind: The heart of the believer is the highest heaven. I cannot remember whether that's from the quran or one of the poems of Hafiz or Rumi. I have read several volumes of English translations of Hafiz and several dozen by Rumi. I find both men's stories fascinating and love the poetry. That is neither here nor there though. TheRingess 12:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak delete as Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Stifle 00:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification. I feel that most if not all of the references are to primary sources, such as the Koran/Quran, and as such it appears to violate WP:NOR. However, I have revised to a weak delete after some consideration. Stifle 14:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not opposed to a merge or slight merge either. Stifle 14:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks a lot Stifle for your positive attitude..
  • Delete - Absolute junk. - Hahnchen 13:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My Dear Friends can we clean this up please.. I guarantee you all that this article will grow fast with more resourceful references. Have we finished voting? (or does it go on forever? Can you please tell me I am new to wikipedia) my opinion is some of the earlier votes cannot be counted. Because as you can see the article has changed quiet significantly (or completely) since it was voted for deletion. I accept the fact that initially the article did not have any references or proper structure. But now it has changed. So all of you who voted before 26th feb 2006 can you kindly reconsider your votes. (Mystic 03:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • All the above counts, people don't have to change them unless they feel changes to the page warrant it. It isn't over until an admin closes it. I think if the page remains it should be renamed. I deleted a disinguous quote that was added suggesting Martin Gardner was impressed by the claims, which was decidedly untrue; see my talk page for more. Schizombie 03:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Pritt[edit]

Appears to be self promotion, some users have had issues with it Tawker 07:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Definitely needs removing. (NIG)

  • Delete. WP:VAIN. Metta Bubble 10:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity. -- Arnzy | Talk 11:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, not notable, void of an encyclopedi value and possible spam to aid his political project. The contributions started exactly one month since the character's declared his candidacy. --Mecanismo | Talk 17:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Page was clearly created to assist with his political endeavors. Kf6dlw 02:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's low quality and obviously little more than him touting himself. It's unprofessional and tacky. Jamie 02:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's political self-praise, lacks factual base.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pumpkin Head Inc[edit]

Unencyclopedic, just some punks bragging about their small ad-supported comic site

--RhomboidFive 08:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non notable; but must you patronize the creators? Cymsdale 08:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 11:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable and possibly spam --Mecanismo | Talk 17:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Also, unless there's some connection to punk rock that I missed, no reason to call the comic creators punks. -- Dragonfiend 01:51, 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 02:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Jerrold Smith[edit]

Nominated once before. Majority opinion was delete, but for some reason it was closed out as a merge- and the merge was never done. Original debate is here

The article itself is about a person notable for nothing other than being the brother of a notable person. Needless to say, my opinion is Delete. Reyk 08:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable person. Nothing on WP:BIO comes close to matching. Fails google test. Notability is genetically transmitted for royalty only. Can't spot any encyclopedic information in the article that could be merged anywhere. "It's sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them." Weregerbil 16:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wreegerbil --Mecanismo | Talk 17:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Possible slight merge to Rosalynn Smith Carter. We generally mention non-notable relatives of notable people on the page of the notable person. Stifle 00:36, 27 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 02:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unbirthday[edit]

This was tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "Words/phrases used in movies are generally not of enough importance/significance to merit their own articles". That, in itself, doesn't make the article a candidate for speedying, so I submit to AFD. 72,600 Google results for "unbirthday". Coffee 09:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, my vote is to keep. I imagine the article could be helpful to people unfamiliar with Alice in Wonderland who come across the word. Coffee 14:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Movies? Good grief, there was a strange papery thing by Carroll long before Disney got his hands on it. Merge and redirect to Through the Looking-Glass Tonywalton  | Talk 12:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smashy. Dicdef, should be at Wiktionary. - Sikon 13:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Tonywalton. --MacRusgail 14:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The word is also the subject of a song from the story. It has some notability and recieves 72,000 google hits. Bobby1011 14:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it is only the subject of a song in the Disney movie... in the original books it appears in Through the Looking Glass in the Humpty Dumpty chapter as a passing mention [33].--Isotope23 18:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment anyone searching on the link Isotope23 provided will find it's spelt "un-birthday" on that page. Tonywalton  | 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 02:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Xchange[edit]

non notable per WP:WEB --Xorkl000 09:30, 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 02:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choa Kok Sui[edit]

Not-notable. Though the article claims this person has written a bunch of books, the author doesn't even show up on a google book search [34]. He is widely publicised on his own groups webpages but I can't find anyone else talking about him, except the odd forum post saying he's a cult leader [35]. I think it's a closed circle religious sect. There is an editor around calling him Master who appears to belong [36]. Related pages in this AfD are Pranic healing and Arhatic Yoga, which also fall under non-notable. The Arhatic Yoga article has already been deleted once because it was simply a reproduction of the sects own website. All articles have been tagged for cleanup/advertising problems for a while but nothing came of it. I suspect there'll be some activity after this AfD but I am doubtful it will change the un-notable nature of the articles. Metta Bubble 09:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Metta Bubble 09:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 11:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 15:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn cult advertisement.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Deletehmm, too minor topic. If the article stays, it will likely to become promo platform for the group because no one will check for NPOV. It is o.k. to resurrect it when the group become famous (or infamous). :D
  • Delete per nom. ThePromethean 2006-02-25
  • Comment. This nom should probably include Meditation on the Twin Hearts also. Peace. Metta Bubble 13:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a comment from a guy who uses wiki to gain knowledge everyday.

dont delete article because its not notable enough, any article infact, as far as pranic healing goes, its not a cult, i have attended a few classes and there is reason in it (thats what i think), i would like to say with as much of a neutral stand point as i can that some of the teachings work in real life, he teaches to make donations, meditate, help people, those are the teachings, as far as the debate on how true scientifically the methods of healing are thats upto the research minds who will draw out a conclusion once they perform exhaustive amount of tests. the teachings are simple rules in life thats my opinion.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Von Studyhousen[edit]

Nonsense. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 09:37, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ripples- Lurking Lucifer Author:Jude[edit]

Seems to be confusing advertising for a not yet published series of books. --Martyman-(talk) 10:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; additonally, this seems like it could be non-notable. — Rebelguys2 talk 10:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pure, badly presented, speculation Kcordina 13:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOT a crytal ball. --Terence Ong 15:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Cuñado - Talk 23:56, 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 merge. — Mar. 3, '06 [09:26] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Modern Death/Grind[edit]

Delete and Merge into the Grindcore article. This article holds nothing but POV and is simply a neoglistic about bands from a genre being 'newer' than other bands of the same genre. If a difference even exists it belongs in the Grindcore article where the supposed 'death/grind' combination was merged a long time ago. Ley Shade 10:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Ley Shade 10:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Grindcore, per nom. - Rynne 19:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Incidentally, this doesn't need to be on AFD. Stifle 00:35, 27 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 07:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-stalinism[edit]

Essay on a 21st century neologism -Doc ask? 11:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The references go back ten years. Longer than wikipedia has been around.Brother No. 1 11:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Albert Langer is known in Australia as a Maoist not an anarcho-Stalinist whatever that might be. 19 Google hits for it none of which are verifiable [37] Anarcho-Stalinist does slightly better including a verifiable source for Langer [[38]

Capitalistroadster 11:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Albert Langer is not a member of a Maoist Communist Party at present, therefore he cannot be a Maoist. Anarcho-stalinists like Langer do not join organised political parties. Brother No. 1 11:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's a logical fallacy. I'm not a member of any political party. Does that mean that I may not be an adherent of one? Bobby1011 12:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply Maoists are members of their own country's Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist). Langer was a member, and is no longer, in line with his anarcho-stalinist viewpoint today.Brother No. 1 13:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, anarcho-stalinism returns 98 Google hits, not 19 as stated above, and anarcho-stalinist returns 335 hits, including mainstream Australian journals such as 'The Age' and 'The Australian', Indymedia, Institutional Economics and Online Opinion, as well as messageboards and email lists across the world. Brother No. 1 11:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article makes no sense to me, for sure. No proper sources, not wikified, not even spelt properly. Neither of the Google hits make any sense either. Away with it! Jobjörn 12:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you point out the parts which you claim are not 'spelt properly', please. By the way, the correct grammatical phrase would be 'not properly spelt'. Brother No. 1 12:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I figured. Perhaps you should know that the sole reason as to why I've never written an article on the English Wikipedia by myself is that... english is not my mother's tongue, and I am quite certain any articles written by me would not be properly spelt. Otherwise, I would obviously correct all these errors. Furthermore; it's missing capitalization at beginning of sentences at least once, and the creator seems to be unable to decide whether to write anarchostalinism or anarcho-stalinism. (Jobjörn 12:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
        • Thank you for your admission that you were untruthful about my spelling errors. Brother No. 1 13:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also; I still don't understand why it's called "stalinism". To me, stalinism is a marxist-leninistic ideology characterized by extreme oppression from the ruling party - gulags and all that. The article is also implying that marxism-leninism is the same thing as stalinism, which is obviously not true. ("marxism-leninism (often known as stalinism)"). Ah well. Jobjörn 12:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for your individual opinion on the definition of 'stalinism'. The word 'stalinism' refers to people who deem themselves Marxist-Leninist-Communists. See the online lists of Communist Parties (Marxist-Leninist) for your further educationBrother No. 1 13:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • For YOUR further education, you might also browse through the articles about Stalinism and Marxism-Leninism. Then, it will become clear to you that Marxism-Leninism is not often known as Stalinism - such a wording would imply the two are synonyms, and the mere fact that there exists two separate articles for them contradicts this. And I've never even heard the term "Marxist-Leninist-Communists". Would you please point to a source where such a wording is used? Now, regrettably, I must leave you in order to do some proper work. I will return here tonight. Jobjörn 13:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as unverifiable, hoax and makes no sense. --Terence Ong 12:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sorry that you find political issues confusing.Brother No. 1 13:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge with Maoism. Yes, the article cites some invalid sources, and yes, the article is confusing, but the title appears to be a real alternative to Maoism (despite the articles assertions to the contrary), and in some contexts notable. The article's own sources contradict the assertion that Maoism and Anarcho-stalinism are different. Bobby1011 12:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification By alternative I meant synonym. Bobby1011 13:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maoism depends upon a peasant class, therefore cannot exist in the modern, developed world. Non-party Maoists from the developed world use the term anarcho-stalinist.Brother No. 1 13:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment That my friend is an interpretation and as such falls under Original Research. Back it up with a reputable source. Bobby1011 13:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks, my friend. You could visit Langer's own website http://www.lastsuperpower.net/ for his version of how anarcho-stalinism is applied in your home country of Australia, which will of course differ from mine in Wales.Brother No. 1 13:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Ok, if there is an article on Langer's website on Anarcho-stalinism, give us the link and we'll check it out. Bobby1011 13:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • ReplyBobby - thanks for your consideration. In return, I've done even better - I have contacted Albert Langer himself so he can possibly take part in this debate! How about that? Regards, Brother No. 1 15:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification By alternative I meant synonym. Bobby1011 13:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete It seems Brother No. 1 is trying to pull a fast one. His article has been deleted in the past. Refer to his talk page. Bobby1011 13:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My mistake. It seems to have been recreated so that it could be improved upon. Bobby1011 13:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ah well. If it is to be kept, you might aswell add it to the anarcy series or whatever that template is called. (Although my vote for deletion remains, firm.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jobjörn (talk • contribs) 06-02-22 23:47:57.
  • Delete, the sources don't support half of the article's assertions. We need at least a couple sources by known identifiable authors that say "Anarcho-stalinism is...", and that it isn't identical to Maoism. Gazpacho 19:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentOne cannot be a Maoist if one is not a member of a Maoist Communist Party (usually denoted by the title Communist (Marxist-Leninist) Party. Maoism is based in areas with large peasant populations, e.g. India, Nepal, Peru, Bangladesh, China. Anarcho-stalinism is an industrialised, urbanised, non-party variant of Maoism, which only exists in countries where there is no peasantry. I'm not sure whether I am confusing you here, or baffling you, but political theorists will understand anyway. Wikipedia should appeal to specialists and experts as well as laypersons like yourself, in order for it to be truly in-depth and comprehensive. A catch-all 'Maoism' just doesn't work. How do you reconcile anarcho-stalinists belief in industrial and scientific advancement with Maoists' belief in iron-smelting furnaces in every peasant's backyard?Brother No. 1 07:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Am I confusing you? I think I've been pretty clear about my objections to the article, which are grounded in OR policy: "An edit counts as original research if... it provides new definitions of pre-existing terms; or... it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source." Gazpacho 09:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments on delete votes mentioned above (sources don't back article, term could just be a hoax, etc...)--Jersey Devil 08:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks for your considered and carefully thought out response, young man - it's good that young people like yourself, especially young Americans, are beginning to take an interest in political issues. Please remember though that political theory extends beyond your university texts, which no doubt have a very norteamericano bias! Brother No. 1 09:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've look through all the article's references and google searched it. I think it's WP:NOR. It seems to me that the terms anarcho-stalinist has been used almost as a neologism/protologism in a couple of media or alternative media outlets. Please cite the ten year data, as I can't seem to find it, or a reasonable review of the term if it has been around that long. -- Samir ∙ TC 10:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as apparent WP:NOR violation. If that isn't a good enough reason, the comments from Brother No. 1 on this discussion would be enough reason to convince me that it is more likely to be propaganda and WP:POV than encyclopædic content. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 10:37, 26 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 hoax. Postdlf 20:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt mahler[edit]

Delete Article appears to be a hoax, as there are no google hits for a murderer named Kurt Mahler Gershwinrb 11:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete no google hits, likely to be a hoax. -- Arnzy | Talk 11:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dates of birth and death of this "fine youg boy" who died at the age of 85 but ...could have had a whole life ahead of him correspond to this Kurt Mahler. Delete, speedly if possible.. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:15, 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. Commentary from several extremely new users has been disregarded in accordance with WP:SOCK. — Mar. 3, '06 [09:32] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Abigail's Ghost and Joshua Theriot[edit]

No evidence given for notability of Abigail's Ghost, no Alexa rank for linked website, one contributor proposed it for speedy deletion. Also nominating the sister article Joshua Theriot which was proposed for deletion through WP:PROP. RobertG ♬ talk 11:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Bobby1011 12:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both articles as non-notable vanity. dbtfztalk 16:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Abigail's Ghost is actually fairly popular in the underground progressive music scene in Louisiana and has somewhat of a cult following locally. I've actually used this as a source for an article I've written for a local music magazine. I don't think this is a vanity article in any way. It is no more a vanity article than any write up on Radiohead or Coldplay. -Carmine Tripp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sillyfeetmcgee (talk • contribs) THIS COMMENT WAS INCORRECTLY ENTERED (removing previous votes) -Jcbarr 04:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Incorrectly entered or not, Carmine (Sillyfeetmcgee) has a point. Besides being leaders of the Louisiana art rock scene, acquiring corporate sponsorships after only a few months of forming and getting extensive media coverage, the lineup of Abigail's Ghost includes world's fastest drummer record holder Seth "Bad Boy" Davis on which numerous articles have been published. This band is beyond well on its way to expanding its region of influence. Sometimes I wish you guys would stop being so meticulously bureacratic long enough to see that others actually find merit in these entries.-singleton41 01:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Joshua; Neutral on Ghost on both -- jtheriot says he added info to the Ghost article, but there's still no citation of an external source showing notability. Read the article - they've never released an album or performed live. -Jcbarr 17:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

. I'm not expert enough to really vote on this, other than certainly could be done in MAX a single article. I'm not moved by arguments by folks who don't contribute to WP in any other way as well. -Jcbarr 07:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you would visit the site you would see photos from various live gigs and studio sessions. I've personally seen them perform and have written an article regarding the band in a local music related publication. They do perform live and do have recorded material. If you would like I can send it to you. EDIT: I also noticed that you changed your original vote as if you had been somewhat shamed and insulted for making incorrect assumptions and are simply getting back at the writer of the article as a personal vendetta. Sillyfeetmcgee 17:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've seen this band (Abigail's Ghost) and all its members interviewed on the 8 o'clock news for HTV of Folse Productions, inc. a couple of times and seen them in concert as well. Although it's not exactly my style of music, they are a well known act in this part of the country.-yacovhirsch 09:48, 23 February 2006
  • Keep. i'm the one who originally wrote the article. After the first deletion notice i read the WP:MUSIC thing to see what was wrong and Abigail's Ghost does in fact meet the criteria of "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop)". So i added that information to the entry but i think i forgot to put that i had edited it so...just letting you all know i had fixed it. -jtheriot@berk 11:54, 23 February 2006
  • Delete. As per WP:MUSIC. Vanity + not-notable. Where exactly is this online cult following? --Flonkus 04:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's exactly where you might think an online following exists: Message boards, blogs, forums, etc. Grow a brain.-singleton41 01:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why don't you source them then? --Flonkus 06:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have edited the article and added hyperlinks to places on the web where the band or its members are mentioned including the band's new online forum. Abigail's Ghost has been featured on both television and radio broadcasts including a spot on the news in August 2005, has a Budweiser sponsorship and is one of the more musically respected bands in Louisiana.-Rimsect 09:18, 24 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 delete. Commentary from several extremely new users has been disregarded in accordance with WP:SOCK. — Mar. 3, '06 [09:34] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Kenneth J. Wilson and Seth Davis[edit]

  • Delete these as well under this same issue. User:Sillyfeetmcgee created these articles last night. -Jcbarr 13:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the fact that you want to delete this just proves how ignorant you are about the drumming world. Fellow world record holder Tim Waterson also has a Wikipedia article. How is Seth Davis excluded from having his own as well? This is completely ridiculous. Sillyfeetmcgee 13:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a standard for Wikipedia for inclusion of musicians. Take a look at WP:MUSIC. If you can put the appropriate (including cited) claims of notability into the article, I'd be the 1st to change my vote. -Jcbarr 13:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check the article on Tim Waterson and ask yourself if this article has any more right of being on Wikipedia than Seth Davis'. Sillyfeetmcgee 17:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, accusing people of being sock puppets without any proof seems a bit presumptuous don't you think? Sillyfeetmcgee 13:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was no accusation -- there was a statement of logic. "If" Singleton's comment of "I can't edit articles because people are proposing *my* articles for deletion" was accurate, then that implies Singleton is the same person as the creator of these articles, thus a sockpuppet ID. I'd be happy to be wrong. -Jcbarr 13:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To reiterate the fact, User:singleton41 stated "It's difficult to contribute when everyone and their mother objects to your entries being left up now isn't it?". I don't see where he stated that he wrote the article. It's probably because he didn't write it and is just someone trying to voice an opinion on this matter. Sillyfeetmcgee 17:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Did i make you happy lil buddy?-jtheriot@berk 12:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also a chance that there may have been a hint of sarcasm in his reply. Whether or not he's a sockpuppet or not, he did make somewhat of a point. Just do some research of your own and you'll find that deletion of this article is totally unnecessary. I'm making it a point to add more information about underground or obscure artists on Wikipedia and I think that deleting articles on a whim without taking into consideration the valuable knowledge that can be gained (regardless of whether or not the article is properly formatted or cited) is at complete odds with the principles of Wikipedia. Sillyfeetmcgee 16:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seth Davis is a W O R L D R E C O R D H O L D E R. How much more notable does he have to be? He and Kenneth are both part of the same NOTABLE band that gets NOTABLE media reviews for catering to a NOTABLE genre and culture.-singleton41 12:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Envy & jealously are for those that have low self-esteem and hold resentment at seeing the success of others. If any individual has taken the time to listen to Abigail's ghost, LIVE or RECORDED (I’ve heard both), then he or she realizes that to create this passionate, progressive, & subtly ambiguous music, takes a high level of brilliance & patience. Their knowledge of musical arts can hardly be summed up in one short paragraph let alone through Wikipedia. Research them, take the time to get to know the band and their music and I am sure that you will realize that your unsanctioned attack on their article will be lifted.-mRNA 22:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC) John Joseph[reply]
  • Delete. Quality of the music is not an issue. Abigail's Ghost hasn't even recorded a full length studio album. And the label they are recording on was started by people associated with the band. The group hasn't accomplished anything notable yet, so they are not notable now. This isn't myspace or soundclick. --Flonkus 04:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Question. Why are you so dumb? The "full length studio album" you spoke of has been recorded. It's called Selling Insincerity. I'd send it to you if you weren't such a tool. As for the label being started by people associated with the band, are you aware of how many great musicians/songwriters have started their own label AND released their own music on it successfully? Frank Zappa-Zappa, DiscReet, Barking Pumpkin Steve Vai-Favored Nations Berry Gordy-Motown. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that your arguments are vanity arguments because you are so presumtuous in thinking you know everything. You should delete them.-singleton41 01:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think it's clear who the tools are. --Flonkus 07:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Great observation, but just in case there was any doubt, I'll go ahead and list them for us: Flonkus, Jcbarr, Bobby1011, and dbtfz. --singleton41 02:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is just with respect to Seth Davis. How notable is World's Fastest Drummer -- I'm just not that familiar with drumming. The Guinness Book of World Records lists the world's fastest drummer (single strokes) as Johnny Rabb [39], who's listed as 7th on World's Fastest Drummer's Battle of the hands [40]. Guinness has no mention of records for double strokes. My comment is that if World's Fastest Drummer is notable, then Seth Davis should be notable as well for being the double stroke champion; however, there is not even a World's Fastest Drummer page on wikipedia. Establish its notability and the argument holds per WP:MUSIC: i.e. Has won or placed in a major music competition. -- Samir ∙ TC 04:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another note is that Mike Mangini has an article for which notability is presumably established for him being a World's Fastest Drummer champion -- Samir ∙ TC 04:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In reference to Flonkus. Of course the quality of their music is an issue! The basis of your argument is based upon not only Seth's but the whole band's notability. [[41]]. The exceptional quality of their music, whether it be the style of music you enjoy to listen to or not, embraces notoriety.
  • Comment: In reference to Samir_grover. Samir_grover you are definitely correct. You know very little about drumming and even less about research. Firstly, if you were to look a little deeper in the the worlds fastest drummer web site you would have noticed two names that you had made reference to, right next to Seth Davis'. [[42]]. That’s right! Right there in front of your face. Mike "Da Man" Mangini, & Johnny "3 Bomb" Rabb. Not to mention other famous drummers such as Art "The God Father" Verdi, & Tim "Silver Feet" Waterson. Secondly, take a good look at your Guinness book of world records page. [[43]]. If you were to read the headline carefully you would understand that an individual has to challenge Guinness for a record to be recorded.[[44]]. They do not just show up at any given event to record records. Finally, I am extremely tired of doing your research so here is your last site. Why don't you prove that he isnt notable. [[45]] --mRNA 18:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Harsh. Personal attacks, lots of fun. Remember WP:CIVIL to all the puppets. -- Samir ∙ TC 06:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • mRNA, You've missed the argument. Notability is established if the person has won or placed in a major music competition. As a corollary, a Guinness record for fastest drummer is notable per WP:MUSIC. The question is whether "World's Fastest Drummer" is a major music competition. If it is, great, Seth Davis should be included. If not, then no, he should not. By saying that Mike Mangini had a wikipedia article for "World's Fastest Drummer", I was establishing WFD's notability (i.e. supporting you), despite the absence of a wikipedia article. -- Samir ∙ TC 06:34, 28 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 04:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Career Development Technology[edit]

delete as is advertisement & duplicates Career Development Pol098 11:22, 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. Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 06:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of atheism[edit]

Note: I renamed this article from "Criticism of Atheism" because atheism is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized. I'm changing the title of this section to reflect the new name. - Brian Kendig 21:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT, WP:NPOV, three line stub that should remain a part of the atheism article, and basically misappropriating the dictionary definition of atheism to try and create a stub. If a decent article can be made out of this, then great, but as 'atheism' is just a lack of belief in a god/religion, I find it hard to find that enough verifiable information could be found on this to justify anything more than a section in the atheism article. If I'm wrong, I will happily rescind this vote. I couldn't find anything, really, though, that wasn't just kneejerk attacking, 'You don't agree with us so you are going to hell'-thuggery and suchlike. Proto||type 11:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep per below. Comment It would be better to build this up as a section of Atheism and spin it off when it gets big enough. Tom Harrison Talk 20:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — This page already looks like a split-off sub-topic heading from Atheism, which is a huge page. I don't see a benefit from a merge. The topic seems valid philosophically, so it just needs a neutrality check IMO and some references. — RJH 17:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. At 76kb long, Atheism is too big already. bcasterlinetalk 18:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. The page appears to hold a theistic POV in its discussion of the topic. Atheist rebuttals to the arguments presented should also be included, where appropriate. Not to turn the article in to a slanging match, just to maintain the NPOV attitude required in WP article standards.  (aeropagitica)  19:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bcasterline; I would vote to merge if the parent article weren't so large and hard to trim without a [N]POV fight. Barno 20:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - In a few words... this is garbage. It's completely unreferenced, vague, and POV. This smells of original research. There's not even much that would be appropriate as a section under Atheism. Cuñado - Talk 23:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV and no references -- Jeff3000 05:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article was barely created and it was already proposed for deletion, we should at least give this page more time to be developed. The topic itself is a valid one. (And, yes, Atheism is too big already) --Leinad ¬ pois não? 06:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It looks a pretty substantial article now and it would be difficult to merge it into atheism. It contains some valuable material. --Bduke 09:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This article is philosophically valid and I can see it growing from its current position. Wikipedia already houses criticism of other beliefs, why not Atheism? I am currently in the middle of a project eating up my time. However when I do find time, I will surely contribute to this interesting and well-needed article. I believe we must give this article the room it deserves to grow--Jasonblake69 06:25, 23 February 2006 (EST)
  • Keep if was moved from Atheism - that would ensure quality of content. Delete if it is just someone's opinion placed here now. Pavel Vozenilek 22:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, it was moved from Atheism because that article was becoming too large; it presents some arguments that are key to understanding atheism in the form of a dialogue. The article requires some cleanup and more references. ChaTo 17:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I feel it's useful to Wikipedia to document the common criticisms of atheism and the common responses to them, especially because the criticisms are widespread and the responses are sound. (If I had a dime for every person who told me "you can't be an atheist because you would need to know every hair on every flea on every planet in the universe because God might be there!") - Brian Kendig 19:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Article needs some work, but appears to be a serious attempt at on a topic worthy of inclusion. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 10:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, cleanup. "but as 'atheism' is just a lack of belief in a god/religion" is clearly a POVed and highly disputable statement, as there are numerous definitions of atheism, not just "lack of belief in a god" (and certainly not "lack of religion", which is irreligion). -Silence 14:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A belief has tenets which can be criticized. A lack of belief has no such tenets. Any criticism of atheism is just an argument for theism with a double negative, so to speak. Teflon Don 20:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what this article is intended for; Criticism of (as you said) "lack of belief". --Jasonblake69 22:12, 26 February 2006 (EST)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 04:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ydreams[edit]

Advert - no evidence made for notability. RobertG ♬ talk 11:45, 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 04:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Party metal[edit]

Completely made up nonsense. It isnt mentioned on the heavy metal music article, and its mention on the list of heavy metal genres specifcally states, "Party metal (also referred to as Pop metal), is a cross-genre reference to songs featuring lyrics that celebrate drinking, rock and metal music, sex and other topics commonly associated with parties.". It also says that Pop Metal is a subgenre of Party Metal, yet Pop Metal redirects to Glam Metal and the above says it is Party Metal. Delete as Unnotable garbage and leave a redirect to wherever is apporpriate. Ley Shade 12:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 21,000 google hits, but many of them seem to be misspellings of partly metal, as they are advertisments for various shelving and pieces of art work. Bobby1011 12:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. The article says it is a genre of heavy metal music but it is not listed on that page anywhere. Monkeyman(talk) 16:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete aluminum 17:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-existant musical genre.--Isotope23 18:02, 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 merge. — Mar. 3, '06 [09:43] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Dapper Drake[edit]

  • Valid points and it kind of makes sense to me to merge it with the Ubuntu Linux main article. However, I like that way the article is laid out with headings such as Big News, Characteristics, Improvements, etc. If this was merged with the main Ubuntu Linux article would it be possible to retain this information in the concise way its presented here? True that there are no individual articles for releases of Adobe Photoshop but there are individual articles for each version of Microsoft Windows. -Etienne
  • I agree with monkeyman. Merging this with Ubuntu Linux would also make it easier for readers to find the article. Having articles about essentially the same thing scattered around is just difficult for readers. Also, we should Redirect this page to the Ubuntu Linux page, so anyone looking for this will go to the right area :). --CPrussin | Talk 04:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A yet to be released version of Ubuntu Linux doesn't deserve its own article. Everything should go to the main Ubuntu Linux article, but there's nothing to merge as this article looks more like promotional material. Smashy. - Sikon 12:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ubuntu Linux then delete. We don't have separate articles for each release of Adobe Photoshop either. Monkeyman(talk) 16:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete as a ubuntu user myself, I don't see the point of having different articles on each and every release of some linux distribution. This info makes more sense if it is listed as a section in Ubuntu Linux --Mecanismo | Talk 17:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect any useful (non-promo) content to Ubuntu Linux. Under the GFDL and WP policy, "merge and delete" is incompatible so "merge and redirect" is what we should have until DD is released and gets enough media coverage to become sufficiently notable. Barno 20:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • GFDL? What does the GFDL have to do with wiki policies? - Sikon 04:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely nothing, apart from perhaps being part of the very foundations upon which Wikipedia is built. Of course, there's no harm in leaving a redirect (preferably a soft one so readers know why they're being redirected). 18:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Ubuntu Linux then delete. My initial thoughts were that this information was very useful (I myself just learnt about this release 5 minutes ago from this article. Therefore I think it should be merged and placed under the Ubuntu Linux article under a specific section called "Future Releases" or something like that. Matt0401 17:21, 25 February 2006 (EST)
  • I'd go for merge into an article similar to History of Windows. --Vincent 15:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per Barno. --Michalis Famelis 14:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect, it would be fine as a section in the main article. --AppleNick 04:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep — Yaohua2000 00:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rafiki House[edit]

Delete - Seems like a personal biography or story Schzmo 13:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP is not a diary. Monkeyman(talk) 16:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree, WP is not a diary JoJan 19:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged as speedy delete by me, as I see no assertion of notability amidst all the rambling. --Kinu t/c 20:57, 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 02:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Feel My Funk[edit]

There have recently been a lot of vandalism / hoax edits to Idlewild (band) and related articles, by a number of different user names and several IP addresses, all starting 172 - I'm sure they are all the same user. This article is a hoax - Roddy Woomble is working on a solo album, but it is folk, not funk, and AFAIK the name of it has not yet been announced. Vclaw 13:27, 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 02:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Futourist[edit]

Malformed AfD entry by Arundhati bakshi who nominated it as "Delete. Neologism". Fixing AfD entry Tonywalton  | Talk 14:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom.Bjones 14:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No use in lexicon = protologism. Bobby1011 14:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, declared as protologism, Google search "Futourism" gives only commercial or unrelated hits, no hits to indicate that the term has achieved any general use. Darn; I was hoping this would be about the old science-fiction idea of using time-travel machines to see what life will be like in the future. Bad luck for Stefan Schutt: WP:NOT a crystal ball of what terms will be encyclopedic on the day the term is coined. Barno 20:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite ironic that the term is being deleted for meaning exactly what it professes to mock...


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Angr/talk 19:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Gaelic profanity[edit]

Before anyone thinks I object to the subject matter, I don't. I've put this up because it's not encyclopedic. Some of the information is inaccurate & misleading, e.g. "rach air muin" does not refer specifically to "doggy style". It also uses the very dubious "insultmonger" as a source. MacRusgail 14:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unencyclopaedic. I dont know about the accuracy, but WP is not a gaelic dictionary. ::Supergolden:: 14:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. Monkeyman(talk) 16:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep interesting cultural data, perhaps flag for fact checking. Whatever the outcome, the article should share a common fate with Quebec French profanity, Spanish profanity, Portuguese profanity, perhaps others. If kept I will volunteer to cover Latin profanity. Smerdis of Tlön 17:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - there is some potential to cover profanity in various languages if it is culture-specific. However, this article does not reflect the fact that sexual swearwords are not commonly used in Gaidhlig traditionally, and that when they are, you usually hear the English ones, e.g. fuc. Most profanity was, and still is mostly, of a religious nature. --MacRusgail 14:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's totally unreferenced. There's no evidence that any of the profanity actually had/has any currency Dlyons493 Talk 20:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair, some of the phrases are in use, e.g. "thalla gu taigh na galla", but some are mere inventions. No one says "she eats carpets" in Gaidhlig that I know of. --MacRusgail 14:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedia.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and verify. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified. Stifle 00:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that it may not be completely accurate, but that can be fixed. Plus, there are already plenty of articles for profanities in other languages as per above comments. Shadow demon 05:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's so inaccurate, that it even contains a phrase *I* translated as a joke elsewhere on the Internet. What kind of reliability is that? --MacRusgail 18:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the mistakes and inaccurate data can be fixed. That is the point of an open-source encyclopedia people! Peer review is suppose to improve on the messed up articles over time. Just blanket deleting b/c you think it's more of a dictionary entry is short-sighted as language and words are foundational to culture, which I think is an encyclopedia type of entry? Either case, people can work and improve upon this article. Deleting it would be a waste in my opinion.
  • Delete from Wikipedia per Wikipedia is not a dictionary or slang usage guide. However, a copy of this would be entirely appropriate in a Wiktionary Appendix. Rossami (talk) 06:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as we have other similar articles, and the wrong info can be fixed. The article is notable. Carioca 21:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, While this article is one i personally find vaguely interesting ( Gaelic being my native language ) it is not accurate nor really the kind of article which should be found on the English Wiki ( id be quite happy for it to be stuck onto the Scottish gaelic one however ). In modern Gaelic speaking society profanity does not really exist - this is due to the religious history of the society i think - and i had to look back to the poems of the Jacobite era to find any literature containing what might reasonably be termed "cuss words" or obscene insults. You could confront almost any native speaker of the language with the words listed and they most likely wouldnt know what youre going on about. An Siarach
A Shiaraich, tha mi toilichte gun do chur sibh facal beag a-staigh. If any article survives this, then I think it shall have to be completely rewritten and made encyclopedic. --MacRusgail 18:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - --MacRusgail 18:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC) (nominator)[reply]
  • Keep If we can devote whole artices to the English Fuck, Shit, and Crap (which recently survived an AfD), then this can stay. Carlossuarez46 18:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles deal with the cultural contexts and historical usage. This is just a list of terms, and at least 80% inaccurate.
  • Strong Keep There are already similar articles for other languages. MacRusgail's objections are content-related, and seem quite fixable, without going for a full-blown delete. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was BJAODN, delete [46]. — Mar. 3, '06 [09:52] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Interesting Facts about Toasters[edit]

Despite the author having put a humor tag on this article it can't stay in mainspace. BJAODN, I think Tonywalton  | Talk 14:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or BJAODN if anyone really feels strongly about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteUnencyclopedic. Bobby1011 15:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from main namespace. Perhaps userfy? Punkmorten 16:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Daniel Case 17:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I took care of this just now. Daniel Case 05:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete void of any encyclopedic value --Mecanismo | Talk 18:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laugh out loud funny, very well written bar typos, but alas, a joke page. Send to BJAODN doktorb | words 20:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toast until deleted, not encyclopedic, not quite BJAODN material for my taste. WP:NFT. Barno 20:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or BJAODN) as nonsense. --Kinu t/c 20:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN per above. Bart133 22:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not BJAODN as B surely isn't a sufficient criteria for entry into that category. Blatant attempt to get into BJAODN. Remove humour tag as it's really poor quality comedy. MLA 09:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not funny, just silly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Inclined not to BJAODN. -- Saberwyn 21:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no BJAODN -- just not funny. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:Stupid. 159.134.245.26 00:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and BJAODN. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No encyclopedic value.-- Aaron Stanley | (talk) 06:18, 27 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 02:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leona_Guthrie[edit]

Delete this page as neither the person's name nor any of the mentioned work titles show up on Google connected to a poet. No online indication for published work. The page was also created by a user Lguthrie so it might be a vanity entry. Gu 14:24, 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 02:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The management[edit]

This is an ungrammatical, wikified page about an organisation of no note. Maniacgeorge 14:32, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinomics[edit]

Neologism, original research. Some 60 Google hits, only 16 unique. I don't see any of those that appear to match the neologism being coined in this article. Ifnord 14:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed. Jim 14:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. The creator's article growth calculations fail to factor in deletion. Bobby1011 14:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOR and neologism. --Terence Ong 15:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bobby. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The author of this upcoming book Don Tapscott is notable, but this book-in-progress is not. Possible advertisement. Monkeyman(talk) 16:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved most of the content to wikisource but I just got a note from Zhaladshar
I just noted that you added a page called "Wikinomics" to Wikisource. I should point out that this document reads like something that you yourself wrote, and since there is no information regarding a possible source for it, I'm guessing you did write it. Unfortunately, this type of document isn't covered under Wikisource. I would propose that you export the page to probably Wikipedia, where a document of this kind is accepted. Thank you for your involvement in Wikisource!—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User_talk:Dmccreary"

--Dan 13:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I am sorry for Dan being given incorrect information. Please read s:Wikisource:What Wikisource includes before telling anyone what Wikisource accepts. In fact anyone who has ever voted Move to Wikisource, please take a minute to read this as it has been recently re-written to explain more throughly. If anyone has any questions please send them my way, as I am active on both sites.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:27, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Herrmann[edit]

Very well-known Mexican cosmetologist?..who is this Alan Herrmann?.. No google search results for this Mexican cosmetologist!.. Also article is full of vanity information (e.g. an extremely gifted artist from an early age, ...he spends most of his leisure time at his palatial estate, Garza Blanca, near Puerto Vallarta, Mexico and his summer home in Miami Beach, Florida!!) --Abögarp 21:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have worked in fashion and magazines and he has a strong presence in the fashion world especially in New York. Just because you havent heard of a name doesnt mean that a person has no significance. His website is being constructed as we speak however no url has been assigned yet. xlr8tion
Comment: The above user is the original author of this article. Monkeyman(talk) 16:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously the name googles some 3,000,000 hits because there's lots of people named Alan or Herrman but try this google search, and you will see that he is not notable. Bobby1011 15:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bobby1011. Monkeyman(talk) 16:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Bouncy Castle Hire man scores more Ghits than the cosmologist Dlyons493 Talk 20:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, despite author's claims; also reads like WP:VSCA. --Kinu t/c 20:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this junk.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI have seen articles for numerous people online who are stubs. I find it quite "selective" that you are deleting articles pertaining to Mexican entrepeneurs. It took Jesus over 1,000 years to get his name heard around the world, so why not wait. I have edited articles that have numerous errors and ina ccuracies. I w ould not enter junk up on this site. (xlr8tion)
Comment "selective" in what way? Are you alleging that there's a bias against Mexicans, cosmetologists, entrepreneurs or merely people who appear not ro reach Wikipedia's criteria for verifiability, just out of interest? Tonywalton  | Talk 20:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For a bird's eye view of other articles up for the deletion process, check out Category:Pages for deletion. I'm sure very few (if not none) nominations have any sort of "selective" bias against Mexican entrepreneurs. And while the comparison to Jesus might well be tongue in cheek, I'll point out in a similar manner that even that article adhered to the notion of "notability first, article after." --Kinu t/c 00:32, 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. — Mar. 3, '06 [09:56] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Blatino[edit]

This is here because someone else's prod tag has been removed.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki This actually has a lot of hits on Google, but unless it can be expanded, it is Wiktionary material. Danaman5 23:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I originally tagged this article. The only reference I can find to this word is some kind of homosexual slang. There is no verification that the definition is in this article is accurate. This definition should be verified and the article transwikid to Wiktionary. If unable to verify this article should be deleted as neologism James084 00:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If Wiktionary accepts subculture slang then move there. Mentioned on urbandictionary.com as gay culture slang. Weregerbil 16:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Wiktionary is unlikely to take it. Stifle 00:12, 27 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. — Mar. 3, '06 [10:00] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Rajyapalam[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was The correct spelling is Rajapalayam and details regarding the breed of dog is provided in another page under Rajapalayam (dog). Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:28, 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. - Bobet 12:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skin X-Change[edit]

Originally prodded without comment so I am moving here. Looks like this fails WP:WEB and it kind of smells like spam. James084 15:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I originally {{prod}}ed. My comment was the {{notability}} tag. Fails WP:WEB. Jaxal1 15:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article admits nn Skin X-Change is hoping to be a popular forum. Monkeyman(talk) 15:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete as per nom. --Francisco Valverde 18:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:10, 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. — Mar. 3, '06 [10:02] <freakofnurxture|talk> ===Fear the Turtle=== This is a non-notable article about a non-notable slogan.

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tangri[edit]

  • Delete - This is not a proper disambiguation page. Until an article is created about the Turkish God this does not need to belong. Remove content and redirect if possible. Cuñado - Talk 16:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's been fixed up now, I guess I'll withdraw my vote. Cuñado - Talk 23:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is now. Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs) 17:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Nothing wrong with the page. bcasterlinetalk 19:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Jcuk 23:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn. Can we get an admin to close this? Night Gyr 00:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the very charge no longer exists Fastifex 11:40, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip C. Roark[edit]

Delete. Creator of a web-based career development tool. Fails WP:BIO#People_still_alive Monkeyman(talk) 16:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Also features in deletion candidate advert "Career Development Technology" Pol098 23:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Stifle 00:09, 27 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 02:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Knight[edit]

Formerly nominated at WP:PROD by User:Stifle: "No verifiable notability, see WP:BIO". The tag was removed by article's creator. Useless substub - delete unless more information is provided. - Mike Rosoft 17:02, 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 02:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie davy[edit]

Delete Not notable. Advertising. Panairjdde 17:01, 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. — Mar. 3, '06 [10:04] <freakofnurxture|talk>

George Gill Green[edit]

article does not assert why this person warrants inclusion. delete as non-notable. Batman2005 17:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, published author w/other minor but valid claims to notability. Tagged for deletion four minutes after author began writing it, and well before article was completed. Monicasdude 19:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep However, this is a good example of why you should use the Sandbox and not upload a new article until it is functionally complete. --Hetar 21:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's quite an interesting article but neither the it nor Google give much evidence of notability. Dlyons493 Talk 20:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable and interesting article about an early pioneer in patent medicine and builder of a structure on the National Register. I think this is a cardinal example of an itchy AfD finger. Why do people expect perfect articles to sprout forth from the earth. Alansohn 22:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - perhaps if the companies/buildings he created/built were explained slightly further in-depth, it would show a greater evidence of notability. AndyZ 23:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a colonel is a pretty high rank and he did some other stuff?? For Dlyons493, how can you expect google hits for a 19th century army officer??!?!?.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment what I said was that the hits I found didn't show notability - that relates to their content, not their number. Dlyons493 Talk
  • Keep per Monicasdude. He might just not be notable enough; but the article seems to be verifiable in print (haven't checked this). squell 15:38, 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. Don't bite newpages patrollers, we need more of them. — Mar. 3, '06 [10:09] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Portuguese Association of Ryerson[edit]

Advertisement, vanity. NN Delete Ardenn 17:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. nn pschemp | talk 18:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, neither advertising nor vanity. Nominated for deletion one minute after being written, a sure sign that the nominator has made no effort to check out the NN claim. Monicasdude 19:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It had been deleted by an admin and then recreated by RG. Ardenn 19:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's nothing wrong with rewriting an article which was speedied for failing to include a claim of notability, if you insert a good faith claim of notability. And if this was your real motivation for nominating the article, you'd have mentioned it upfront, rather than giving two invalid reasons. Monicasdude 20:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a new user on Wikipedia who might not understand the way things are run arround here. That doesn't make the information any less valuable. —A 20:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I am a new user, but hopfully learning fast. Not sure what a NN is though, but I can tell you there are many school groups on Wiki such as all the fraternities, so why not this one? (RG)
  • Merge into a section on Ryerson University. —A 20:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Not sure what I'm missing here but there's almost no mention of this anywhere on the internet. This only gives 11 unique hits on Google which includes Wikipedia, Ryerson U., ads for Ryerson U., some guy's personal web site and an entry in some giant list of addresses. Unless I'm missing something, this is one of the least notable entities I've seen here. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: And with this little representation, I'd even oppose a merge to the Ryerson U. article. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: per Wknight94 - pm_shef 22:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Wknight94 Computerjoe 22:16, 28 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.

Vandalism. Speedy.--Mais oui! 17:39, 22 February 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 on whether to delete, strong interest in redirecting, so I'll do so, in a non-binding fashion. — Mar. 3, '06 [10:12] <freakofnurxture|talk>

ABS-CBN International[edit]

Incomplete nomination. Relisting, and voting keep. - ulayiti (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Advertisement, vanity. nn. Delete. Howard the Duck 05:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to ABS-CBN. pschemp | talk 18:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Blatant advertisement. --Hetar 20:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Pschemp. Should we move the picture into the main article? --Slgrandson 20:53, 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 02:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley D'Panseax[edit]

No verifiable source, appears to be a hoax. Nothing on Google, and considering the claims made in this article, this person is unknown outside of this page.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popcorn salt[edit]

  • Delete This page is near useless. Why do we need an article about the salt we put on popcorn? Knowitall 18:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If thre was any content I'd say merge to popcorn. But i can't find any. pschemp | talk 18:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or write french freedom fries salt and filet mignon pepper too. Weregerbil 18:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain. Now that I google for it seems like there is a special kind of salt called that. E.g. here. No vote because I don't know how notable it is. We have an article on Kosher salt. Weregerbil 18:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Weregerbil research. It's a standard consumer product and therefore merits an article, preferably by someone, unlike me, who cares for popcorn. Monicasdude 19:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've worked in a movie theater. We had special movie popcorn and special artificial butter (and don't get me started about the frozen artificial pretzels), but the salt is just ordinary table salt. --Coolcaesar 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Movie theater food is to food as military intelligence is . . . . Monicasdude 20:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Right now, it's arguably speedy deletable as the content does little more than restate the title. I have no faith that this could be expanded to compare to kosher salt, but if anyone does expand it, please leave me a message and I'll reconsider my vote. I'd also be fine with a redirect to popcorn. Postdlf 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. dicdef. mikka (t) 22:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. Looks non-notable, but after Weregerbil's research, should we merge with popcorn or something? — Rebelguys2 talk 00:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a dictionary. Cuñado - Talk 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unless someone wants to back my new idea for an article: Hot Dog Ketchup. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's made from pork? Stifle 00:07, 27 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 02:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Ltd[edit]

Advertising for a small privately held telecommunication firm. Ranked 79th in Inc. Magazine's fastest growing private companies...is that notable? Article was orignally a lot more spammy but this still seems like a nonnotable company to me. If it ends up getting deleted, please also delete TalkHome, their wholesale subsidiary. I did a merge from Talkhome to Nobel Ltd and then started to have doubts about both. My vote, asbstain; I'd like to see what others think. Delete Thatcher131 18:14, 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 02:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Special Purpose[edit]

The article doesn't show neither the importance of the subject matter neither any sources Francisco Valverde 18:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

swampland (string theory)[edit]

This article is crackpot nonsense. Bodera 18:29, 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 02:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucid Information Systems[edit]

Non-notable company, unencyclopedic, has no articles which link to it. Girolamo Savonarola 18:35, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ulfsark[edit]

  • Delete I will probably loose on this one, but I was unable to find anything in English on Google not related to the game "Age of Mythology" San Saba 19:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Seems to be pure speculation. --Hetar 20:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I haven't been able to verify any of this. Seems like a term from the game Age of Mythology, which could possibly make it non-notable. — Rebelguys2 talk 05:40, 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 no action, take it to WP:RFD if you feel strongly about it. — Mar. 3, '06 [10:15] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Giorgio Versari[edit]

It took me 20 minutes to find out how to cancel this mispell... sometimes wikipedia is incredibly complicate. This article is a mis- spell of Giorgio Vasari, just cancel it please!--Sailko 19:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Chairman S. | Talk 19:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this article is marked with the "prod" tag right now. Since the person in question is a Renaissance artist, and spelling was not standardized in that period (people would spell their own names different ways from year to year) I'm going to be bold and make this a Redirect, since it seems like a possible alternate spelling. Makemi 19:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect Dlyons493 Talk 20:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's useless, I'm Italian from Florence, I've been studying Renaissance, that was just a mispell, believe me... anyway --Sailko 22:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Generally, we redirect mispelled pages to their intended targets. It's easier for the editor, and it helps if someone also makes the same typo in the future. — Rebelguys2 talk 05:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects are cheap. Stifle 23:45, 26 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. — Mar. 3, '06 [10:16] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Ur (Basque)[edit]

Delete From the Talk page: "see that the Encyclopedia mythica has been cited as a source. Several Scandinavians, User:Haukurth, User:Salleman, User:Io and myself have identified bogus information taken from that site on Norse mythology, and removed it from Wikipedia.--Wiglaf 19:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)" San Saba 19:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless verified. Stifle 23:44, 26 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. — Mar. 3, '06 [10:18] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Valerie Politis[edit]

Delete Not-notable. IMDB only lists minor role on "Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors" San Saba 19:24, 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. Deathphoenix 13:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Kumarin[edit]

Delete attack page San Saba 19:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Google search suggests the press indeed regards him a mob boss. Are there specific items on the page that are suspect? Perhaps the article's talk page would be a better place than AfD to figure that out. Weregerbil 19:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Monicasdude 20:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. mikka (t) 22:58, 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. — Mar. 3, '06 [10:23] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Rockland Music[edit]

Delete since the article contains no convincing evidence of notability, and has an unpleasant tone JGF Wilks 19:37, 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 Keep. Deathphoenix 14:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wacky Wafers[edit]

Delete not-notable San Saba 19:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep and cleanup. Very notable candy in the US. youngamerican (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified and notability established. Stifle 23:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I gave it a touchup that shows notability and accuracy. youngamerican (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Abstain. Not sure about notability but I am happy that it's verifiable. Stifle 23:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable. Most branded goods by international companies are notable. -Tim Rhymeless 08:33, 28 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. Uploader of image could not be bothered even to attempt to supply licence details so it was deleted under standard no-licence procedures. After that there was nothing in the article. -- RHaworth 10:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concede Weakness[edit]

This is not an encyclopedia article - it consists of the text "An extract of Home Office Immigration & Nationality directorate emails regarding the handling of a British citizenship application under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997 is shown below:" and a large, redacted scan of a Home Office e-mail (Image:ConcedeWeakness.jpg), which incidentally has no copyright information. It was created on 19 November 2005, and referred to in a Parliamentary question from Lord Avebury on 28 November (see this), which is how I found it and why it comes to exist, I imagine. (Incidentally, there was a reply from Baroness Scotland of Asthal on 9 December 2005.) -- ALoan (Talk) 19:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not an encyclopedia article (as stated above). --Mal 20:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 20:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of the copyright condition of the image, this is a datadump and not an encyclopedia article. Note that we can't transwiki to wikisource, as it's almost certainly Crown Copyright. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:12, 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. — Mar. 3, '06 [10:24] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Elite Sports Rankings[edit]

I don't believe this exists:[50] PJM 19:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete strong suspicion of WP:NFT, no suspicion at all of notability. Just zis Guy you know? 10:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a total mess, verifiability and the like are in question too. Stifle 23:36, 26 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 was Delete as non-notable with only trivial coverage. (1 == 2)Until 16:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wire jacket[edit]

Wire jacket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This looked interesting but the only refs are fictional, so I looked for some real refs, but most of them seem to track back either to Wikipedia or Fu Manchu. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - So, this device is purely fictional? --clpo13(talk) 21:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I suppose it doesn't really matter if it's real or not. As Orange Mike said below, it's not notable either way, but it could be fixed up. Maybe. --clpo13(talk) 02:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This device is real. Just google it. There is a site dedicated to torture mechanisms and it is there.(i forgot the url) Anyway, this is not a fictional work, it just requires some work to find a source. Undeath (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sure, it's mentioned in a Fu Manchu book or two and one of the Flashman novels, but I can't find anything reliable about it. I was able to fix rat torture, but don't have a lot of hope for this one. --Dhartung | Talk 01:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable torture device (real or fantasy). --Orange Mike | Talk 01:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable real or fictional torture device. Edison (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Fu Manchu or related article and redirect. --Ted-m (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added sources to the article. See if they are good or not. Undeath (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Wasn't this nominated for deletion in 2006? If so, why isnt' this stated as the second nomination? Undeath (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 17:18, 23 March 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. — Mar. 3, '06 [10:26] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Yanjun[edit]

Delete unverifiable, nothing on google San Saba 20:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unverifiable. I also did some searching, and couldn't find any reference to this Yanjun anywhere on the net. The article was originally made by User:210.15.233.220, and more content was subsequently added by this user. I have posted a message regarding this article on 210.15.233.220's talk page and there was no reply. Mushintalk 13:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. Stifle 23:40, 26 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. — Mar. 3, '06 [10:26] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Tara Cherry[edit]

Delete. Non-verified information. At least the party does not exist. Nothing about her can be found on the internet outside Wikipedia. Robert Weemeyer 20:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No references, no Googles, no way. Just zis Guy you know? 10:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. Stifle 09:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax by contributors with form for hoaxing. -- RHaworth 11:28, 28 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 - this puts the grim in Grimsby. -- RHaworth 02:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Johnson (Poet)[edit]

Prodded, deprodded without explanation. Reprodded in violation of proposed deletion guidelines. He's a seventeen year old poet. Lacking some evidence of notability, delete NickelShoe 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-notable. --Hetar 20:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I have tagged this as a speedy. 17 year old poet who lives in Grimsby and who has published his poems on a website. No assertion of notability Capitalistroadster 02:26, 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 02:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hits 4 college[edit]

Delete: It's an ad alright, and not a very subtle one.

Delete: This is nothing more than a blatant advertisement. --Hetar 20:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per Hetar --Mego'brien

Don't Delete: There are far worse entries on wiki, give the kid a break

  • Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the target $100,000, raised $33 says it all. Sure there are worse entries on Wikipedia. And as soon as I find them they will be listed here. Just zis Guy you know? 10:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG. If the anon above would care to point out the worse entries, I would be delighted to AFD them too. Stifle 09:48, 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. If Monicasdude's argument is true, the topic seems notable enough for inclusion, but this article is a poor excuse for a stub, appears to be pasted from somewhere, and hasn't been improved in the last 9 days, so I encourage re-writing it from scratch. — Mar. 3, '06 [10:31] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Ellipsis Magazine[edit]

I originally prodded this as non-notable, author blanked the article, another editor reverted that, Monicasdude removed prod tag. It's been a busy little article but I still don't think it's notable.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep, nominator withdraws with no delete votes. Stifle 09:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clig[edit]

This article was orginally prodded as being spam. It was de-prodded without comment and other than some wikifying nothing new being added. James084 20:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC) My bad. I'll retract. James084 21:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • May as well add my de-prodding diff, which, as well as wikifying, adds "nothing new" apart from a "see also", a couple more external links and a category. It is also linked to from Command line interpreter and looks legit to me. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to be legit, although very short. --Hetar 20:41, 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 06:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Hagon[edit]

This article was orginally prodded with the reason "BME rapper. notable?". The article was de-prodded without comment. James084 20:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clearly I am not deletionist enough... Does every de-prodded article go to AfD? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As non-notable. De-prodded articles don't have to go to Afd - but it's usually a logical next-step. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As non-notable. --Mmeinhart 04:21, 28 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.


James T. Kirk (Mirror)[edit]

The result of the debate was to delete the article.--File Éireann 23:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing of worth here, seems to be product of boredom Duckster 20:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep--User:Obi-WanKenobi2005
  • Delete. --Hetar 20:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You could probably write a paragraph on Mirror Kirk and add it to the main James T. Kirk article. However, this isn't it, and considering the fact Mirror Spock killed Mirror Kirk at the end of the episode (as far as I can recall), I can't even guarantee that what little information here is correct. -- Saberwyn 21:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is not enough information here to merge in to the James T Kirk article proper. The Mirror, Mirror page contains enough information on the character.  (aeropagitica)  21:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or should I say eteleD? Just zis Guy you know? 22:50, 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 No consensus. Deathphoenix 14:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charity navigator[edit]

Looks like Spam. James084 20:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable website for researching charities before donating. Alexa rank of 22,117. Alexa review 5 of 5 stars. A suggested community resource, for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has it on their Consumer Resources page. Also listed by URLwire. Google search shows that many charities prominently list their Charity Navigator rating (seal of approval). —ERcheck @ 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article needs cleanup for NPOV. —ERcheck @ 02:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)... I made a pass at cleanup. —ERcheck @ 04:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per ERcheck. Stifle 09:46, 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. Deathphoenix 14:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Longest Thread Ever[edit]

Vote for Delete. It's esoteric, defunct, uninteresting and has no room for elaboration. ToneLa 20:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as random trivia relating to a web forum with no article on Wikipedia. Does not meet WP:WEB guidelines. --Muchness 20:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete post rewrite; still not notable. --Muchness 02:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleter per nom. Duckster 20:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- rewrote to be about the long-running Usenet meme from the late 1990s. Haikupoet 04:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's still not notable. Random trivia. Stifle 09:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --OneEuropeanHeart 04:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Usenet history is notable.  Grue  18:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree Usenet history is notable. However, this isn't notable even in terms of Usenet History (and I used to read alt.religion.kibology). Stev0 12:34, 27 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. - Bobet 11:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Ferrazano[edit]

"competed in several races" screams non-notable. Did this driver win any races? or do anything that would be deemed notable? Batman2005 20:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-notable. --Hetar 20:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, raced a short time in a mid-level series not notable enough to have its own article at present in English-language Wikipedia, no indication of victories or other significance. Google search gives some hits related to racing, but most are driver databases or DNF (did not finish) results. Barno 21:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is he a professional sportsman? Jcuk 23:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer Jcuk If you had about $500,000 you could buy a stock car and enter a NASCAR event. He apparently ran in some races that provide monetary winnings, but running in "several races" does not make someone a "professional racecar driver." Couple years ago there was a dentist in Indianapolis who put together enough money to buy a car and enter the Indy 500...that doesn't make him notable enough for a bio in my opinion. Seems to be the same kind of instance here. I'd say he's notable if he competes for a whole season or for a couple seasons. Batman2005 01:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, the dentist won the race, the most notable race in the world, isn't that worth a bio article? Mr. Ferrazano doesn't seem to have won even routine races in Italian F2000. Barno 19:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The dentist did not win the race. In fact, Jack Miller, the dentist in question started 17th and finished 20th in 1997. He's still a dentist...about 3 miles from where my parents live in Indianapolis. So, look through this list List of Indianapolis 500 winners and tell me which one of them from the past 30 years that won the race is a dentist in Southeast Indianapolis by day, and an Indy Car driver on the weekends. Thanks. Nice try though. Batman2005 19:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He doesn't seem notable enough for mine after two or three races. Most of his Googles are as a team manager or other support roles. Capitalistroadster 02:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete usually I want to keep the articles for all professional racers, but this guy has no established notability. In my opinion, Jack Miller would meet notability criteria as the Indy 500 is one of the biggest races in the world and he had a major corporate sponsor (Crest). However, Ferrazano has not participated in any races that are even on the radar on a worldwide scale, let alone won any of them. Also, if you had a $500000 NASCAR you'd embarass yourself in NEXTEL cup and definitely wouldn't qualify.-Drdisque 18:13, 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 06:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karel Dolejsi[edit]

non-notable biography, article contains one sentence and does not assert what this person did to become notable. Simply running in some races isn't notable. Batman2005 20:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-notable. --Hetar 20:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is this guy but there's practically no biographic info about him available. The stub would sit here for years, if it gets ever updated. IMHO it is better to get rid of it. If kept move to Karel Dolejší. Pavel Vozenilek 22:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as devoid of context and verifiability. I'm open to change if someone can expand the article beyond a substub and show notability. Stifle 09:44, 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. Deathphoenix 14:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Simoes[edit]

"competed in one race in 2001." Another non-notable racecar driver stub created by the same user. Batman2005 20:48, 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. Deathphoenix 14:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bundamba skatepark[edit]

I removed prod tag to allow for a greater consensus, as some may find this place notable and some may find it to be a possible merge or redirect. No vote for now. youngamerican (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are six or seven articles in the skatepark category. --Lockley 23:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, that's not an indication that any of them belong here. Not notable. - Randwicked Alex B 01:22, 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 keep. Shanel 22:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobot Adrenaline[edit]

This was marked for speedy deletion as non-notable band. However this has been disputed on its talk page, so AfD is the apropriate avenue. no vote. Thryduulf 21:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I don't see any reason to delete this. --Hetar 21:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Previous votes and comments reposted from: Talk:Bobot Adrenaline. 'COMMENT - Jaxal1 had added this same request for speedy deletion on Buck (band) and removed it within the same hour due to notability of band and band's accomplishments. After Buck (band) disbanded the guitarist started Bobot Adrenaline.' Madangry 21:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, I really wanted to vote keep but I don't see them meeting WP:MUSIC. Monkeyman(talk) 23:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • COMMENT-The band's discography from inception until present are mostly releases which also contain their own articles on Wiki and have been deemed as being notable (some had BEEN proposed for deletion but kept by administrators as notable). The band was featured on the most recent Tony Hawk video game as listed on the Wiki article for said game, and the new and not yet released album was produced by the current Guns N Roses bassist. The band might not meet the criteria of mainstream music award winnings or billboard charts, but I do believe these things make it very notable. Madangry 01:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, as per Madangry. --G VOLTT 01:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT- Comments by R paraphrased from discussion on the WP:Music talk page: The WP:MUSIC criteria do not mention anywhere that the bands must be national in scope. Many local bands have in fact released albums (crit#3), have been featured in magazines (crit#4) or indeed are among the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (crit #6). Indeed the point of the criteria is to weed out the examples cited such as teenage garage bands, etc. and not in any way those local bands that have been playing for years, have been featured in local music media, and have locally-successful records. Madangry 02:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. Having a myspace page generally implies non-notability. Stifle 09:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT-Myspace is retarded, true. But there are notable as well as non-notable bands on that website. Not a very good rule of thumb. Also please read current discussion on [WP: MUSIC] Madangry 16:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Added discography Madangry 20:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT- Upon further review of the WP:Music, this band does meet:
    • Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable (Buck (band));
    • Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. (By being included in the 'Los Angeles' version of the newest Tony Hawk game as a representative of current LA sounds and having a member from the band Buck who dominated the pop scene in late 90s Los Angeles). And all info is verifiable. Madangry 20:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Madangry as per myself previously on the Japanther AfD. --Howrealisreal 01:09, 28 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 re-posting of deleted content. Mailer Diablo 02:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Underground[edit]

Speedy Delete - Was Speedied and resposted, but {{db-repost}} was removed. Jaxal1 21:09, 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. Shanel 06:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Chicken[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Nn neologism/nonsense/hoax/cruft. Author removed speedy tag, added "holdon" tag but never gave a reason. Mangojuice 21:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only minor Ghits that actually reference this as an activity and it is documented as more of a gross out game. Claim that it "...serves as a litmus test towards the greater acceptance and acknowledgement of homosexuality among young males in the wake of the raised profile of gay-themed content in the mainstream American media..." is not sourced and not WP:V. I don't think it is necessarily speedy material, but it seems to fall short of notability on pretty much every level, and seems to violate WP:NFT.--Isotope23 21:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This This is legit, and has started to gain widespread attention as part of comedian Brian Posehn's act which he used in the COMEDIANS OF COMEDY special. Brian Posehn and the Comedians of Comedy already have listings:

See: Brian Posehn, Comedians of Comedy Posted by --RumpshakerNetwork 01:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above is the first Wikipedia edit from RumpshakerNetwork (talk • contribs)
    • Comment if this is the case, "Gay Chicken" still does not deserve its own entry. However, that info may be worth adding to the Brian Posehn page. I tried to verify this and came up with a few ambiguous references from tv.com, tvrage, and tv tome and like sites. Mangojuice 20:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable. --Hetar 22:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Not sure, but I think this was a gag between two male characters on a sitcom (Scrubs, maybe?). Otherwise NN. Fan1967 00:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this some sort of a hoax. this cannot possibly be article material. Crzrussian 01:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This This is a real thing. This was a real game (unfortunately) among my fraternity friends. Only sometimes did it get the name used here. The phenomenon is much more widespread than you might suppose. i would vote to keep this and watch it to see how it develops. 23 February 2006—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.186.6.18 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete. Non-notable game. — TheKMantalk 01:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This This is notable and a relevant topic. Cross-referenced to several other topics, and has over 8 million hits on Google, and has widespread appeal and acceptability. There is no material evidence that this is a topic that should not be included here. 23 February 2006—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.17.34.55 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete as complete bollocks. Around 300 Googles, mostly about something else entirely. Just zis Guy you know? 10:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pointless rubbish. Keresaspa 14:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This Well, I've heard of this game. And I saw some google hits on it, from people who were completely unrelated to one another, which means that knowledge of this game has spread beyond one social circle. I think these folks could stand to flesh out their article, but that doesn't mean that it should be deleted. 23 February 2006—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.24.162 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep This It appears that the author is consolidating the definition. The title maybe suggestive of WP:BALLS but there is enough proof thus far of a persistent social phenomemon. 64.186.163.254 09:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the preceding comment appeard to be signed by a registered user, but was added by User:64.186.163.254, so I have changed the signature. Mangojuice 18:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wow somebody really is trying to do some ballot-stuffing here. this is non-notable.Crzrussian 21:23, 27 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 02:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirsky's Worst of the Web[edit]

  • Delete nn and vanity. Has no sources what so ever. Jersey Devil 21:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mirsky's was one of the early highlights of the web. If it doesn't seem original to you... well, go ahead, name three precursors. Mirsky was reviewing the Web before Jorn Barger started the weblog concept. Zompist 21:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what does that show about web history? According to your user page, you were eight years old when Mirsky created his page. You don't know what was notable then.Zompist 23:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be nice and assume WP:FAITH. That said... Mirsky predates the first commercial incarnation of Google by 3-4 years. There was a time before search engines... Heck, there was a time before web browsers, when real men used Archie and Gopher and liked it. I even used hosts.txt before DNS was universal with the 1987 RFCs... Georgewilliamherbert 23:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like Zompist said, Mirsky was a pioneer. I recall even seeing an interview with him on television, which in 1996 was a big deal for an internet figure. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 22:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe Mirsky started the whole Worst of the Web phenomenon singlehandedly. This isn't a great article, obviously, since someone who never heard of him doesn't appreciate Mirsky's place in Internet history...which means it should be expanded, not deleted. --Spinn 23:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but article needs improvement. Monkeyman(talk) 23:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definitely a pioneer website. TheRealFennShysa 23:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The article does not have any sources or references, and does not satisfy the content-guiding verifiability policy. Without adequate sources this article is not encyclopedic. It's significance is totally irrelevant. Sliggy 23:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see references have been added to the article since its nomination, so I'll change to no vote. Sliggy 23:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable without question. A 'net first. Try doing more research than just counting Yahoo hits, JD. I tell ya, kids today...--Notmydesk 00:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What they said. One of the first widely known websites. rodii 02:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep, per all of the above and my own experience of early WWW popularization. Kestenbaum 18:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - based on some of the AfD activity I've seen, I think that WP:WEB needs to have an added notability criteria that gives weight to sites dating from the early history of the Web, since some people don't seem to be aware that the Web has a history. KWH 02:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I agree completely, but what period would you/should we consider to be the "early history" of the Web? Kestenbaum 04:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I personally consider "early web" to be any site that was up before August 9, 1995 (the date of Netscape's IPO, the start of the "dotcom years"). Stev0 05:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what it's worth, there's a Wikiproject starting up to improve standards for notability of early websites at Wikipedia:WikiProject Early Web History. Your suggestion of Netscape's IPO date is one of the ones they have identified as potentially a good criterion. Georgewilliamherbert 22:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - actually, the Useless Pages (does anybody here remember that one)? were around before Mirsky started his site, but Mirsky has definitely made his mark on the Web. Stev0 03:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of above. --James 22:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you clarify what "because of above" means? Except for the nom, yours is the only delete vote standing, and the nom's claims are either disputed (nn), unsubstantiated (vanity) or wrong (no sources). · rodii · 22:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I meant nn because the stuff about mirsky's site can be put onto Mirsky's page. I also agree with the nom. --James 23:05, 27 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 02:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MERMIG[edit]

Spammy-sounding article for software with a couple of hundred Googles. No evidence of notability, user base, uniqueness or other importance. Just zis Guy you know? 21:51, 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, or Mega-delete, if you prefer. Deathphoenix 14:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Megapeople[edit]

Unsourced, non-notable term, possibly original research. Yuje 22:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mega delete, per nom. PJM 22:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an interesting neologism, seems to be used to identify populations as evangelical targets, but isn't in wide enough use. --Lockley 23:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Megadelete per WP:NEO, WP:NOR, etc. Stifle 09:41, 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 to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 02:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Croquet project[edit]

Rather spammy article for a produt for which most Googles appear to be press releases, mirrors, add-it-yourself review sites and the like. Lots of information about what it's intended to be and so on, but nothing about market share, significance, installed base, notable users and so on. Some evidence of collaborators at various universities, but not that it is genuinely significant (ocmpares itself to Project Looking Glass but is it really comparable?). Happy to be proved wrong, of course. Just zis Guy you know? 22:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Looks notable, could be expanded upon with citations, of course. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not existing yet. "The Croquet Project is an effort to develop an open source collaborative media authoring and publication technology". The article would be welcome if the project was finished and userbase was significant. Monkeyman(talk) 23:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks notable only with big promises and use of buzzwords. Nothing to deliver now. Wait until then. Pavel Vozenilek 22:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the name of Alan Kay has significance the real notability will be in the result and it is not yet here. Pavel Vozenilek 22:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Croquet is a research project -- market share & installed base requirements are a bit premature :) But it is Real Software that works Right Now -- you can download it from opencroquet.org. The folk who work on it tend to favor writing code rather than wiki articles, but it's definitely not Duke Nukem Forever.... or Looking Glass for that matter. It's a 3-D multiuser environment which scales without central servers, and in which every 'object' is programmable. I invite you to try it before dismissing it.
  • Delete per WP:VSCA. Stifle 09:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Seems to be the only Free software in this area, and I know I've see articles on it in print somewhere. --maru (talk) contribs 03:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is a significant research project that, although in its infancy, is important in enough circles that it deserves an entry. It is not 'vaporware' (you can download it and try it now). Honestly, I was surprised to see it marked for deletion.
  • Keep: This is a major project (I've downloaded it - 135MB!) just about to release 1.0. It has been discussed at several conferences (more scheduled) and Alan Kay is closely associated with it. This isn't some tiny, obscure Sourceforge project. Sure, it's in an early stage, but IMHO it's worthy of Wikipedia. Planned capabilities go far beyond LookingGlass and include a full 3D collaborative environment with a physics engine. Being based on SmallTalk, it has possibilities unrealizable with Java. I suggest you review the screenshot presentation on the website. (I disagree with almost every reason that the OP gives for deletion. While proprietary vaporware is not worthy of inclusion, it's a different story for FOSS. The presence of a Wikipedia article may help drive development.)--Kbk 21:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind for free software, usually release 1.0 is far more meaningful than for commercial software. I mean, look at WINE- their stuff works great, is as stable as hell, and they are still "beta". GNU Emacs is something like 20 years old and barely at version 2 (by the original conventional numbering). --maru (talk) contribs 20:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A look through the key players on this major project will show this is not vaporware. The vast majority of it is up and running today. The very spirit of collaboration on which Wikipedia thrives is at the heart of Croquet.


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix 14:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VIOS[edit]

"Visual Internet Operating System" scores 22 Google hits. Seems to be part of a cluster of articles around the Croquet project and its people. Just zis Guy you know? 22:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as part of a non-notable walled garden. Has anyone mentioned LBU yet? Stifle 09:40, 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. Deathphoenix 14:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Raab[edit]

One of a series of articles created wihtin 24h to support the Croquet project article, no evidence of meeting WP:BLP. Just zis Guy you know? 22:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: 54 hits on Google scholar. The current stub is substandard, with even birthdate missing. His German bio is here. No vote (although I was tempted to delete). Pavel Vozenilek 22:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
English bio + photo on [53]. Pavel Vozenilek 22:31, 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 02:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Architected Rapid Application Development[edit]

Delete: advert Pol098 22:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as ad. "a term coined in 2004 by Michael Blechar of Gartner to describe an approach to software development which involves using abstract design patterns and frameworks to automate the task of generating the high-level language code required to implement commercial software applications ... you just can't make this stuff up. Monkeyman(talk) 23:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Can't vote again) I have chanced upon two adverts today (Career Development Technology, Architected Rapid Application Development), each purporting to describe a concept, but clearly adverts. Nobody else seems to have picked them up, though they weren't fresh-minted new. Is this a worrying trend? Pol098 23:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a term clearly not in widespread use. Just zis Guy you know? 10:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG. Pavel Vozenilek 22:23, 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 - duplicate of Conservative Youth Action Association which has been moved to user:OliverGlass. -- RHaworth 23:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CYAA[edit]

Vanispamcruftisement of a non-notable club; I marked it as a db-club but the author (and the club's founder) objects. "Conservative Youth Action Association" gets 0 Google hits; Alexa has never heard of "cyaa.ca". Also unverifiable and original research. Melchoir 22:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection seems irrelevant. Speedy Delete as A7. Fightindaman 22:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First you get the recognition, then you get the article. Monkeyman(talk) 23:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth encouraging to have youth more actively involved. (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 keep. Mailer Diablo 16:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POPmail[edit]

Hmmm. Alleged to be instrumental in moving higher education away from terminal based user interfaces and into a client-server metaphor. I'm having some difficulty verifying that claim. It would be more convincing if it were not one of a cluster of articles all created on the same day around a single software project and its people. I'd be much less sceptical if this reportedly significant former HyperCard stack had been documented rather earlier. Just zis Guy you know? 22:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do a couple google searches of the old usenet archives for POPmail or "POPmail hypercard":[54][55] then do a google search of the usenet archives over the same time period for "Eudora":[56]17:57, 22 February 2006 Another Cat
  • Comment: The actual stack/program is available on this page, if anyone's interested. --Aaron 00:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to believe you, but as any old-time Mac user knows, the world and his wife developed HyperCard stacks. Can you point me to some evidence of it being widespread back in the day? That was what I was looking for yesterday without much success. Just zis Guy you know? 09:59, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon McLon[edit]

Unverified, uncited, unsourced. Fails to prove notability in any way. The phrase "Simon McLon" gets very few Google hits, most of which are wikipedia clones of this article. --DDG 22:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn. Monkeyman(talk) 22:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He wore a KKK outfit to compton high? As per nom. Bobby1011 23:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • McDelete as nonsense. I've said it before, but wikipedia should add "Delete as Huge Tool" to the criteria for deletion. Batman2005 06:55, 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 deleted by Friday presumably as nonsense page. Capitalistroadster 22:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Philosopher[edit]

Looks to be completely made up by author as part of a vanity page. Delete. Fightindaman 22:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was speedied as I was doing this. Somebody should close this. Fightindaman 22:35, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramius Corporation[edit]

A couple of hundred Google hits for "Ramius Corporation", article contains no claim of notability. Just zis Guy you know? 22:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Satisfies WP:CORP "multiple non-trivial published works". Also Sun partner[57]. Monkeyman(talk) 23:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where are those "multiple non-trivial published words" documented? And anybody who uses Sun products can apply to be a Sun partner, it doesn't make them notable in and of itself. Delete as per nom. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable as per Zoe. Stifle 09:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zoe. This is yet another generic software/services company. Mindmatrix 15:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Monkeyman. Ardenn 16:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Monkeyman has still not answered my question as to how his criterion applies. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:17, 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 02:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPod hacks (second nomination)[edit]

This page is nothing but links, mostly to commercial sites. This is what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep - This page is an important resource. Please look at under the heading Different Prespective under the discussion page for IPod hacks. In it I explain why the current page is necessary, and how the purely commercial links are being weeded out. -FromACanteen
I looked at that. Please review what Wikipedia is WP:NOT...one of those is a link repository. The whole reason it was saved the first time was on the condition that it would improve the content. Adding more links is not adding content. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way we can set it as an archive? Then the data would remain while users could draft a new, more WP friendly page? -FromACanteen


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Cleared as filed. 00:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PabloDraw[edit]

Nearly 200 unique Googles and still I don't see it as notable? My standards must be too high. Or not. Just zis Guy you know? 22:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not-notable. Bobby1011 23:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Monkeyman(talk) 23:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or failing that, Merge and Redirect to ANSI art. Wikipedia scores rather poorly on that topic as a whole, which isn't surprising as it predates the Internet boom. Further, the article claims clearly why it is notable software in its own field. I also checked Wikipedia:Notability (software): "The bound of 5000 users is only one of the criteria for notability, and is intended for software of general use (e.g., a text editor); notability of specialized software is better established by the other criteria." squell 03:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. recommending this for deletion smells suspiciously of early 90's ansi rivalries. as squell says, at worst this should be merged and redirected to ANSI art. --G0zer 03:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix 15:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Group-Office[edit]

Tagged {notabaility} by Perfecto somke weeks ago, issue not addressed. No evidence of significance. Just zis Guy you know? 22:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not notable. Bobby1011 23:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Monkeyman(talk) 23:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 09:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is somewhat specialized software & there are over 1000 forum members & over 1000 downloads. This is especially significant because it is a collaborative webapp (I think 5 users per webapp deployment would be somewhat conservative). I therefore think it meets the proposed WP:SOFTWARE.--Karnesky 01:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created the page originally. It was my first Wikipedia page ever, so my apologies if it is not correctly created or tagged. I believe this page should be kept. Though not a huge project, it should be documented. SourceForge.net shows that the Group Office project is getting a decent number of downloads per day, and a good big of fly by traffic to their project page. Cadethacker 21:15, 27 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 06:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasma[edit]

Tally:9 delete, 0 keep, 0 other.'

Looks like original research. I've listed it here in case anyone has any objection to deletion for any reason. File Éireann 22:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn you, you edit conflicted me while I was putting it up for speedy! Oh well, I'll give it a Strong Delete ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the votes from anonymous users down below for cleanliness: anonymous users are not counted in Wikipedia votes, but their comments should not be deleted either. It should be noted that all 3 IP's appear to be sockpuppets: 100% of their edits are to either Sarcasma, or this page. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikpedia Deletion policy does not say that anon comments are "ineligble" nor is any tally relevant, because the decision is made by rough consensus, not by a tallying of votes. Moving things around like this is unnecessarily divisive and seems to stem only from your expressed bias against anonymous editors. Fightindaman 16:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Wikipedia Deletion policy doesn't. but Why register? does. To whit you must register to get: "The right to be heard in votes and elections."

As for tallies: Why do we have them on RFA's then? they're only decided by the closing 'crat's decision on whether there is a consensus, not a vote tally. But we do them anyway. Are you honestly going to tell me in this case that these 3 IP's appear to be anything other than sockpuppets trying to screw with the vote?⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the way things are done on AfD. The closing admin handles the determination of which comments count towards the final decision. By common practice anon votes are left in place. If you disagree with the practice, you ought to seek to develop a consensus for a change. Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion is probably a good place to do that. NoIdeaNick 21:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if you'll notice, I'm not deleting the obviously sockpuppet/meatpuppetted comments, merely moving them to a different section. It's very clear that according to WP:WHY that anon's are not allowed to vote.

But this is AfD not the older VfD. So it's not a vote it's a discussion. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon votes

  • I emplore you not to delete this useful article. This is a legitimate article regarding a powerful grammatical tool. The world must know about the wonder that is the sarcasma. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.125.89.86 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep. Looks like a legitimate punctuation use description to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.169.34.11 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep. Useful and apt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.178.31.226 (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. There was also a suggestion that the page be recreated as a redirect to The Luniz. I find no consensus on that decision and leave that to ordinary discussion on the respective Talk pages. Rossami (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Five on it[edit]

Surely we don't have to have horrid articles like this in Wikipedia. Besides, its not notable File Éireann 23:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete wiki is not an urban dictionary.Bobby1011 23:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable. If it belongs anywhere on Wikipedia at all, it's in a section of another article. --Hetar 23:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bobby1011 Hbackman 23:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. --Lockley 23:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Luniz as a reasonable search query for their biggest hit. MLA 09:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There exists an entry for Fifi (masturbation) which is surely more obscure and crude! Hip-hop 10.05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The Luniz as per MLA. Proto||type 11:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then recreate as a redirect per MLA; we don't need anyone reverting to this standard of junk either. Stifle 09:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

style="text-decoration:none">type]] 11:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: if it belongs anywhere, surely it's a dictionary, not encyclopedia. Pol098 14:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Luniz - this does not even mean masturbation, it has to do with marijuana. Skhatri2005 01:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Necroevil[edit]

Delete. Does not meet criteria at WP:BAND, and non-notable ("about 90" hits on Google). Hbackman 23:30, 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. The votes of the anonymous and suspiciously new users were discounted due to our persistent history of users attempting to bias our decision-making through the use of sockpuppets. Rossami (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Vera[edit]

A musician with "massive success" but no entries on allmusic or artistdirect; Zero Google hits for "Kharisma Records"; Only five hits for '"alex vera" "keep it real"', and the top one is a myspace page. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as non-notable musician. This page is most likely part of the "massive music campaign" mentioned on his recently-launched website. Fightindaman 00:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought about speedying it, but the "massive success" made me list it here. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A quick look at his website makes it clear that this was made up in an attempt to sound notable. It says that he has just released a demo which he is using to try to get a record deal, not a massive success by any means. Fightindaman 00:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Though there's quite a few results in a Google search for "Alex Vera," the only relevant ones are for his own website and MySpace. Likely to simply be self-promotion. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it fails WP:MUSIC. Bobby1011 00:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not delete- per the notability defintion 'Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above.' His co-writing with Essra Mohawk makes him qualify for non-deletion. Contact her at [email protected] to verify if you must. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.34.177.39 (talk • contribs) .
    • Don't delete: I agree with the above comment. Also I know he has had a song called 'Holiday' on the Winter Music Conference 2005 Compilation CD. Site www.wintermusicconference.com. Per above definitions from link mentioned by Bobby1011, Has been prominently featured in any major music media. He's been published, I say keep the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.196.33.3 (talk • contribs) .
      • A track on a minor compilation CD which you have to pay to get on is not really "featured in major music media." Not to mention, the website does not list the artists on the CD, so it cannot even be verified that he is on it. In addition, the contributions with Essra Mohawk are also unverifiable (he doesn't even mention them on his site). What is verifiable (if we treat his site as a reputable source) is that he's putting out a demo in hopes of landing a record deal. This fails the criteria at WP:MUSIC as already mentioned. Fightindaman 05:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • He mentions it in the link entitled 'career' that he has collaborated with Essra Mohawk.
  • Delete per numerous excellent reasons above. Just zis Guy you know? 10:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete why bother deleting when this will probably be added back in here within the year if this guy's popularity increases? Jason777 13:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this qualifies as he has the notability by ONE of the criteria listed at WP:MUSIC 'Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above.' His co-writing with Essra Mohawk is the only thing he needs as the definition at WP:MUSICsimply states needs one requirement. Keep. Resonancebliss 17:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the myspace test. Stifle 09:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep you're wrong. If you read the MySpace test page myspace test it says: 'most notable concepts, people, bands, etc. at least own their own domain.' He does own his own domain it's www.alexvera.com. The MySpace rule applies only if MySpace is his ONLY domain, in this case it's an additional domain and not his only one. Madonna has a MySpace page too, www.myspace.com/madonna along with Marcos Hernandez www.myspace.com/marcoshernandez and Gorillaz www.myspace.com/gorillaz. Does this make them ineligible too? Read before you answer and I say keep the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crazyeights (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment: Having a myspace in itself is not a disqualification to being notable. But when you have a myspace and a new domain name which isn't finished yet, this begins to cast some doubts. Also let it be known that this is Crazyeights first and (as of now) only edit to Wikipedia. Fightindaman 16:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This may be my first edit to Wikipedia but that should have no bearing over my knowledge and input to this matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crazyeights (talk • contribs) .

Furthermore let the record show that www.alexvera.com is NOT a new domain name as you mention, per www.godaddy.com it was created on January 16, 2001. Being that the domain name was registered more than 5 years ago does not make it a new domain name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crazyeights (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 No consensus. Even discounting the invalid vote, it is a 50-50 split between deleting and keeping (slight edge to delete). Note that you don't need an AfD to determine a merge vs. keep. Deathphoenix 15:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MetroNation[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Delete as non-notable; if not deleted it should be tagged with for advert. I don't see a reason why every fan club should have its own article. Isopropyl 23:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to lack on notability. Bobby1011 00:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Look at Category:Major League Soccer fan clubs. If this article is deleted, so should all others in that category. Perhaps all of them can be merged onto one page? DR31 (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete This is a legitimate article about a not-for-profit incorporated organization. You shouldn't try to delete it simply because you don't happen to care for its focus. Irishapple21 23:11 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: above voter is the original author of the article. Isopropyl 04:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just becuase your anti-soccer doesn't mean things should deleted... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.251.221.247 (talk • contribs) .

Why the hell would this be deleted? This may be a niche topic, but it is a topic that AMerican soccer fans care about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.90.51.173 (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete until they can add a few zeros on their 81 unique Googles. And not by using Wikipedia, either. Just zis Guy you know? 10:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete One of Wikipedia's purposes is to provide a space for all information, both prominent and otherwise. It is irresponsible to judge the value of any article relative to that of others; they all deserve a place on Wikipedia. 220.217.23.111 15:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOT is clear. There is no practical limit to the scope of Wikipedia. It does mention that advertisements don't belong, and the advertising aspect of this page is debatable, but that can be remedied via NPOV. You are advocating, however, the outright deletion and ban of the information relating to MetroNation. I doubt very much that your motives have anything to do with the integrity of Wikipedia.220.217.23.111 17:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It- This is a legit group that deserves its own recognition you soccer hating bastards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.193.79.35 (talk • contribs) .

Keep Supporter groups are part of soccer culture. There are articles for supporter's groups outside the US. As this relates to soccer in the US (considered by some as being on the periphery of American sports), a case could be made that this nomination is a good example of systemic bias. --Elliskev 17:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A great argument for an article on soccer supporters groups! A bad argument for an article on a single group with no apparent claim to notability. Oh, and some of us think football is played with a round ball, and what the Americans do with a rugger ball is a complete mystery. Systemic bias? Only against the trivial. Just zis Guy you know? 18:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what you are saying is that you aren't opposed to soccer in general (which is the American name for the sport coined by a British student at Oxford in the 1880s and shortened from "Association Football"), but instead to the American involvement in soccer because you are offended by our interest in "your" sport. Well, this attempt at bias shouldn't be tolerated. If you delete MLS supporters groups, you should also erase every listing for a supporters group for every other league in the world. Here are listings for supporters groups from just a few countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Canaries, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Clouds, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_in_Luton, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poskoci, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartan_Army, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_04, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasz_KS, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowcy_Hordy_Edwarda. I could list hundreds of others on Wikipedia if necessary, but I think you get the point. MetroNation is as legitimate an organization as any other listed by Wikipedia; Its members have raised thousands of dollars for Hurricane Katrina relief funds, cancer and multiple sclerosis treatment and the promotion of youth soccer in the United States through the US Soccer Federation's PassBack Program. Since both precedence and Wikipedia's NOT policy both support its continued existence, there is no reason for MetroNation's entry to be deleted. Irishapple21 13:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.228.35.62 (talk • contribs) .
    (The preceding comment was submitted by an anonymous IP, likely because Irishapple21 did not sign in. — Rebelguys2 talk 12:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Obviously a supporters group for the MetroStars is going to seem/be somewhat trivial to somebody in the UK (Reading fan?). What is the standard of notability for a suppoter group? --Elliskev 18:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete I'm really surprised that this is even up for deletion. Soccer supporter groups are known throughout the world, MetroNation is one of them, it's new, but so what? I agree with Ellis about systemic bias on this issue.--Milicz 17:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a soccer fan (DC United), but not a supporter's group memeber, I do think that the supporter's groups play a role in soccer culture around the world, and an emerging role in the United States. Consider the article on tifo. Yes, MetroNation is a smaller group right now, but given the somewhat strange history of the Empire Supporter's Club, there is almost enough material for an article there alone. That being said, incorporating supporter's groups content into the club pages seems a reasonable measure until such a time as the amount of unique NPOV content with a utility seperate to that of the team is sufficient to support a unique article. --ZoomZip 18:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can agree with the case to merge. --Elliskev 18:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a quick addendum, I would be even more comfortable with a vote to Keep if the article were more specific in terms of what MetroNation has done and what recognition it has achieved, in accordance with Wikipedia's long-standing views on notability. I think there's the seeds of material there, but it has not been stated in a way that makes the case easy to make. For instance, Barra Brava notes the recognition it received when Christian Gomez joined them in the stands at Giants Stadium. For someone reading an article on that event, which received play in multiple media settings, they might well turn to WP in order to determine what on god's green earth a "Barra Brava" was. The MetroNation article, if it could provide examples of instances in which it was notable or viewable, could then make a case against deletion on notability grounds much easier to make. --ZoomZip 19:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable Please see here for news release on the official MetroStars site regarding the group. MLS seems to know about them... --Elliskev 22:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That (and the rewrite) helps me. Removing "tenative" from my "keep" comment --ZoomZip 22:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep excellent article, why the hell would anyone want to delete it?  Grue  18:59, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_22&oldid=1116878835"