Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 24 February 26 >

Purge server cache

February 25[edit]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --cesarb 22:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kaczyzm[edit]

Rant Denni☯ 23:30, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete gkhan 23:31, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy nonsense --Xcali 23:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete rant. NeoJustin 00:37, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete agreed. UkPaolo 16:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy away, patent nonsense Jdcooper 19:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaczyzm (Second nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Svelglistigor, Svelglistigor (disambiguation), and Svelglistigor (battleship)[edit]

Hoax, neither Google nor Wikipedia:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board have heard of this, I've tried searching for every possible misspelling of the word I could come up with, but with no result. At best it could be someone's own English translation of the Swedish name, in that case a real article probably already exists. Obli (Talk)? 23:59, 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 00:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rawlinson[edit]

(a)not notable, (b) possibly created by self (user PaulieRaw) Elf | Talk 00:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed. Vanity page, non notable bio. --Jay(Reply) 00:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Royal Blue T/C 00:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Autobiography, non-notable, vanity. Camillus (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. —ERcheck @ 01:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: likely vanity, does not assert notability. Pagrashtak 02:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 03:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO and WP:V; also remove any "advertising" inserted by him (i.e., at Dog behaviourist). --Kinu t/c 07:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This page is actually a repost of deleted material, and should have been tagged with db-repost. Isopropyl 07:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isopropyl. --Cymsdale 11:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Isopropyl. --AySz88^-^ 15:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete if Isopropyl is right (I didn't see anything in Special:Log&type=delete&page=Paul Rawlinson, though). Otherwise, userfy & delete --Karnesky 16:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per no, could be self article American Patriot 1776 18:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont delete The article compliments Dog behaviourist article, Operant Conditioning and training techniques. The reason Paul Rawlinson is used above any other behaviourist is purely arbitarty, the article is desmonstrative of a modern behaviourist and reflects and compliments the Dog behaviourist article by allowing the reader access to an increased level of information. I would not have been able with any conviction to write about other behaviourists as many are quite secretive in regards to their work. However, Stan Rawlinson is well published I do have information on him and if you would prefer it I will change this page to reflect him as he is widley published in the dog and sporting press. isopropyl is not correct this a first post. PS the shorthand area is heavily biased to the negative. Paulieraw 10:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Please read the above-cited WP:BIO and WP:V to see Wikipedia's policies. Any arguments for including an article on a person would need to meet these criteria. Elf | Talk 20:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy, WP:BIO. Stifle 13:57, 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 Speedy deleted. -- Longhair 03:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Sailors[edit]

  • Delete, content does not match with title Xorkl000 00:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Another one in the Test Article file. --Jay(Reply) 00:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G2 Royal Blue T/C 00:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article appears to be about Brett Beyer who has had some success in Masters sailing competitions including world championships. [1] If it was in an open class or Olympics, that would make him notable enough for an article although under Brett Beyer rather than this. However, as it is a Masters championship, it doesn't quite meet WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 00:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Speedy delete as test page. Tagged. --SYCTHOStalk 01:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, test page. PJM 03:17, 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 TRANSWIKI and DELETE. -Splashtalk 19:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ayak[edit]

definition of an obscure Inuit word--unclear why page exists! Hynca-Hooley 00:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. --Jay(Reply) 00:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-English dicdef. Royal Blue T/C 00:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 02:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef. You definitely need to look at the history to understand what's going on here. Ayak used to redirect to AYAK which now redirects to Ku Klux Klan--because AYAK supposedly stood for "Are you a Klansman?". Then someone fixed the double-redirect and someone else decided to unlink to the KKK and... basically it's kind of a collaborative glitch, I think. · rodii · 04:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ku Klux Klan. Pepsidrinka 05:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wiktionary. That is the place for definitions. --Cymsdale 12:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of random Inuit words!? · rodii · 14:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of all words, more or less. --Tone 14:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we share what a inuit word is, why do we have to redirect to the KKK. looks racest and selective to share KKK info and not inuit words. its AYAK an obsure KKK meaning. Wikipedia should not have anything on this page rather then redirect to the KKK.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.71.92 (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 speedy delete --SYCTHOStalk 03:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rent-a-shills[edit]

Wikipedia:Etiquette failure — THOR =/\= 00:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unencyclopedic. Royal Blue T/C 00:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopædic.  (aeropagitica)  00:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete --Jay(Reply) 00:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, per above. Kuru talk 01:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as attack page. (Note: R. Koenig, the author of this page, has implicitly accused me of being such a thing as well.) --Allen 02:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, per above. Tagged. PJM 02:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as blatant attack page. I have warned the creator of this article. --SYCTHOStalk 03:03, 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 speedy redirect. --SYCTHOStalk 03:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Graham[edit]

A google search for "Phillip Graham" + cellist revealed 3 hits...none relevant. Claims to notability in article but provides no source. Possible vandal and possible self-biography. POssibly has been deleted before (he claims this in the article) Joelito 00:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has been redirected to Phil Graham. I believe the redirect is the best solution. NoIdeaNick 00:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed per above. Redirect is fine as is. --Jay(Reply) 00:49, 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 00:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suave patria[edit]

The article (in Spanish) doesn't seem encyclopedic. Please see the Babel fish translation. King of Hearts | (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A poem or lyric without context or discussion of notability. Unencyclopædic.  (aeropagitica)  00:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Articles written into an ENGLISH encyclopedia should be in English to begin with. --Jay(Reply) 00:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, absent any other contextual clues. Kuru talk 01:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a poem, it does not belong in Wikipedia. That it is not in English would not be a big problem -- there's the translation desk for articles written in foreign languages (that may also be transwikied). Kusma (討論) 02:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete smoothly, not encyclopedic. Pagrashtak 02:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a poem text would not normally be an encyclopedia article. By the way, the poem was written by Ramón López Velarde [2]. As a remote second choice, redirect to him. --Metropolitan90 04:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn, and this is English Wikipedia. --Terence Ong 06:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted above this being an English encyclopædia is not relevant, the article could easily be translated. Jcuk 10:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kusma. --Cymsdale 12:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above Computerjoe 22:17, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 00:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Rock in the 21st Century[edit]

Completely unsourced, and a badly-formatted title. We have an article on progressive rock and if that gets too big, it would be logical to split out subarticles such as history of progressive rock and origins of progressive rock. If an article on progressive rock in the 21st century is ever needed, it should grow organically out of a normal article, like as a subarticle of history of progressive rock. It's silly to have an article like this because 94% of the 21st century has not yet occurred. With all that said, I would have just merged it elsewhere except that there's nothing to merge because this is an unsourced list of albums and stuff that somebody decided was important -- hence, nothing to merge, and, even if an article on this topic was relevant, everything here would have to be removed because it is unsourced and opinionated, not to mention badly formatted and improperly titled (should be progressive rock in the 21st century, theoretically, but since this is more of a timeline than an article, it would be timeline of progressive rock in the 21st century). Tuf-Kat 23:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • I have changed the formatting of the entry. You are correct that the title should be changed. Because the subject of progressive rock is very broad, I chose to tackle recent events because most of those are easily verifiable. I did not realize EVERYTHING, even fairly obvious items, needed to be verified. There are several sub-articles already on the "progressive rock" entry including lists which are full of opinion and debate. I think a timeline of progressive rock (even one that, for now, is just covering events and beyond) is valuable. --Flonkus 02:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Flonkus 20 February 2006 (entry edited by Flonkus)[reply]
  • I have sourced the article and tried to conform to a timeline format. I did some research and discovered several other musical genres with "timeline" articles, many of which have uncited sources and opinions. Please consider keeping this one or deleting all music timelines. For now, I requested a move (after asking for help) to change the article title to Timeline of Progressive Rock: 2001-present. I'd be more than happy to take on the task of doing a full timeline of progressive rock in the future as I have considerable knowledge on the subject. --Flonkus 19:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please use normal titles, and create a normal timeline. Why would we need a timeline for the most recent six years but not prior? Why would we start a timeline for a century that's barely begun, focusing on a topic far more closely associated with the 1970s than the 21st century? If you must make a timeline, make a timeline of progressive rock. The sources you've added are nice, but are not sufficient -- this is a timeline of "important, historical events" so you need to have a source that proves more than what occurred, meaning that it's fine to have a source that proves that Dream Theater released an album in 2001, that does not prove that that album's release was an important, historical event. And it's extremely inappropriate to use a band's official website to document something like this. Tuf-Kat 19:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Work with me, please. I'm doing my part here and I am new to this process. I wanted to bring some attention to the current decade as the information on Wiki so far is sparse. I intended to cover other material later, but I will instead create a full standard timeline to resolve this apparent issue. --Flonkus 20:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regarding Dream Theater, the artwork mishap is certainly historical in this context. And I did not cite Dream Theater's website. --Flonkus 20:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Regarding "important, historical events", and "key recordings". I wanted to emphasize these words so that when others add/edit the page, they are discouraged from spamming, bias, etc. as much as possible. If this is the wrong way to go about this, I will just use the words "events" and "albums" that I've seen elsewhere. --Flonkus 20:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While sourcing would be nice - I think there needs to be more than just an editor's opinion that a band is a progressive rock band or not - I like the way the article is laid out and believe it would serve the same useful purpose as the other rock timeline articles. Denni ☯ 02:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
King of Hearts | (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I could use a little help a little more understanding as to what does/does not require proper sourcing. Thanks! --Flonkus 05:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The title of the article seals its fate. Encyclopedias don't write articles about the 21st century until the 21st century has finished happening. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As mentioned, the article's name was changed and now will cover the full timeline of the genre. --Flonkus 05:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. It is a work in progress. Sulfur 05:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm making daily additions when I have time. I will try to get a few others to help out as well. --Flonkus 05:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article now has the title Timeline of progressive rock. I think the article has potential to give some background information that would otherwise make the main Progressive rock article long and unwieldy. The article may currently lack some depth, and it had a bad title to start with, but there's certainly room to improve it instead of tossing it out together. Also, remember WP:BITE. --Elkman 05:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks, Elkman. I made a couple of newbie errors early on, but I have an interest in contributing lots of musical content to Wikipedia. I'm already very impressed at the vastness of the resource to date.--Flonkus 05:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclined to Keep, now that the page has moved to a more holistic title and is attempting to encompass the entire history of progressive rock. -- Saberwyn 06:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now the page is in a new format. I'll try to put some work in to improve it. Bondegezou 11:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of work by various people has now gone into the page. Bondegezou 14:02, 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 00:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff See[edit]

  • Delete Jeff See is not of an elite status. There are many other college runners that have had better success in running than him (in college and high school). Sharpdust 00:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed. Non-notable. --Jay(Reply) 00:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't quite meet WP:BIO. After breaking Alan Webb's sophomore record, his performance did not continue on the same pace[3]. In his freshman cross country season, he was 22nd in his regional meet and in the "Top 100" in the NCAA [4]. —ERcheck @ 01:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 02:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 07:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:BIO as far as I'm concerned. He was notable for a period of time and shouldn't have to maintain it. --Cymsdale 12:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, since there is no evidence of genuine notability. This could change, which is fine. We have no need to scoop anybody, let's wait and see if he's still "famous" when the 15 minutes are up. Just zis Guy you know? 13:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn-bio. --Terence Ong 15:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 22:05, 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 Speedy delete (Non notable bio, prior version was a cross wiki link) xaosflux Talk/CVU 02:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC),[reply]

Defunct[edit]

Whopee. Non-notable moderator. Hardly serious. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 00:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete or revert as non-notable person (CSD A7). Tagged. If you wish to revert, please do so to this version of the article. --SYCTHOStalk 00:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Non-notable. --Hetar 01:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or Revert back to original context. Kuru talk 01:58, 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 00:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Collections (2nd nomination)[edit]

This is the article's second nomination for Articles for Deletion. An archive of the original discussion is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daily Collections.

As the Daily Collections is a non-notable collection of flash animations, I propose this page to be removed. The article is very unorganized and polluted with vanity information. It seems futile to clean up the text, as it is very likely the article will gradually deteriorate to its present state in the future.

From the past discussion, I have recovered the following:

  • I apologise for not providing this before. Almost nonexistant Google, even when too broad a search is used. Nothing on news either way. As I see the recomendation to date, we have a three naked votes without any backing rational, one "important" and one "helpful". As always, I would be happy to see this included if any evidence of notability is presented. WP:WEB has further notes on how to demonstrate this for websites. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it's "Daily Collections", not "The Daily Collections" - try this search instead ("daily collections" newgrounds → 180 results). r3m0t talk 15:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the above, one or more of four actions should be taken:

  1. Delete. The article's contents and history will be removed.
  2. Merge. The article will be briefly summarized and placed into Newgrounds as a short section.
  3. Redirect. The article will redirect to Newgrounds.
  4. Userfy. The article will be placed onto the user pages of the original editor, 24.109.9.205, and all primary editors.

My recommendation is to perform all four actions. Delete, merge, redirect, and userfy, all speedily if possible. --SYCTHOStalk 00:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum[edit]

Additionally, there was no legitimate reason to keep the article in the first discussion. All keep comments are shown below:

  • Keep or merge with Newgrounds. --Liface 22:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge as per Liface B.ellis 16:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or userfy. A large amount of work seems to have gone into this--which is by itself insufficient reason for a keep. However, this article is helpful in identifying a "genre" (if you will) of online media creation.--eleuthero 20:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments above. -- JJay 00:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only appropriate argument given was by Eleuthero, but as the "work" can be userfied, there is no need to keep the article.

Log[edit]

Discussion[edit]

Please post comments and suggestions below.

  • This was a redirect to Newgrounds, and that was working well. Restore the redirect and protect. I have half a mind to do this right now, but I'll wait for more comments. -R. fiend 02:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article as non-notable (I don't seem to get any more than 20 unique pages, nowhere near all of which are relevant). I will support redirecting or recreation as redirect, but if we merged one article about a flash series to Newgrounds, we'd have to be fair and include every flash series in that article (the mind boggles), and I'd only be inclined to userfy if the editor(s) involved requested it. -- Saberwyn 05:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: We could ask the editors whether they wish to userfy, and conform with their requests. We could also allow the editors themselves to add the redirects at their discretion. --SYCTHOStalk 23:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this, re-create the redirect per R.fiend. Just zis Guy you know? 13:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per R.fiend. --Terence Ong 15:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. --Billpg 18:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable website. An excellent display as to why re-nominating is and should be permitted. Lord Bob 20:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. -- Krash (Talk) 22:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per R. fiend. Grandmasterka 01:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lord Bob. Stifle 13:55, 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 No consensus. I count 12 deletes, 5 merges, and 3 keeps. On a strict vote-counting schema, this translates to 60% consensus to delete, which is not enough. These articles should probably be merged because that's the highest number of non-delete votes, but even among the five merge votes, there is exactly two for InfoWorld joke languages, one for Joke programming languages, one for InfoWorld joke programming languages, and one with no suggestion. Where these articles should be merged to is a debate that doesn't need an AfD to determine. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VALGOL programming language, SIMPLE programming language, SLOBOL programming language, LAIDBACK, Sartre programming language, FIFTH programming language, C- programming language, LITHP programming language, DOGO programming language[edit]

... is a fictional programming language invented by John Unger Zussman as a spoof of ... and San Fernando Valley slang (valspeak). It appears in a humorous list of "lesser known languages", published in InfoWorld in 1982 and later posted to Usenet. This is the original text pertaining to ...:

Oh my... —Ruud 00:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. —Ruud 00:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable programming languages. --SYCTHOStalk 01:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Joke programming languages or similar. These are an important part of computer humor culture. You are obviously taking them too seriously. --ZeroOne 01:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...important part of computer humor culture. Evidence? I can't find it. And don't find them particularly funny no. —Ruud 01:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess it depends on your definition of "important" ... it's widely known at any rate. Try this search. At least 100 hits for VALGOL, including grammars, derivative works, compiler implementations, mentions in other sources. A lot of it is just references to the same material but that does show notability. That it is not particularly funny is not particularly relevant to whether it's part of a culture or not. ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was just a response the me "taking this too seriously" and did not influence my vote. Also, this search only gives me 167 unique hits, most not very relevant. —Ruud 01:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak merge (and conditional on finding a place to merge it to). RJFJR 01:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC) on further consideration I retract voting either way. RJFJR 01:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and wasting our time. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom unless claims of being "important part of computer humor culture" can be substantiated. VegaDark 02:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WikiSource; barring that, merge all and redirect to InfoWorld joke languages or delete. Usenet publishing is public-domain, isn't it? The articles describe interesting languages, I'm just not sure they're encyclopedic. --bmills 04:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These articles aren't causing anyone any problems. Let them be. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. KramarDanIkabu 05:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - these are all entries from a single mag article?! worst case, merge them all. (No need to transwiki this anywhere, unlike the source code articles). —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-25 05:47Z
  • Delete Yup, I saw these ages ago, didn't want to AfD because there's that many articles and AFDing them is a lot of work, coincidentally I was going to go prodding these today seeing how there's a lot of esoteric languages in prod and no one's really contesting those... anyway, the point of the ramble is: Delete the lot. These are joke languages. It's an old joke, it's a well-known joke (included in the fortune(6) database at least in Linux), but I really don't think it's a notable joke and you can't get much more fun out of it than just the quotations out of the mag article. Certainly the heck not worth making separate articles for each! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps a mention in Internet humor (or such), but certainly not separate articles. Camillus (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this cruft per WP:NFT Just zis Guy you know? 14:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge them in one article. --Tone 14:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 16:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Keep or Merge into one article. Old joke, but well known... people have written grammars for some of these languages. This comment is NOT under any circumstances to be interpreted as straight delete without at least a merge. I remember reading about these back in the 80s... an InfoWorld article is, with all respect to my esteemed colleauge JzG, not something made up in school one day. ++Lar: t/c 18:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No offense to the person that wrote the grammar, but even that could easily have been done in "one school day". It's still nothing more than an extended joke. The grammar wasn't that well-thought out, e.g. "Y*KNOW" translates to the multiplication of Y times KNOW, which is not what the valleyspeak intends. If we merge them all we have to delete the giant quotes to avoid reconstructing the Infoworld article. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-25 19:39Z
      • Well sure, it's not a perfect grammar and could have been done relatively quickly but the language phenomenon is more than just something made up in school one day by one person. I mentioned the grammar to substantiate notability for the language, not because it's perfect. People refer to VALGOL in other works fairly frequently. Heck, even some of the delete votes (User:Wwwwolf for instance) concede notability, saying it's well known. I don't see why this needs deleting. At most, merge into one article (although that was proposed before for the 70-odd minor languages but not done). ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ALL as unencyclopedic. -- Krash (Talk) 22:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record: Previous AfD round results: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming language related --ZeroOne 00:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all (preferred) or merge all into single article. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 18:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. Interesting, entertaining, and certainly worth the space they take up. Rinne na dTrosc 00:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not really a question of whether they're interesting, entertaining, or worth the space. Rather, the question at hand is, "do these articles belong in an encyclopedia?" —bmills 00:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, that indeed is the question. And the answer is: Yes they do, because they're a notable (published in a major magazine as a complete article, not just a mention, and then repeatedly referenced in multiple sources) enough part of computer culture/lore to merit inclusion. One article for all of them authored by the same author is fine, and set up redirects for all of them to that article, sure... but delete? No. Wrong answer. (as I said above) ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not notable individually, but notable collectively as part of hacker culture so merge to a single article. Suggest title InfoWorld joke languages per bmills. —Blotwell 03:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to InfoWorld joke programming languages, or somesuch. Stifle 13:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge merge them. Snakes 22:46, 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 keep. Punkmorten 08:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anshe Chung[edit]

Anshe Chung is an important pioneer in the virtual world economy and has been featured on television and in countless newspaper articles. Her status can be rightfully described as a "celebrity" of this new medium. Deleting this Wikipedia entry would be a loss to everybody who is using Wikipedia to research virtual worlds and their economic and social dynamics.

Actually, this article should be merged elsewhere for now. But why did you create this AfD subpage? +sj + 04:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not merge. There is more to say about the ramifications of this business' actions than is appropriate for a section in Second Life. Anshe may be a big fish in a small pond, but big fish make waves, and they have been the subject of media attention. The article as it stands is not perfect, but there appears to be material and references in the talk that should help with that. GreenReaper 14:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no merge. Perhaps at some point there will be more such businesses and it would be appropriate to make this a section of an article about such businesses. At this time they seem to be in a class by themselves. Tualha (Talk) 15:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, This article pertains to an entity that exists in only a small number of online spaces, and doesn't reflect internet at large. --Ice 16:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, As far as I can tell Anshe Chung has been the subject of more media attention than any other Avatar in the history of MMORPGs, placing her well above Wikipedia's threshold of "ecyclopdia-ness"Carl Henderson
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 01:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 22,400 results from google, many from media outlets, is notable enough.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oyako Ryugaku[edit]

Doesn't appear to be more than a Japanese-English translation, which is not what wikipedia is for. Delete. Fightindaman 01:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment.The term Oyako Ryugaku is entering the English Vocabulary to describe a particular type of Japanese visitor expanding around the world. There appears to be no English Language equivalent to describe this form of tourism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicholsp02 (talk • contribs) .
Comment: A google search for "Oyako Ryugaku" yields 16 pages in English. I would hardly say it has entered the English language sufficiently. By contrast, a search for "Au Pair" which you used as a comparison on the articles talk page, gets 21.5 million hits. Fightindaman 01:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "entering the English vocabulary"? Gee, doesn't that mean neologism? Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 04:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mitsukai; non-notable neologism, admitted as such in article, and unable to verify widespread usage. Note: also see AfD for Ryugaku. --Kinu t/c 07:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there is no evidence of actual English currency. Just zis Guy you know? 14:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. --Terence Ong 16:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above; NNN. PJM 17:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic translation. -- Krash (Talk) 22:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary 132.205.45.110 22:53, 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 System testing per nom's withdrawal. -- JLaTondre 04:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

System functional testing[edit]

*Delete: Non-notble minor term. Also, wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Hetar 01:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think redirect is the best solution, lets just do that and get this off the AfD list. --Hetar 02:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to System testing. In fact I will boldly do just that. GeorgeStepanek\talk 01:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I admire your boldness, but isn't that a bit out of place once the article has been marked AfD? :) --Cymsdale 12:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aha. "You should not turn the article into a redirect" is the suggestion in WP:GD. Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. Well, I don't think it's controversial in this case, but I won't do it again. GeorgeStepanek\talk 19:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per George. —Ruud 03:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. PJM 03:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect is good. Just zis Guy you know? 14:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect works well. Suggest withdrawl per WP:SNOW. -- Krash (Talk) 22:13, 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 merge.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 07:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of villages in Samoa[edit]

Merge is good as it says villages too. Although lists of villages are apparently otherwise acceptable as we have List of villages in Serbia and Montenegro, List of villages in Northern Ireland, List of villages in Nebraska, and List of villages in West Virginia among others.--T. Anthony 09:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in some jurisdictions or geographies the term village has a different connotation than cities or towns which are incorporated and exclusive. Village may be more like township in certain Midwest or East Coast US States which may encompass land both inside and outside of an incorporated city or town. That said, I don't know what the situation in Samoa is. Carlossuarez46 02:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now, although precedent seems to be to have regional lists of places rather than national. This would mean creating List of places in A'ana List of places in Aiga-i-le-Tai etc. Jcuk 10:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Schizombie.--Tone 14:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, delist. Pavel Vozenilek 15:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Schizombie. PJM 17:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delist as per Pavel Vozenilek. NoIdeaNick 21:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete. -- Krash (Talk) 22:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have done the merge to List of cities, towns and villages in Samoa so this material will not be lost. Of course in the what seems the unlikely event that the decision here is 'keep', my merge can be reverted. --Bduke 22:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now it has been merged (Salelologa was left out), so this can be Deleted. We should of course keep the information on the other page. Sorry for the confusing use of three bold words. Ardric47 04:01, 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 07:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryugaku[edit]

Straight Japanese to english translation, does not appear to have much content besides this. Delete. Fightindaman 01:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "entering the English vocabulary"? Gee, doesn't that mean neologism? Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 04:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mitsukai; non-notable neologism, admitted as such in article, and unable to verify widespread usage. Note: also see AfD for Oyako Ryugaku. --Kinu t/c 07:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary (particularly for foreign languages) or a slang or usage guide. Also I agree with Mitsukai, if it's "entering the English language", it's a neologism. JIP | Talk 10:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence presented of English usage currency Just zis Guy you know? 14:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wictionary--Tone 14:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I doubt they want this on Wiktionary. —Cleared as filed. 15:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic translation. -- Krash (Talk) 22:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary, along with Oyako Ryugaku and OYAKO 132.205.45.110 22:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's got no currency to speak of so Wiktionary won't be interested. Stifle 13:48, 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 Speedy redirect to Andy Milonakis. Aaron 02:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Milinokis[edit]

Redirect. This page's title is a misspelling of the intended person's name. Thus, this article is unnecessary. Wickethewok 01:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Andy Milonakis to orient users who may inadvertently make the same spelling mistake in the future. — Rebelguys2 talk 01:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to correct spelling. Humans make mistakes, and are well known for hitting the wrong keys sometimes. -- Saberwyn 01:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have consensus from the deletion nominator to redirect to the correct spelling. Can we get a speedy redirect and early close, please? -- Saberwyn 01:50, 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 00:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C Pluribus Unum[edit]

This is the exact same case we had with Super Mario 4. But this is worse. Super Mario 4 was at least a little humorous while it lasted, but this is completely pointless. I'm putting it up for deletion for lack of importance. Plus, it has the wrong categories. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luigi III (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 redirect to database. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Database instance[edit]

This doesn't seem to say anything significant. It sounds to me like it is saying that a database instance is an instance of a database. RJFJR 02:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to database. This definition isn't right anyway [6]. —Ruud 03:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to database or ODBC. Sounds like a misguided description of particulars of ODBC on Windows. --bmills 04:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. It defines database instance as in terms used by Oracle. Other systems use different definitions. Pavel Vozenilek 15:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to database. PJM 16:29, 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 MERGE to Pepper spray, although I'm not at all clear that this would improve the article, so I'm just going to redirect. If someone can write better sentence than this article currently contains in Pepper spray, then great. -Splashtalk 20:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pepper spray ring[edit]

Nonsense with link to commercial site Blastwizard 02:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Pepper spray, without the commercial link. There seem to be enough such rings for sale to be mentioned in a sentence or two. (You can see several relevant hits at [7].) –Sommers (Talk) 02:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge and redirect, sans advertlink per above. -- Saberwyn 05:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per above seems good Just zis Guy you know? 14:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree...merge as above. PJM 16:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • smerge pa Computerjoe 20:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge and delete. -- Krash (Talk) 22:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Pepper spray and delete advertising spam.  (aeropagitica)  23:13, 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 speedy delete as an attack page. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Cobb Meiser Extrodionaire[edit]

Non-notable. Vanity Joelito 02:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this article is very useful . Antonio is notable.He is a very known person. DO not delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hummer931 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete: Non-notable. CSD A7? Blue520 02:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as non-notable bio (CSD A7). –Sommers (Talk) 02:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, A7. PJM 03:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious speedy delete material per A7, also a borderline attack page. VegaDark 03:09, 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 00:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samochód pancerny[edit]

Untranslated article from the translation desk. Discussion from there follows. Kusma (討論) 02:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this is about or what language it's in. Zelmerszoetrop 08:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the guy who knows his Polish vanity. -- Krash (Talk) 22:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is very shallow information about armored cars, far bellow threshold quality here. Nothing specific about Poland's armament here. Pavel Vozenilek 01:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pavel Vozenilek. Stifle 13:46, 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 00:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CLJ[edit]

From the translation desk, has not been translated for two weeks. Discussion from there follows. No vote. Kusma (討論) 02:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found loose in Category:Wikipedia articles needing translation. Portuguese, about the "curso de liderança juvenil". Kusma (討論) 14:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like a religious course of no particuler relevance to an Anglophone audience (note: that's working with automated translators, I have no Portuguese). Just zis Guy you know? 14:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If nobody cared to translate it in two weeks, it's probably not up to much. Stifle 13:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Stifle.--み使い Mitsukai 01:32, 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 Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 05:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Allen (football player)[edit]

Nominated by anon, no reason given. AfD ophaned, listing now VegaDark 02:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - notable but needs fixing with relation to NFL player bios Tawker 01:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep unless we are prepared to delete hundreds of NFL bios. I think the unwritten rule is they are noteworthy enough if they have ever played in the NFL, let alone a current player. Also, nominating this for deletion was the user's 13th edit, many of the others of which were AfD tags to pages that got reverted. VegaDark 02:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, per above. PJM 02:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable. Pepsidrinka 05:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Sulfur 05:29, 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 00:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christianforumsite[edit]

Web forum that the article claims was opened in December 2005. Site has an Alexa rating over 3,000,000 while Google has only 21 hits, none of which appear to qualify as a reliable source for the purposes of verification. Delete as per WP:V and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Allen3 talk 03:19, 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 00:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Y.Misdaq aka Yoshi[edit]

Non-notable. Originally speedied, contested, moving to AfD. 121 Google results, but summarizes to 8 displayed hits. nefisa.co.uk has no Alexa ranking. Copied author's talk page response below. Delete └ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 03:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nefisa website is something that needs documenting as it's got a big following and is somehwat like a web. I have made the article about it's creator because he's someone who has released music publicly - if it's going to be deleted then I shall change it to be just about the website. I have spoken to Y.Misdaq aka Yoshi before, but am not a friend nor is he aware I am making this page. I believe it to have value because the site is influential in many ways. One has to experience it to know this.
Thanks, J,
  • Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 04:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since neither the subject nor the website have significant coverage Out There, as far as I can tell. Just zis Guy you know? 14:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 22:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. --SpencerTC 22:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, per WP:CSD A7. Some websites and corporations are listed on Wikipedia, although their founders are not. Re-tagged. If the author disputes the tag, a seperate discussion can be held on the talk page. --SYCTHOStalk 23:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not a speedy (he has asserted that he released two albums, which is enough to avoid that CSD) but it's unverifiable. Stifle 13:43, 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 by consensus and consent of author. Friday (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DelGripo Films[edit]

I tried deleting this via WP:XD, but the author reverted it and insists that because he plans to go to film school next year, his film company needs an article. But, it's really just some guy with a camcorder, there's nothing verifiable or significant here. However, since he insists on Afd, here we are. Friday (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I'm not just a guy with a camcorder, and I am going to film school next year (Columbia in Chicago, which is a highly accredited art school). The person trying to delete my page has no idea who I am, so he can't accurately judge me. Until he has actually met me, he cannot say for a fact who I am, or that I'm "just some guy with a camcorder". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.12.222.203 (talk • contribs) .

I suppose I've been rude. I'm sorry. This is not meant to be any judgment on the quality of your films. But, you're right, I have no idea who you are. And, since there don't appear to have any reliable sources talking about your work, I have no way of knowing who you are or what you do. It's for exactly this reason that your film company does not belong in an encyclopedia. We get articles about garage bands and amateur filmmakers all the time, and we don't consider them significant or verifiable enough for inclusion. This is not meant to be a judgment on your work, it's simply a judgment about what does or does not belong in an encyclopedia. No offense is intended. Friday (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP. As above: the only thing being judged is notability; and with 0 Google hits [8], this article qualifies as non-notable. bcasterlinetalk 03:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP and probably WP:OR. I visited the delgripofilm home page and the hit counter read "21", though that may be incorrect. — ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My film company will not pop up on any search engine because I don't want to pay to have it listed. I don't care anymore, delete the page. I just wanted my page on wikipedia so I could gain more notice since wikipedia is used by many people. And since I don't have to pay anything to get an article on wikipedia, I liked the idea of it. I don't have tons of money to spend just so I can get recognized. My previous abbrasivesness was, somewhat, uncalled for. I hope you understand what I've tried to say, and my intentions.


Ok, I know, back off now.


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

The result of the debate was KEEP as rewritten. -Splashtalk 20:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timing mark[edit]

Seems to serve no purpose; links to French articles go nowhere Jim62sch 03:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Sulfur 05:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now that the content has changed. Sulfur 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails to establish context or importance. Link to OMR goes to a disambig page, Interwiki articles at fr: do not exist. JIP | Talk 10:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as rewritten. JIP | Talk 08:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks context; might change my mind if some were added. --Cymsdale 12:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Removing my delete vote after article change. --Cymsdale 14:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now rewritten the article to be about two uses of timing mark, one being on an engine flywheel, the other being on an OMR sheet. I won't vote since it's now "my" content. Just zis Guy you know? 14:27, 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 REDIRECT to Vaughan City Council. Although there appears to be no overall consensus it looks to me as if the parties that are most interested feel that a redirect is the best compromise. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Shefman[edit]

This page should be deleted because it is a promotional page for a nn person. The top 3 Google hits for Alan Shefman are: the same Shefman's home page for his company, the Vaughan Ward 5 homepage, and this article. It doesn't help that his son is the main content editor, as per history. MSJapan 03:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No Vote Fine, I have a conflict of interest here so I won't vote. That being said, we have already agreed in the past that all members of Vaughan Council are entitled to Wiki articles. I strongly encourage people to vote down this AfD as we are already in the process of adding the articles for other Vaughan Council Members. pm_shef 05:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Shefman (second nomination) came down to a keep, after the original Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Shefman was shut down due to an utterly absurd and out-of-control partisan bickering match that rather closely resembled what's beginning to unfold at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Strelchik (and I wouldn't be overly surprised if that one involved some of the same people). Although I understand that not everybody is convinced that city councillors deserve articles, actual AFD precedent has tended to favour the view that they do...and I'm less than eager to start up a debate again, especially on an article that's already gone through this process and survived. I have to say speedy keep, if only on the grounds that there's no valid reason to revisit this yet again. And, frankly, I strongly suspect that the sole reason this was nominated at all was as a payback shot against pm_shef — there's no other conceivable reason for this to happen now. Bearcat 05:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not even Canadian, nor do I live there, and it's interesting that you ascribe this to a personal motive, because that tells me there's something going on that maybe shouldn't be, 'especially' since there's seems ot be a whole group on WP concerned with Vaughan politics, if the other AfDs are any indication. Anyhow, I happened to come across the name "pm_shef" on a talk page, clicked on it because it looked interesting, saw that said Shefman wrote an article about another Shefman, looked at the article, surmised the relationship (and was proven correct), saw non-notability and a conflict of interest, and thus requested the AfD. MSJapan 05:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be correct that there's something going on that shouldn't be. Review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Strelchik (and the constant vandalism of Talk:Simon Strelchik today by multiple brand-new editors) if you need background. See also past partisan foolishness at Susan Kadis. There's clearly some axe-grinding going on; for what it's worth, my interest in the discussion is limited to the fact that I'm a Wikipedia administrator who was involved in sorting all the bullshit out last time. Bearcat 05:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete to the entire City of Vaughan if it will end this endless debate on their no-name, non-notable city councillors. --Dogbreathcanada 05:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • IDEA-- perhaps instead of going through these AfD's every 3 months, we consolidate. We could get rid of the individual Vaughan Councilor pages and create one big Vaughan City Council page similar to Hamilton City Council, we could also expand that format, annotating the members names with short paragraphs detailing their previous career. There's even a Category for it Canadian City Councils. This probably isn't the place to have the discussion... but it could make everyone's lives a lot easier. pm_shef 05:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability is good enough for me given positions with City Council, School board, library board, Human Rights League, and Ontario Commission on Whatnot. -Joshuapaquin 06:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per precedent of prior AFD. And no, we shouldn't have a page for the Council, as we wouldn't be able to properly talk about non-council activity in such an article. Also, there's no precedent for every member Vaughan Council either. Also, generally, people wishing to do a renom, really need to give a good new reason. --Rob 06:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per previous debates. - SimonP 06:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable. Per WP:BIO WP:BLPand precidents, this is not a notable nor national office. Local officials are not inherently notable, and this person not notable for other reasons. Can anyone guess how many similar people there are in just English speaking countries?Obina 10:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since city councillor is well below the levels per WP:BIO and there is no evidence of any other claim to notability. Obina is right on the money. Just zis Guy you know? 14:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if only in the name of the most basic fairness and because nominating this article for the third time in three months is excessive when the two previous consultations showed strong consensus for keeping the article. The first consultation showed 7 keep and 0 delete (discouting the anonymous user who voted four times) and the second showed 10 keep and 2 delete. I understand there's no limit to this and people can merrily continue to put up the same article for deletion again, and again, and again, and get their point on their thirty-sixth attempt when they have exhausted everyone. I also understand that the nominator was acting in good faith and seems to not have initially realized that this particular case had already been discussed at length and settled. Note that I have no particular interest in this debate and before today I had never even heard about the city of Vaughan. Actually, on the general principle I would agree with the nominator's reasoning, if we were to discuss a general rule or guideline. The mere fact for someone to be or to have been a city councillor is not in itself much of a claim to notability unless it is accompanied by some notable elements. But at the present time, the choice of this particular article for target in order to make a point is especially ill-chosen and especially unfair. People have actually been doing work in good faith in application of the previous decisions on this very case. Changing the decision now on a whim would be a waste of time both for the people who did that work and for the participants to the AfD discussions and would be detrimental to the trust and the cooperative spirit of the community. Therefore, if someone feels like proposing in the appropriate forums a discussion for explicit guidelines on the matter, let's do that, it's a good idea. Then we'll act according to whatever guidelines will have been agreed upon and for all similar articles. But until then, let's leave this article alone, there is no reason to single it out. It has earned some respite. Asclepias 03:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the last argument is fair. Two previous yes votes should settle the matter once and for all. Jameswilson 04:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SimonP. Ardenn 21:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am torn on the concept of city councillors being notable enough for articles, but it seems to me that any city larger than Prince Edward Island should be entitled to pages for its councillors as no one would question the notability of members of the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island. - Jord 22:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AfD precedent. Mangojuice 16:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong vote for Redirect to Vaughan City Council. This solution seems reasonable to the involved parties. It's too bad this all had to happen here on AfD: an example of when process fails us, maybe. It does seem a shame to lose all the information in this article, though, so I hope the article will simply be changed to a redirect rather than deleted. Mangojuice 14:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This man is NOT notable. The Mayor of Vaughan has 2 or 3 sentences, though a veteran of Vaughan Council for 21 years; the local Councillor Alan Shefman, chosen in a by-election 13 months ago, has 2 pages.

Why? Because Alan Shefman's son is pm_shef and he is a staunch Liberal. Why do councillors Mario Ferri and Sandra Yeung Racco have two pages (before I shortened them today) and councillors Linda Jackson, Joyce Frustaglio, Peter Meffe, Tony Carella and Bernie di Vona have two lines? Because both Ferri and Racco are proclaimed Liberals, and everybody else is not; even Racco's spouse, Mario Racco, is a Liberal MPP. And being a Liberal seems to be the criteria for receiving glorified, self-promotional encyclopedia listings in Vaughan. And help from pm_shef .

To the admin reviewing this article, I plead with you - for the sake of objectivity, of encyclopedic integrity, remove this article and place it among the heap where over 5000 other councillors of Ontario are confined. *Delete VaughanWatch 04:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then expand the other councillors' articles, sunshine. Nobody here has a responsibility to do the work for you; if you think something needs to be expanded, then expand it yourself. The only reason this guy has a longer article than the others is because somebody who knows something about him took the time to write it, not because anybody thinks he deserves special treatment. So if you know something about Joyce Frustaglio and Linda Jackson and Peter Meffe and the others, write them up. Bearcat 05:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Bearcat. The point is that these profiles should not be expanded. I don't think it should be deleted, however, I believe it should be scaled back to a couple sentences. 70.29.239.249 05:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not have a maximum length restriction on articles. The only two choices available are "the article can be as long as it needs to be to cover what's encyclopedic about this topic", or "the article doesn't belong here at all". There's no provision for "this person can have an article, but they're not important enough to permit it to be longer than two lines". If they're not important enough to warrant whatever length of article can be written about them without dipping into trivia, then they shouldn't have articles at all.
Whether city councillors deserve articles or not has been a point of contention on AFD, with decisions in both directions. But it's not within your authority to dictate how long of an article these councillors deserve or don't deserve; they either get as long an article as somebody feels qualified and able to write, or they get nothing. Them's the rules. Bearcat 06:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is their a process to remove biased administrators? 70.29.239.249 06:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're alleging that an administrator has behaved in a biased manner, you can directly address your allegations with them. Otherwise, you can kindly stop with the ad hominem attacks and start providing specific details about what specific content you're actually disputing. Bearcat 06:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification Basically, theirs two choices, either all incumbents and candidates articles should be deleted or all kept. No in betweens. I vote Keep but if one is deleted then they all should be Deleted both incumbents and candidates.--Eyeonvaughan 06:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Municipal incumbents, maybe; Wikipedia precedent on that question has been mixed. Municipal candidates, however, absolutely do not merit encyclopedia articles. Bearcat 06:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is their consensus for the following: pm_shef the author of this article and the son of the subject, along with MSJapan and Mangojuice have suggested one central page, like Hamilton City Council, that should store all Council information. I have just created such a page: Vaughan_Council.

Here is what pm_shef has to say about this *Idea: "perhaps instead of going through these AfD's every 3 months, we consolidate. We could get rid of the individual Vaughan Councilor pages and create one big Vaughan City Council page similar to Hamilton City Council, we could also expand that format, annotating the members names with short paragraphs detailing their previous career. There's even a Category for it Canadian City Councils. This probably isn't the place to have the discussion... but it could make everyone's lives a lot easier."

We would then *Delete this page and add it to Vaughan_Council.

VaughanWatch 07:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If people would agree to the deletion of all individual vaughan councillor articles (excluding the mayor) as well as candidate articles (which shouldn't be there in the first place), then I'll go along with that (since it was my idea anyways). pm_shef 16:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As far as I can tell, fails these two applicable WP:BIO criteria: (1)Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature; (2) Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage. OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per consensus on election talk page. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete No claim of notability; council member for Ward 5 is not one. . I may well express the same opinion on the other articles. Septentrionalis 19:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ok again it looks like we have consensus for deleting this page and all councillor pages except the mayor, but including councillor information on Vaughan_Council. Am I right? VaughanWatch 20:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged them all for deletion per Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion. If there is a consensus, no further action will need to be taken and the pages will be deleted in five days. OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tagged the councillors Ohnoitsjamie missed, all vaughan councillors (except the mayor) have now been tagged for WP:Prod and we can make the single council page. Glad this could be worked out. pm_shef 22:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Count me in favour of the merger; it strikes me as a positive solution to the dilemma. Bearcat 00:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So according to user:TenOfAllTrades we shouldn't be deleting these, but redirecting them to the new amalgamated page... something about the license. So I guess whatever admin reviews this, if it could be kept please, so that we can turn it into a redirect.. pm_shef 00:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy redirect everyone has come to a consensus that all vaughan councillorsand candidates are to be redirected. Why is this still up? when all the others has been redirected--Eyeonvaughan 04:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only an admin can end the afd early. The others had prod tags, which can be removed outside of a formal process. Anyone who is in agreement with the consensus can change their vote accordingly. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note User:Eyeonvaughan's continued blanking of a page currently undergoing AfD debate in contravention of WP policy. pm_shef 18:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can an admin do their job and delete this thing? 70.29.239.249 20:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The admins job is to decide on the consenus view when the proper time has elapsed, there is policy for this kind of thing, and WP policy needs to be respected. pm_shef 21:01, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere expectation criterion[edit]

  • Original research. The term exists only on Wikipedia and an unmoderated mailing list, and the source is a thread from several years ago. The previous nomination got bogged down in a discussion of the merits of the criterion, which is irrelevant because it's original research and has no published source. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rather see this be an en bloc deletion nomination that includes all Mike Ossipoff's criteria as well (with the possible exception of favorite betrayal criterion and summability criterion), otherwise I can't vote for just this single criterion for NPOV reasons. -- Dissident (Talk) 05:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi there. You are free to nominate the other pages if you believe, in good faith, that they should not remain on WP. En bloc nominations have a tendency to produce no clear consensus, since some participants will judge the entries as one while others will make individualized decisions. Hence individual noms may be preferable. Regards —Encephalon 07:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. Few Google hits. This criterion was mentioned only in a single thread in a single mailing list. This thread is more than 7 years old. And this mailing list is unmoderated.
This article is obscure. Even the author of this article is unable to justify his statements about this criterion. Whenever he is asked to explain his claims about whether a given election method satisfies or fails this criterion, he refuses to answer and he claims that all those who don't see that he is right were dishonest and Mike Ossipoff devotees. Markus Schulze 09:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Markus Schulze, if you don't stop with these unfounded personal attacks, then I'll be forced to start a request for comment concerning your behavior. If you simply disagree with my argument on talk:sincere expectation criterion, JUST SAY SO, but don't claim it doesn't exist. -- Dissident (Talk) 17:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research, possible vanity. A voting system with no academic reviews presented, actually an article about one thread on one message board some years ago proposing something which clearly never caught on. Just zis Guy you know? 13:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG. Pavel Vozenilek 15:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 18:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable original research. -- Krash (Talk) 22:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Hope this helps build the consensus that was lacking last time. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm persuaded by rspeer's comments here and in the DRV. —Encephalon 07:25, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ravioles[edit]

nn, advertising. Out of 512 possible hits on Google, item only has 1, an indexing directory which has archived this particular article. Anything else is likely mirrors of this article. み使い Mitsukai 04:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No real releases, website doesn't exsist, per nom --lightdarkness (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sulfur 05:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article was last edited in April 2005, and the upcoming web site doesn't exist. If it's only popular in the area of Rosario City, then it probably doesn't meet Wikipedia's test of importance. --Elkman 05:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. --Cymsdale 12:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as any fule kno, ravioles is the English plural of "raviole", the singular of "ravioli". Or something. Just zis Guy you know? 14:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT. -- Krash (Talk) 22:39, 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 as either copyvio or unwanted. -Splashtalk 20:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Ward Wood[edit]

Delete The subject does does not seem notable enough for inclusion, references in the article seem to be to others whose identity is not established in the article (Lee, is this General Lee?). I did not WP:PROD As I realsize this is debatable. SailorfromNH 04:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep magistrate, judge and representative in the State Assembly, notable. Blue520 05:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete as unsigned poster below points out is copyvio Blue520 06:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete article is copyvio [9] (forgot to sign) Sulfur 06:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This unfortunately cannot be speedied as it is beyond the time limit. If it weren't copyvio, I would support keeping and expanding. As it is a copyvio, it should be deleted unless the copyright problems are sorted out. It has been reported as a copyvio. Capitalistroadster 09:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copyvio. No judgment on the subject. Just zis Guy you know? 14:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave to WP:CP. Stifle 13:39, 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 07:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TEC42[edit]

Advert for a startup company. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per CBW. I went to AFD it and you were already there! :) (Note, deleting this will orphan Image:Tec42logo.png.) FreplySpang (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont see this as an advertisement. It was very informative about water cooling, helped me out a lot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.162.58.214 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 25 February 2006.
  • Bummer, theres no "cite this article" link —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.162.58.214 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 25 February 2006.
  • water coolings the bizomb, someones reading too much into this shiz. MarryPoppins(Talk) 04:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.162.58.214 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 25 February 2006.[reply]
  • Um. too close to call on advertising, i say leave it for a few days.DUkeofPete(Talk) 05:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • God, this screams "advertising" so much that it's not funny. Strong delete.--み使い Mitsukai 04:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note this edit by 69.162.58.214 to remove a delete comment. Also this edit to forge MarryPoppins signature. Also the only edits by 69.162.58.214 and DUkeofPete at this time are to this article. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd comment User 71.162.37.175 only edits were two to this AfD, five attempts to linkspam the TEC42 website and one rather odd edit.
  • Wow, you guys sure get down to business. TEC42 is my company and I posted this article. I dont know much else to say about it so I am sorry you feel it is advertising. I will continue to revise it tonight and hopefully by tommorrow I will have something more acceptable?Slopigyo(Talk) 0:31, 25 February 2006
  • Yeah, clean it up a bit, I don't think we should delete it right away anyhow, appears someone out there likes it.. Sl33pingRules 05:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)User's only edit, quelle surprise --Calton | Talk 05:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not meet WP:CORP. --Hetar 05:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:CORP, and the obvious sockpuppeting ain't helping. --Calton | Talk 05:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks fot the help, and that is not me. You dont have to believe me but I think I know who it is. A friend of mine who finds the internet a playtoy. Slopigyo(Talk) 2:11, 25 February 2006
  • Delete as advertising. The article goes on about how hip and cool the company is, but without previous knowledge, I find it hard to find out what the company actually does. JIP | Talk 11:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like vanispamcruftisement to me :-) Just zis Guy you know? 14:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VSCA. -- Krash (Talk) 22:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete due to lack of context (CSD A1). Tagged. Sockpuppets are also tagged (with 69.162.58.214 as the sockpuppeteer, not Slopigyo, as the latter did not vote on the AfD). --SYCTHOStalk 00:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Never mind after reading above comments. I will re-consider the speedy delete when the new version is published. --SYCTHOStalk 00:07, 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 00:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egg Box Publishing[edit]

nn, advertising. Google only logs 721 hits (many of which are mirrors) for "Egg Box Publishing". Alexa doesn't have it ranked. み使い Mitsukai 04:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:WEB --Cymsdale 12:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:WEB (and the Alexa rank, come to that) are surely irrelevant, since this article is about a publisher, not about a website. AndyJones 14:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete probably vanity/ad. First book quoted is The Zoo Keeper which has an unimpressive 900k Amazon UK sales rank (see here). (About the same as my book, come to think of it. Oh dear.) Anyway, notability not established, for me. AndyJones 14:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Just zis Guy you know? 14:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 17:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. -- Krash (Talk) 22:49, 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 Speedy Delete by Shanel as recreation of deleted material and CSD A7. --lightdarkness (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Max Bryant[edit]

Non-notable. Probably vanity Joelito 04:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as non-notable bio (CSD A7). –Sommers (Talk) 04:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy this same article was deleted last week. Xtra 05:11, 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 00:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yamachi[edit]

Delete, the fandom around this is hardly significant for it's own article, let alone to define a term found in it. The information pretty much seems useless, so I don't think a merge with other fanfiction type articles would be appropriate either. Ned Scott 05:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but this is likely non-canonical, which tends to be a consideration. Note one of the terms used: seme, a term from yaoi fanfiction, which is almost always non-canon. This is likely nothing more than some rabid fangirl trying to get attention for her favorite "pairing". I have no problem with the individual characters having their own slots here, but that's a far cry from this.--み使い Mitsukai 15:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it was non-canonical, that would convince me. I don't know enough about the source material to know. --Cymsdale 15:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
they are "not minor character", though. They're two of the main characters in Digimon Adventure, and play a sizeable role in Digimon Adventure 02. Circeus 23:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing my vote for merge. I don't know enough about the topic to judge. --Cymsdale 23:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, definite fancruft. Circeus 19:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminate, unimportant fancruft. -- Krash (Talk) 22:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are so very many Foo-Bar pairing neologisms and they are so transient that it is far beyond WP's scope to cover them all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it goes anywhere, it'd be under "fan interpretation" in the appropriate series article. Circeus 00:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And promptly be deleted from that series article as speculation/fanfic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think NPOV discussion of the fandom (i.e. the whole pairing debates in this case)would be inappropriate. Circeus 00:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't see a problem with that either, if covered in a general sense. But under a seperate article for one pairing alone? That's opening the door to all kinds of chaos.--み使い Mitsukai 01:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Definitely. That's the whole reason I voted delete too ;-) Circeus 01:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think NPOV discussion of the fandom (i.e. the whole pairing debates in this case)would be inappropriate.
            Agreed, but some case would have to be made that this is a common or significant pairing in the fandom; after all, every character ever has been paired up with another character in the same (or another) fandom at least a dozen times. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BS and Rubbish. - plau


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I-95 exit list[edit]

A list of highway exits. That's it. Wikipedia not being a list of indescriminate information, I say toss this. Was PRODed, but tag removed on the grounds "...exit lists encouraged, per WP:IH". WP:IH is not policy nor even guideline: it's Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways, and the "encouragement" is a single sentence inserted into it. Calton | Talk 05:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I agree -- Ned Scott 05:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Useless list, see WP:NOT. --Hetar 05:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There's some WP policy that mentions not including bus stations and this is along that line, although there are an awful lot of insignificant train stations that have entries as a result of a WP project on trains. Schizombie 06:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless list. Can you not use a map for the same information? I don't believe that this list would be useful to a researcher, nor that the justification on WP:IH is valid.  (aeropagitica)  09:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I was gonna vote merge, 'til I read the I-95 article and found the relevant information encouraged in WP:IH (bulleted list of intersections with other Interstates and Major roads) is already there. Change vote as per info from Rschen below, to Keep Jcuk 10:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Actually, if you read further down, you will find that exit lists are encouraged. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Information is too cumbersome to work into the article on I-95 itself. A single article with the content is a preferable solution to splitting the content across 15 articles for I-95 in each constituent state. List is useful to a researcher; many maps do not provide this information readily. Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents says that this type of article should not be created, but due to the length of I-95, splitting the exit list off of the main article and into its own article is an appropriate and limited exception. C.Fred 13:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They still sell maps, as far as I know. PJM 17:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP is not Mapquest. Fan1967 17:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's long enough for its own article, and it's a pain to split it up among the individual Interstate 95 in New York and similar pages. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per C.Fred. Comment. In its current state, the information is not particularly useful. However, if at some point the article includes a map of the road, and presents itself in an intuitive format, this information could become useful. Section-ifying the article and improving the data format would be a good start.  Cdcon  18:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways#Exit lists. Format properly please. -- Krash (Talk) 22:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move exit lists in to the seperate "Interstate 95 in (state)" pages. The Maine list on here is two years out of date anyway. Kirjtc2 00:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and if information is out of date, please correct it. Do not merge; the purpose of lists is to keep this information separate from main articles. Lists of this sort function as appendixes, an important and valuable function in reference works. Fg2 01:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but article needs improving badly. More information on what county/town the exit is in, its mile point, anything notable about the area the exit serves, etc. Polaron 02:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the point has been raised repeatedly, yes, the article needs significant attention: formatting, adding location information (county/city), mile marker numbers, (old exit numbers for GA, FL, etc.?).... The original author is continuing to go ahead with the raw data entry. Once this discussion clears, then we'll be going in and formatting, sorting, expanding, and otherise getting the data into final form. --C.Fred 07:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very badly formatted; should be split among states like Interstate 95 in New Jersey. Redirect to Interstate 95 without a merge. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A single redirect, or a list of "the exit lists can be found on the following pages," so they're one click away and not two? —C.Fred (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the page on the highway, at best. Getting seriously close to violating Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Stifle 11:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into sub-pages per state and format per Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways. Mangojuice 16:44, 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 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryku_Uchiha[edit]

Original fan material CNichols 06:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alright,that's enough! Listen,I'm the author of this page and I just wanted to show this to my friends tommorow at their sleep over! Besides,I'm so lazy,this is probably the busiest night I've ever worked! So please, wait two days. Thank you. Oh, and Don't delete-Cptmike
  • Oh,please! As Bender Bending Rodregiuez would say, "Not a free host,blog, or webspace provider, my ass!". OK,so it isn't any of those things,but still,can't you wait like, two days? Cptmike
Cptmike, feel free to copy the content of your article over to your user page. Then you can show that to your friends. --Xyzzyplugh 07:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is merely a discussion that will go on for a week. After the week is over, an interested admin will try to determine the consensus. However, do not remove the afd tag from the article. happy editing. TheRingess 07:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, Xyzzyplugh, how do I do that? Cptmike
    • If you click on your own name (at the end of the last sentence you typed, there), this will open up your user page, where you can enter any text you like. --Xyzzyplugh 07:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh,wait,today's the sleep over! OK guys! Sometime this afternoon,K? I'll show it to em' then you can feel free to delete it. Cptmike
  • Delete obviously, given the above. Just zis Guy you know? 14:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miscalculation! I haven't left yet! Leave it!Cptmike
  • Speedy Delete Plenty of free websites to post material to show your friends. If exceptions are made for this, then everybody and their granny will want to have page to show their friends too. Green Giant 02:17, 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 00:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mcdev[edit]

nn, advertising. Alexa gives it a rating of 2.5M, Google hits for McDev McDaniel Development only garners 416 hits. Lastly, page has not been touched since 23:03, 22 April 2005, when it was created. み使い Mitsukai 06:11, 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 keep and cleanup. Punkmorten 14:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qalal[edit]

Delete, google search on this term suggests that article is factually innacurate Xorkl000 06:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Google search [10] suggests that it's legitimate, not a hoax. bcasterlinetalk 06:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Not only referencing BCaster's google notes, but note that it was referenced on other pages, such as the Arc of the Covenant, to quote:

The first chapter of the Mishnayot describes the vessels that were hidden - including the Ark of the Covenant and the Tabernacle of the Lord, i.e. the Mishkan, the Tablets of Moses, the altar (with cherubim) for the daily and seasonal sacrifices (the ushebtis), the Menorah (candelabra), the Qalal (copper urn) containing the Ashes of the Red Heifer (ashes from a red cow sacrificed under Moses, necessary for ritual purification of the priests), and numerous vessels of the Kohanim (priests).

Better justifications than simple Google searches will probably turn up more, but this is very notable regardless.--み使い Mitsukai 08:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough, agreed that it is notable and should stay, however still poorly written and lacking in context - can we send to cleanup?--Xorkl000 09:29, 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 00:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No_Win_Situation[edit]

Delete as Non-notable. Googling for one of the Album resulted in only 67 pages. Wikipedia Page was created one year back and has only one edit from anonymous user.. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Searching for this doesn't convince me that it meets WP:MUSIC, though I am willing to reconsider vote if verification/evidence to the contrary is presented. (Alternatively, redirect to Kobayashi Maru? Nah... :P) --Kinu t/c 07:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 17:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 01:54, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qadr[edit]

Delete, nothing worth merging with Al-Qadr Xorkl000 06:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 17:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does nothing to aid a reader's understanding of the word Green Giant 01:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — advocacy with no critical analysis. — RJH 02:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with redirect to Qadar (if you look at the author's note, "(Qadr (destiny) is one of the six articles of Islamic faith)" it's a reference to Qadar), or a disambiguation page for Qadar and Al-Qadr Schizombie 04:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 01:55, 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 REDIRECT to Quidditch. -Splashtalk 20:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quidditch World Cup[edit]

Totally useless except for select Harry Potter maniacs who honestly have nothing better to do than to look into the history of a fictitious event of a magical sport from some children's book. Seriously, why isn't "Battle of Honour" from Romance of the Three Kingdoms the novel an article? JK Rowling's idea of the world cup probably came up after watching football's world cup, and getting a rush of feeling that it should be created for Quidditch too. Delete. Colipon+(T) 06:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete However, why was the page for it blanked? Schizombie 06:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 07:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to either Quidditch (this topic should be treated there, at best) or Harry Potter: Quidditch World Cup (the video game)... take your pick. This seems like a reasonable search phrase, so it's worth the cheap-and-easy. An article about this one event seems like Pottercruft, however. --Kinu t/c 07:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Quidditch. While you're there, merge information into the "Fictional History" section, eliminate the speculation on the dating error. -- Saberwyn 08:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Quidditch or the Goblet of Fire. Not that I've read them, you understand, it's for my kids... Just zis Guy you know? 14:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Quidditch. Should definitely be redirected. Guy: Well I have read them and their great. But in my defense, when I first began reading the series I was a child around Harry's age. --Jelligraze 14:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The autograph-hunter's invariable protestation: "it's for my wife/kids/friend/mother/whatever". Of course I've read them all multiple times! How can I not, with two school-age sons? Just zis Guy you know? 18:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is for Quidditch World Cup not for the main Quidditch article, so any such suggestions about merging articles, that are not part of this AfD process, should be done on the relevant articles talk page as per normal Wiki procedures. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 23:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I think the Quidditch World Cup was only put in the GoF for two reasons: 1. There is no other Quidditch match in GoF thanks to the Triwizard Tournament, 2. It allows the reappearance of the dark mark, which unites Voldemort with his Deatheaters, in an eerie situation for all to see which inevitably creates a very dramatic scene of chaos. From what I can tell the Quidditch World Cup was equivalent (in length & importance to the story) to that of any other Quidditch game played in the other HP novels. Granted in the HP world it is a very important event, but in the story itself it equates to all other Quidditch events. --Jelligraze 16:00, 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 00:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rykiri_Uchiha[edit]

Original fan material - CNichols 06:34, 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 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryku_Uchiha[edit]

Original fan material CNichols 06:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alright,that's enough! Listen,I'm the author of this page and I just wanted to show this to my friends tommorow at their sleep over! Besides,I'm so lazy,this is probably the busiest night I've ever worked! So please, wait two days. Thank you. Oh, and Don't delete-Cptmike
  • Oh,please! As Bender Bending Rodregiuez would say, "Not a free host,blog, or webspace provider, my ass!". OK,so it isn't any of those things,but still,can't you wait like, two days? Cptmike
Cptmike, feel free to copy the content of your article over to your user page. Then you can show that to your friends. --Xyzzyplugh 07:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is merely a discussion that will go on for a week. After the week is over, an interested admin will try to determine the consensus. However, do not remove the afd tag from the article. happy editing. TheRingess 07:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, Xyzzyplugh, how do I do that? Cptmike
    • If you click on your own name (at the end of the last sentence you typed, there), this will open up your user page, where you can enter any text you like. --Xyzzyplugh 07:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh,wait,today's the sleep over! OK guys! Sometime this afternoon,K? I'll show it to em' then you can feel free to delete it. Cptmike
  • Delete obviously, given the above. Just zis Guy you know? 14:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miscalculation! I haven't left yet! Leave it!Cptmike
  • Speedy Delete Plenty of free websites to post material to show your friends. If exceptions are made for this, then everybody and their granny will want to have page to show their friends too. Green Giant 02:17, 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 00:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gangs_Of_Gta[edit]

Delete. Non-notable website. Alexa ranking of 1,710,247. Xyzzyplugh 07:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Sandstein 07:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; fails WP:WEB, forumcruft, likely WP:VSCA. --Kinu t/c 08:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable website. If by some miracle this article is kept, it should be pruned of all GTA gang insider information, as no one else cares about it. Wikipedia should not let people who are part of MMORPG gangs write articles about the same MMORPGs. JIP | Talk 11:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable advertisement. --Hetar 19:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Tried to revert to a proper version after spotting a vandalism, oh dear there isn't actually a good version of this article. Pointless. Smitz 11:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. --Looper5920 11:22, 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 00:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gen2x[edit]

all it is is an advertisement Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 07:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Shameless self-promotion (the two authors' only edits to Wikipedia are to this page), and rife with first person pronouns. Even if it wasn't blatant advertising, the company doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. Most search results are about baseball bats and not this software (which also doesn't seem to meet WP:SOFTWARE). --Kinu t/c 08:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if you want to advertise, contact your local newspaper and buy advertisement space. Your business can't be so poor that it can't afford even a quarter of one page or so. JIP | Talk 11:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant advertisement. Green Giant 01:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 13:55, 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 KEEP, with some interest in a merge. I'll add a tag since it's been suggested, but it can be decided editorially. -Splashtalk 23:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StreetWise[edit]

Non noteable newspaper; only link to is list of newspapers in chicagoland Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 07:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per below --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 07:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on Karnesky's work. If not that, then Merge and redirect to Street newspaper. This is just one of many papers of this type, and if it's not strong enough to survive on its own, then it can be easily folded into this article without issue.--み使い Mitsukai 07:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight keep. This is a stub, but I think it is just as notable as Real Change, (which I just fixed a redlink to StreetWise in) and Spare Change. Having been in Seattle, Boston, and Chicago, I can see that Street Wise seems to be the most prevalent, for whatever that is worth. Anyway, all three articles should be treated similarly. If StreetWise is merged to Street newspaper (which wouldn't be unreasonable), the other two should also find homes there. --Karnesky 20:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've expanded it a little bit. It now contains content comparable to the other two articles. --Karnesky 21:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Newspapers are presumptively notable, the burden should be on nom to show otherwise. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to street newspaper, unless it can be expanded. I don't see enough independent information to merit independent treatment. Postdlf 05:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that the circulation is twice that of Spare Change, which has a presumption of notability, should make this particular paper notable (barring any other differentiating content in Spare Change. It also reenforces the subjective belief I mentioned previously that StreetWise was more pervasive. If anyone votes merge, I think it would be beneficial to also say whether or not those articles which haven't been AfDed should also be merged (and why). --Karnesky 18:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As these papers all function the same way, the only variation between them appears to be their city, circulation, and how much the vendors keep. Those are mere statistics, which can easily be incorporated into the street newspaper article, perhaps in table form. Unless one of these papers has something unique about its history or its content (such as notable stories, contributors, etc.), I don't see why any of them should have an independent article when they can all be adequately covered in one. Postdlf 18:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, but put mergefrom and mergeto tags on the appropriate articles. Nom now wants to merge & redirect this & two other articles. Because it effects multiple pages and there are no deletion votes, this is a discussion which should be had on the talk page for Street papers (the article that the other three articles would possibly be merged to. --Karnesky 13:59, 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 00:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friendternet[edit]

First, let me reassert that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and certainly not one for neologisms (see WP:Avoid_neologisms. Even if it weren't, it's definitely a vanity article. From the page itself, this "term" was invented by the author, as he asserts proudly within the first couple sentences. Isopropyl 07:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, -- Ned Scott 07:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable neologism, dicdef, vanity, blogcruft... take your pick. The first sentence says it all: "The term Friendternet was coined in February of 2006..." --Kinu t/c 08:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above -- Francs2000 08:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. I had no idea wiki members could be so hostile. p.s.-If you took any time to see the site, you'd see I'm not a "he". (very observant) Who IS allowed to submit new terminology without getting pounded by commenters? Learned a real lesson here. The nastiness is unnecessary. Entry was made with no negative intentions, really. Ah well. Sarcomical 08:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry you feel you're being jumped on here, but these things tend to get listed quite quickly. New terminology is generally unencyclopedic and is mostly deleted from Wikipedia: it has to be quite notable to remain. Apart from that terminology tends to go in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. -- Francs2000 08:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Francs, I see now the whole process a bit more clearly. And I appreciate your tone as well. So sorry for not paying closer attention to the rules. I'll probably not check in on it again and just let it drop. I'm not interested in making any debates over something so silly.  ;) Thanks all.Sarcomical 08:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Neologism, Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms refers.  (aeropagitica)  09:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not the place to "submit new terminology" — ever. We are — or try to be — an encyclopaedia, and our job is to document existing phenomena, not to advertise new stuff. That's why so many people jumped on it at once. That said, categorising the article as "vanity" was unnecessary: if there are good reasons to delete an article, then they can be raised without the dreaded v-word that often causes offence; if there aren't, then mere suspected "vanity" is not enough cause to delete. By the way, Sarcomical, tea cozies (I note we don't have an article about them; oh, the same!) are designed to keep your teapot warm for longer. Nobody likes to drink tepid tea! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 23:14, 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 speedy delete Tim | meep in my general direction 10:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seena Ghaziaskar[edit]

Doesn't meet Bio requirements WU03 07:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, for the love of all that is holy, please delete! -- Ned Scott 07:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: A7 as I see no claim of notability (statements such as "His current record is 0-0" don't count). Tagged as such. --Kinu t/c 08:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as per Kinu. Chairman S. | Talk 08:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable potential boxer.  (aeropagitica)  09:34, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 00:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Samuels[edit]

User (posting as various IPS) clearly doesn't want a page and has vandalised WP to such. I should note that I filed this afd only after a person claming to be Samuels has made multiple legal threats against Wikipedia (see http://jimmywales.blogspot.com/ for a cite. I suppose one could say my objectivity is biased by the fact that I am accused in the above vandalism posts, so I will not be voting either way in this AfD. Tawker 07:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep national party leaders with media coverage and references. Most of the work seems to have been done by User:CJCurrie, a fine Wikipedian. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 08:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. It's not a registered political party [11], so how would this be any different from you calling yourself the "Caesar Party of Canada" and rating a Wikipedia entry as a national party leader? The registration requirements are hardly onerous [12], there's a registered Marijuana Party of Canada among others. Notability would depend on whether he's rated any mention in the media (a passing mention in a Time magazine article and various newspaper stories is cited, which may be significant). Regarding complaints about having a Wikipedia article, it would seem that if a person is a self-described "national political party leader" then he imagines himself to be a public figure, and public figures usually come in for public scrutiny, for better or worse. The Cosmopolitan Party of Canada could certainly also be nominated for AfD. -- Curps 08:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll admit I haven't heard of the party before, but as I said there's references- you note Time Magazine, the article also gives the Toronto Star and Ottawa Citizen. The Marijuana Party is, by the way, a well-known party, or at least it is as much as it can be without being among the four that get into Parliament. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 08:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While this is a well-written and referenced article, I doubt that he meets WP:BIO. He is the head of an unregistered party and he seems to barely get 100 votes in his constituency. Delete.Capitalistroadster 09:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong keep He's run for election three times, written a bunch of books, created a bunch of websites and founded an unregistered political party. While each of those things on its own may or may not be sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia, together they certainly are. Is Wikipedia diminshed by including this material? It isn't. Not one bit. Is it diminished by deleting it? Yes, it is. Firstly, there are people, like me an CJCurrie, who are interested in the characters who populate the firnges of the political scene. Wikipedia is exactly the right place for this sort of information because Wikipedia is not paper. Secondly, wha sort of message do we send out by deleting a lengthy article largely written by a fine Wikipedian like CJCurrie just because a few people think that the subejct isn't "notable" enough. Ground Zero | t 13:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . I like Ground Zero's summary, it pretty much sums up my thoughts on it. What's really good about the Wikipedia article is that it gathers so many sources into one article. This man has run in pretty much every election happening federally or provincially since around 1992 or so, and if he's now leader of a federal political party, which does occasionally get radio coverage (he's been interviewed), print media mentions, and has been endorsed by two federal politicans (see endorsement page on his site), it warrants an article. The fact that he's going on a rampage to complain about it in this case reinforces the need to keep it (if it wasn't so well sourced that would be another matter), not the need to delete it. Technicalglitch 14:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
added- I think he meets the criteria for "notable", even if he isn't "famous" or "important". Technicalglitch 14:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable, interesting, vandalism is irritating but not sufficient reason for deletion. (If the nominator is abstaining, then this AfD doesn't have a single delete vote so far.) (no longer true) --Malthusian (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the latest addition of rambling spew, I really think we should keep the article. Ground Zero | t 16:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up the cruft. We really don't need to know who this guy sued or got sued by, we don't need a five-page list of every book he's ever non-notably self-published and we don't need to know the minute details of his party. FCYTravis 18:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. CJCurrie 21:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I would like to draw the attention of readers to this page. CJCurrie 04:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC) And this. CJCurrie 04:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A further comment on notability: I do not believe that one can (i) advertise oneself as the leader of a national political party, (ii) register over 65 ISBN titles and extensively advertise one's books, (iii) campaign for public office three times and (iv) [apparently] oversee a quasi-religious movement, and then (v) claim not to be a public figure. Raymond Samuels is hardly the most notable person in the country, but his "publicity" is ultimately of his own design. CJCurrie 20:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As with Daniel Brandt, his activities on Wikipedia makes him notable. Where (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Running for election makes one a public figure of sorts, making his legal threats totally ludicrous. Some of the gossipy stuff in the article might be trimmed, however. *Dan T.* 19:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The sort of under the radar yet ultimately entirely notable topic a non-paper collaborative encyclopedia was made for. Samaritan 04:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dan T. I don't like legal threats. Stifle 11:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:Where and User:Ground Zero, figure is notable as per WP:BIO. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article, Block user for NLT. Ground Zero said it clearest.  ALKIVAR™ 22:37, 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 MERGE to 9/11 Truth Movement. There is little well-argued support for retaining a standalone article. Much of it is "but we have Pokemon articles". Well yes, we do. That doesn't have a great deal to do with this article though, which is largely unrelated to Pokemon. The 'merge to' arguments are well-enough supported, with the supposition that deleters will grumble but live with a merge as a compromise position that I reckon there's a reasonably consensual position on this. That said, a merge is an editorial decision. Fuddlemark's point about right's to express POVs is on the money, by the way. -Splashtalk 23:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Citizens' Commission on 9-11[edit]

KEEP: The Citizens' Commission is the best single DVD summary of the good evidence, without the nonsense and poison pills, that 911 was a USG covert operation. Michael Green

  • Delete claims "congressional hearings" on the 9/11 attacks. User:Striver created this page and has been pushing alot of '9/11 truth' POV around Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jersey Devil 08:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Do not offend me by implying i have not the right to represent my view here! I am starting to real angry and uppset over such statements! How come i am "sopboxing" when trying to represent my view, but you are contributin when you try to do the same? Im not far from losing civility. As for your accusations to the article, it clearly says: "The commision IS FORMED AS a United States Congress hearing" and not "The commision WAS a United States Congress hearing". Maybe you didnt even bother to read the title, "The Citizens Commission on 9-11", ? IF you even bother to look at it, you will see that it is a very good description. Even if it was a bad description, you should fix it, not delete the whole article. Further, it is notable for several resons, one being that Cynthia McKinney, a congresswoman, participiated in it. Man i am angry! --Striver 10:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, you don't have the right to represent your view here. Neither do I, nor anyone else on Wikipedia. WP:NOT a democracy, free speech forum, or personal website; and WP:NPOV is our second-most important policy (behind Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia). I don't have an opinion about this specific article, but I would hope that you have a better reason for creating it and similar articles besides a desire to express your own point of view, and a better reason for keeping it besides taking offence at the "nomination" above and being worried about your "rights". fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt mean it that way, i meant that all povs must be represented, including mine. --Striver 14:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is this a somehow particularly noteworthy conspiracy theory deserving its own article? Is a congressperson sitting in on a commission highly notable in the USA? Their web site seems to be mostly about selling their reports, complete with payments for the reports going to some survivalist stuff shop. Weregerbil 11:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a article about any theory at all, this is a article about a civil commission, and quite a noteworthy such, among those people holding those views. And in fact, it is noteworthy in its own acount as well, since Cynthia McKinney is participiating.
  • Comment One member of Congress participating in an event held by 9/11 'truth' organizations does not count as a Congressional hearing. Do you know what a Congressional hearing is? (note that I am not trying to be hostile and I apologize in advance if I in any way sound like I do).--Jersey Devil 11:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offence taken, bro *smile*. Thanks for being so polite to me. Bro, the event was about the most prominent researchers in the 9/11 truth field getting together to have a commisson about 9/11. Now, as it turned up, they choose to mimic the congressional variant. That does not make them a Congressioan hearing congress, neither is the article claiming any such thing. I will edit the article to clearify that. --Striver 11:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not from the US; my main source of information on the workings of the US government is The West Wing :-) There they'd send a government representative to sit with some fringe group meeting so they can say they covered all the bases. The survivalist connection here really smells like nam pla. Weregerbil 11:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Im not sure what you meant, but if you questioned wheter Cynthia whas there on her own, or sent by someone, you only need to look trough the recording to see clearly that nobody in politics would "send her" to that Commission. Her point of view in that Commission is not far from being politica suicide. Further, she was no a congresswoman at that time, she had been fired, but she was re-elected not much later. Politicians hate her, the people love her. --Striver 11:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV push to the extreme...unencyclopedic and violates WP:NOT.--MONGO 11:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mongo. Could you give me a single line that is even a LITTLE BIT POV? Man, you make me curse out loud while im typing! You not liking the article does not make the article pov! You certanly chose the correct name! --Striver 11:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I and Mongo go back, we have history... But you have right. I lost my temper on that last line. --Striver 11:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


History? I only remember you from a few days ago at most.--MONGO 13:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a long "few days". --Striver 14:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete as non-notable (apart from all the POV). As already pointed out, this isn't a "United States Congress hearing", and there is no indication this "commission" is notable even in the circles of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Echo the soapbox comment by nominator. Sandstein 12:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand why people like to repeat things i have proven false. The article DOES NOT claim that it is a United States Congress hearing, and the evidence of it being notable " in the circles of 9/11 conspiracy theorists" is that the follownig people where among them:

They are among the top of the "circles of 9/11 conspiracy theorists". If you still dont know how those people are notable, then at least admit you have no idea of who is or is not notable among those holding my view.

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

  • Delete as non-notable commission of conspiracy theorists, and a web site with the main purpose of being an ad for the report of the theorists. Weregerbil 12:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, it can be argued that it was non-notable for everyone else, but it is notable for those in the group. Its like saying that the religious festivite of a minor religion is non-notable, only since you never heard of it. I clearly showed that the most prominent people holding that view where present in that event. Notability does not mean whether you care, rather, if the relevant people care.

Is doing "the report of the theorists" not what wikiepdia is about? How can you vote delete for doing what wikipedia is about, reporting points of views?

People, dont delete things only because you dont agree with the view! --Striver 13:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the people in the group care is irrelevant. Whether the world at large cares is. The discussions I and my friends had in the pub last night were important to us, but they still aren't encyclopedic material. Can't find notability in this conspiracy theory report or the proceedings that created it. It has nothing to do with agreeing with the views, it has everything to do with WP:N. Some conspiracy theorists calling themselves "a commission" is not automatically notable. I have no POV agenda I am trying to push here. Weregerbil 13:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont get it, why can this event not have its own artice? It shows every single sign of being notable for the persons in the concerned circle!--Striver 13:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 9/11 Truth Movement, as its only claim to notability is its affiliation with that group. (And clean up the content first.) JDoorjam Talk 15:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, everything affilitated with the 9/11 Truth Movement is to be merged there? Why not merge everything related to Islam inte Islam? Why not merge Salat into Islam, since it is only notable due to being a part of Islam? --Striver 15:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, everything that doesn't have enough content that it should be a separate article should be merged there. Salat should not be merged into Islam because there's more than enough content to discuss Salat in great detail on its own page, but still give a general overview of it in its parent page, Islam. I don't see that there's enough material here that this shouldn't be merged. My reasoning is, if someone wants to get an idea of what the 9/11 Truth Movement is all about, they shouldn't have to run all over the Wiki to find information. If this is worth saying, it's small enough in content that it's worth saying on the 9/11 Truth Movement, rather than putting shards of this topic all over the encyclopedia. JDoorjam Talk 17:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn and POV. --Aaron 17:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A commision with a congresswoman participiated in it is nn and POV? Could you expand on HOW it is POV? I really like it when people say "delete, pov" to a article, without the slightest motivation on HOW it is pov. Further, POV is NPOVed, not deleted. --Striver 17:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's my understanding she was not a Congresswoman at the time... though who can tell? The article has no dates. I do have to agree with Striver that "POV" is a rather weak reason to delete this article, as the article is about a group (and maybe an event? Who can tell?) with a POV, but that does not make the article itself have a POV that cannot be, you know, N'd. JDoorjam Talk 17:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 9/11 Truth Movement as per Jdoorjam. Every commissioner was a member of the 9/11 Truth Movement. The article itself is a stub and is unlikely to acquire much new information. This indicates that the article should become a section in the 9/11 Truth Movement article.  Cdcon  19:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notable event, notable group, notable individuals, yet another bogus deletion attempt. SkeenaR 23:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 9/11 Truth Movement or Cynthia McKinney. What remains in the article is mostly verifiable information rather than POV, but there's no indication of particular notability. Was anything accomplished at this event that would make it notable and distinguishible from the views of this movement? --Dystopos 02:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Media coverage, World premier of a movie, former and future congresswoman participiated, great oppurtunity to spread the message... Why do you think people would record the entire thing and put it on the net for download, if it was non-notable for those in the movement? --Striver 03:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN UE --rogerd 03:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not adequately sourced; needs to cite at least one source published by a reliable publisher. The Citizens' Commission on 9-11 web sites are primary sources for this article. "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication." See WP:RS. The McKinney web site does not mention the article subject. The other web citations do not satisfy this guideline since "they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report". Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Article is expanded, some votes may need to be re-evaluated. --Striver 02:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge with an appropriate article on the conspiracy theory. Not notable in and of itself. --Carnildo 02:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Postdlf 04:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn Morton devonshire 11:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still delete. From the article: The commision was modeled after United States Congress hearing. So both a congressional hearing and this commission have a bunch of people asking questions from another bunch of people. Putting in a congress reference does not increase the notability of a meeting of conspiracy theorists. Neither does a flood of redlinks to nn people and nn conspiracy groups. Weregerbil 12:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered that, why do people keep ignoring the issues that make this relevant, and keep repeating things that DOES not make this relevant? Why dont you delete this sayng "they drank water, that does not make it notable"?

This was the bigges things that happened to the 9/11 movement then, ONLY that makes it notable, even if you ignore that:

  • There where VERY prominent people among the 9/11 truth movement there.
  • One of them got into congress a few month later.
  • A decade long Canadian mainstream journalist was present.
  • Media was there.
  • Families of the vicitims of 9/11 wherer there.
  • A world premier of a movie happened.
  • The whole event was recorded and is still distributed for download.
  • Notable writers where there

Guys, why do you keep ignoring that, and keep saying "sitting like a congresional hearing is not notable, delete"?--Striver 14:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FFS! THEIR NOTABILITY DOES NOT LIE THERE!. What next? "I can also talk, does them talking means that was notable?". I have on several places on this talk page listed why the event is higly notable among 9/11 Truth activists, and nowere has nobody stated that they are notable for aranging the even like a congress hearing! Stop giving strawman arguements! --Striver 19:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further, this article is NOT about a therory, this article is about a EVENT. --Striver 19:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional keep. Needs more content, a copyedit, possibly a rewrite. Otherwise merge. GregorB 20:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholehartedly with that, im not a native english writer, and i do my best. I do creat notable articela about the subject, and i gooogle after sources, but my weak side is copyediting. But as things are, wikipedia is a mutliman project, each contributing with what we can. --Striver 23:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a notable group. I'm annoyed that Striver is also posting to talk pages looking for keep votes. Rhobite 21:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is Wikipolicy to summon attention if one believes it is needed. I annoy you for following Wikipedia policies? --Striver 23:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete as non-notable. Association with a few notable people does not necessarily guarantee notability -- and the number of red links makes me wonder if those people are even notable themselves. (Additionally, many of the blue links are also AfDs.) bcasterlinetalk 22:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The red links are there because not every single person is notable, for example the families of victimes are arguebly not notable in themselves. If they are, ill be happy to create a article about them. Not all blue links are upp for AFD, and those that are will make it. In my view, they are bad faith nominations, driven by a desire to stop articles about 9/11 truthmovement to be writen. --Striver 23:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my sentiment. --Striver 23:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Citizens Commission was one of the most unique, important and key historic events of the early public response questioning the official story. There were only a few unique organized events like this that took place, where members of congress, the victim's families, and 9/11 truth activists all came together to demand answers. Bov 01:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with an appropriate article on the conspiracy theory. Not notable in and of itself. WAS 4.250 02:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I have said on most of these 9/11 AfDs, where in the policy does it say we should delete? This is a potentially significant - hence notable - gathering of people, in a public, media context to discuss a major world event and try to publish conclusions. Why not keep? Batmanand | Talk 14:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 9/11 Truth Movement. A one time event that is not notable enough by itself. David Sneek 17:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks perfectly fine to me. God knows we get enough Pokecruft: this is far more notable. GeorgeStepanek\talk 08:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an AfD discussion grows longer, the probability of a mention of Pokemon approaches 1. David Sneek 12:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. fancruft is a particularly vivid illustration of the reminder that Wikipedia isn't paper. Trying to reduce unencyclopedic articles in such well-defended fandoms would be like trying to haul the United States into a world court on human rights. --Dystopos 14:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge, no notability established. Stifle 11:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge POV is not a reason do delete articles, it is a reason to edit them.Rich Farmbrough 19:55 2 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Merge with 9/11 Truth Movement as suggested by JDoorjam above. The article should be shortened, perhaps mentioned as a side note.—Kbolino 05:05, 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 -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C.R.A.P.[edit]

Clearly a bunch of nonsense and a non-notable website to go along with it. Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 08:37, 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 -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexxxism[edit]

Unheard-of neologism developed by non-notable person who runs non-notable websites. See C.R.A.P.. Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 08:40, 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 00:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Balls McGinty[edit]

I'm pretty sure this is either a hoax or a load of misinformation. This article from the BBC mentions something about how Wikipedia misrepresented the subject of the article. CrypticBacon 08:46, 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 00:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arts in Decatur[edit]

Blatant advertising. —Xezbeth 08:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Probably useful information but not worthy of an entry. See if any of this stuff can be merged into Decatur, Georgia. CrypticBacon 09:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is an encyclopedia not a yellow pages nor a travel guide.Obina 10:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising. Forbsey 11:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. Using wikipedia as it's own website. - Erebus555↔talk
  • Transwiki to Wikitravel, if they can use it. Otherwise, delete.--み使い Mitsukai 13:57, 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. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 00:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suckage[edit]

This forum has 25 registered users and no Alexa ranking. The article has been deleted before, but for being a dicdef. Punkmorten 09:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is not ranked and only has a certain number of users is completely moot, because that particular suckage site went up a few days ago. Other sucks forums have had hundreds of users. Disko 00:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Hey, my friend told me to come here and post keep. Is this the right place? -Friendvoter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disko (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP Criteria? What kind of fukking goofy fukks run that pisshole. It's a worldwide encyclopedia and there are members from all over the globe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.45.171 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP Suckage.

Suckage context and source: Conversations with friends, since spring 2003. "I'm going to be up half the night working on this project? It's going to be major suckage," apparent meaning: Suckage takes it's meaning from the extremely common slang word "suck" (v), meaning "to be terrible, horrible, etc." and turns it into a noun, so that everything that "sucks" can now be deemed "suckage". It is to be used in the most informal setting. type of word formation: Another example of affixation: suck + age (n-forming). dictionary entry: suckage, n. Anything that is terrible, unpleasant. [suck + -age] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.45.171 (talk • contribs)

  • KEEP This is the problem with the United States. Everyone preaches Free Speech, but if they don't like something they want it deleted. That is not Freedom of Speech, that's censorship. I have never scene a more hypocritical country in the world.


  • KEEP !!

An encyclopedia has entries for all kinds of subjects, even the ones that don't interest you in person. The suckage is a strange community that reaches religious proportions... it is more a culture with ti's own ideals that just an online community. People often don't know or understand what the Suckage is. This article tells these people what they want to know. If you think this article should go because you find it uninteresting, then go ahead and delete a whole bunch of other shitty articles. FREE SPEECH! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoink, King Spammer (talk • contribs) (first edit ever)

ALSO.. WHAT GOOD ARE ALEXA RATINGS ??? THEY MEAN JACK !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phreakwars (talk • contribs) (second edit ever)

  • KEEP

As a moderator of other BBS's I have seen the "SUCKAGE" in action, Not many people realize the groups origins were founded by Dan Parisi, this is important because it covers many aspects of Dan's biography.. a couple of other of Dan's claims to fame can be found as being the owner of the controversial domains whitehouse.com and madonna.com, the later in which, he was sewed by Madonna the singer for. I can point out MANY different sites on Wikpedia that reference another web site... but how many of them have an actual history ?? Maybe if you let the suckage "GANG" tell the tale of the suckage, you will see the relevance of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phreakwars (talk • contribs) (first edit ever) The term Suckage should stay.

  • Speedy Delete Recreation of deleted material fits the critera for a speedy delete. Added Speedy Delete: Repost template to article. Furthermore, User:Disko was responsible for most of the stuff added to the page.--Jersey Devil 09:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, it is completely different to the last previously deleted content and I have removed notice accordingly. I recommend deletion due to not meeting WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 09:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:WEB.--MONGO 13:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per above. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 17:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to strong delete per this Naconkantari e|t||c|m 04:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable as any other internet community, and as relevant as other articles, see Rainbow Monkeys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disko (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Delete: per above. --Hetar 18:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Free speech is a fundamental right of every human being and should not be censored, the 'suckage' is as valid as anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.171.112 (talk • contribs) .
  • KEEP There are articles on every other virtual communities here, so why are we playing pick-and-chose with what goes and what stays? I mean, there are articles on Goatse for crying out loud.
If you read the article, you'd see they mention that the SucksNET version of the forum only opened recently. I was familiar with Sucks500, and at its peak that forum had hundreds of active members and was one of the more popular free speech forums on the web.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.19.165 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP Free speech is a fundamental right of every human being and should not be censored, the suckage is as valid as anything.
This is the problem with the United States. Everyone preaches Free Speech, but if they don't like something they want it deleted. That is not Freedom of Speech, that's censorship. I have never scene a more hypocritical country in the world.
The term Suckage should stay.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hüd (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy delete as per Jersey Devil Capitalistroadster. --Karnesky 21:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, nn website. Comments from its few members don't change that. Fan1967 23:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per above. --TheMidnighters 23:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. This has nothing to do with censorship. Deltabeignet 01:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With apologies to forum people, your web content is non-notable. Free speech doesn't mean a guaranteed audience on any web site of your choosing. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. This is an international encyclopedia, and has nothing to do with the state of free speech in America or anywhere else. Grandmasterka 01:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't a forum for free speech, it's an encyclopedia, one with standards for inclusion that this article doesn't meet. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A non-notable web forum that does not meet WP:WEB. — TheKMantalk 06:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable per WP:WEB. Oh yeah, Wikipedia is not a democracy. It's free, but not lawless. --Kinu t/c 06:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong speedy delete as per Jersey Devil. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 18:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. I can freely say, accordingly, that Suckage is not notable and fails the WP:WEB criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- it's not about American free speech it;'s worldwide. Members from Europe, Australia, Canada, etc. R.O. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.105.121.234 (talk • contribs) .
  • Speedy delete as blatant self-promoting vanity advertisement per CSD A7 (non-notable group of people). We don't care about some trolling forum that's less than one tenth as notable as the GNAA. All of these meatpuppets simply makes me want to delete this even more. Tagged. --SYCTHOStalk 03:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. James 03:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per meat-socky-pocky and unproven notability. The real problem with United States is that everyone has freedom of speech, but a) nobody has the time to listen to everything that gets said in the whole country all the time, b) nobody wants to write down everything they hear or read, and c) naughty people who inhabit the country demand, for some reason we foreigners (let alone the natives) can't comprehent, $$money$$ for computer hardware and Internet connectivity, both of which are needed to host Wikipedia, and a) and b) and c) considered together leads to the inevitable conclusion that Wikipedia must only include things that actually do matter, and not non-notable cruft like this. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB, flood of socks. Stifle 11:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Jersey Devil.--み使い Mitsukai 13:59, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fluid movement[edit]

I can't find any evidence that this subject is real. Booyabazooka 09:29, 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 00:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quest Atlantis[edit]

Delete, Just doesn't seem notable enough for me as perWP:WEB Xorkl000 09:52, 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 01:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gere Solid[edit]

This article has no citing sources and lack of information in order to be encyclopedic, in any case. None of the pages have linked to this page, and the contributior who created it has left. adnghiem501 09:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also listed Image:RGSlogo.jpg at WP:IFD, just in case. adnghiem501 09:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, nothing in the above nomination, just by itself, would be a ground for deletion: however the article doesn't seem to assert any notability for its topic, and searching (enclosed with quotes) gets a whacking 24 google hits, so overall a definite delete. AndyJones 17:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Andy. Even if this game is real, I feel safe in surmising that it doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE. --Kinu t/c 18:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu. Stifle 11:39, 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 01:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Mumford[edit]

Delete as non-notable under WP:BIO -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Forbsey 11:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-verified and potential nn. --Cymsdale 12:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 14:50, 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 speedy delete nonsense. -SCEhardT 16:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pati Balázs[edit]

This article is a bio of an insignificant person named "Pati Balázs". The article has a respectable amount of fiction, and this guy even asks for money! --TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! 10:41, 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 -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Junkslut[edit]

Protologism. One unrelated google hit. Was speedy'd, tag removed. Weregerbil 10:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Hetar 18:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another neologism, created by a dude at a webcomic. Delete. -- Saberwyn 20:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination; non-notable protoneologism/neoprotologism. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This word is less than a week old! Cyde Weys 20:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this and other slanguage derived from Penny Arcade could be a sub-article on the Penny Arcade article

Not worth it. Penny-Arcade has published, what, hundreds of strips by now? You can't possibly cover every little non-notable phrase or bit they've made up. --Cyde Weys 20:46, 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. The reference to Wikipedia being the only source of reference info is the nail in the coffin. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a primary one. -Splashtalk 23:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COEBA[edit]

A worthy enough aim, but I find it hard to establish notability. Sounds like somethign widespread, but turns out to be a ministry of a single church. COEBA gets a few Googles, but as an ETLA many of these are not for this organisation. "Conference On Evangelizing Black America" gets around 150 unique Googles, including numerous directories. I know it has established an average of 1.5 churches per year, but is that actually a notable achievement? Maybe it is. Just zis Guy you know? 11:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per non-notable unless someone can provide a source of membership to establish wider notablity. Delete redirectConference On Evangelizing Black America. Arbusto 05:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. -- Krash (Talk) 16:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In Fundamental Baptist circles an organization "should" fall under the authority of a church. On the other hand, this church could not have accomplished this without the aid of a large number of supporting churches ("members" referenced above. Arbusto) The costs are just too high. To date, COEBA has started over 20 churches with two more to start in 2006. Notability becomes more apparent when you consider what existed back in 1994. Thoughout the U.S. You could probably count Independent Baptist churches pastored by black men on your two hands. Today they number around 50! Over one third from COEBA activity. Wikipedia is the only "reference info." source fortunate enough to provide info on this shift/change as it happens. --Ben 01:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as "Wikipedia is the only "reference info." source fortunate enough to provide info on this shift/change as it happens." Wikipedia is not a primary source, therefore this is unverifiable. Stifle 11:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (am I allowed to vote twice?) So even though the article itself references 8 different articles from external sources that document the COEBA movement in 7 different years, is it still considered unverifiable?? Of course it is verified, but I thought it was being considered for deletion because of "non-noteablity" only. Please identify the reasons for suggested deletion so they can all be addressed. --Ben 15:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (am I allowed to vote twice?) No, you can only vote once. - Mailer Diablo 01:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A non-wikipedia member wrote regarding this issue:

COEBA stands as the only significant fundamental Baptist effort targeting church planting in black communities. The measurement of this organization's "notability" may be skewed due to a lack of understanding of COEBA's ongoing work. COEBA would be more properly termed a "movement" than an "organization." Its absence of tangible infrastructure renders its success difficult to quantify, particularly by the casual observer. However, closer inspection and polling of those directly affected shed light on this fundamental movement that is nothing short of a phenomenon.

In addition to the more than twenty churches planted, this effort has single-handedly redefined the perception of black Americans in fundamental circles. Of the more than 10,000 fundamental Baptist churches in the United States, significantly fewer than 100 are pastored by black American men. Most fundamental Christians have never served alongside a black person. The great majority of the pastors of those 10,000 churches have been acquainted with COEBA on some level. This has led to an unprecedented effort to understand, accept and evangelize black people either directly or indirectly through the ministry of these churches. COEBA has done more to raise awareness of the need and potential than all other efforts combined.

Throughout the 1990's, COEBA was a rare and dominant church planting voice in fundamentalism, thereby helping to spark a revival of church planting emphasis in many circles, irrespective of race. In the movement's brief twelve-year history it remains the unrivaled source of counsel, inspiration and hope for pastors, laymen and Christian workers with issues regarding fundamentalism and the black community. There simply is no other cause that holds the position that COEBA has in fundamental circles. More than 300 churches support this effort verbally and through financial contribution. A majority of fundamental Bible colleges and organizations stand firm in endorsement. With nearly five million missions dollars given through the ministries of COEBA churches, COEBA has proven that its foremost commitment remains that of world evangelism.

Perhaps the most important facet of this movement is its training of the next generation of Christians, i.e., children in churches across the country. These youth possess great talent and skill and are leaders among their peers. Should the Lord tarry, they will grow into America's first measurable generation of fundamental black Christians.

COEBA's regional and national gatherings have consistently drawn representatives from hundreds of churches, Bible colleges and Christian organizations. Its most effective work, however, is through grass roots influence, counsel, education, encouragement and peer-to-peer contact. The impact of the COEBA movement vis-a-vis fundamental circles is an ever-evolving force that is changing the face of fundamentalism.

It takes time, and, perhaps, a generation to change the psyche produced by decades of missteps regarding Black America. Still, there are many on the bandwagon. Here is what several prominent fundamental leaders have said about COEBA: (the quotes below are copied from a 1999 COEBA magazine)

"COEBA, the vision of Lou Baldwin, a preacher of the gospel, draws my admiration and attention because it applies Bible remedies to the sinful human hearts of Bible-starved souls..." Bob Jones III - President, Bob Jones University

"I thank the Lord for the COEBA movement with the great objective of soul winning and the building of churches... This organization is doing a work that is much needed." Dr. Lee Roberson - Chancellor, Tennessee Temple University

"New Testament curches are the salt and light America needs. Praise God for Pastor Lou Baldwin and COEBA -- a gift from God to Black America." Dr. Sam Davison - Pastor, Southwest Baptist Church

"Pastors across America should thank God for raising men like Dr. Lou Baldwin ... It is my prayer that through COEBA many thousands of lives will be influenced as we move into the 21st century." Dr. Paul Chappell - Pastor, Lancaster Baptist Church - President, West Coast Baptist College

"COEBA is on of the greatest biblical missionary movements of this generation." Dr. Don Sisk - President/General Director, Baptist International Missions, Inc.

"This is a movement that has the hand of God upon it. The Lord has provided visionary leadership through Dr. Lou Baldwin to reach so many millions with the gospel." Dr. Clarence Sexton - Pastor, Temple Baptist Church - President, Crown College

--Ben 13:44, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Union Jam[edit]

Non notable, returns 64 hits on Google. Jtrost (T | C | #) 03:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable, for a start. Stifle 21:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Babajobu 11:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Irishpunktom\talk 11:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not encyclopedic. Also, please note Irishpunktom that this is a discussion and not a vote, and the closing admin may disregard "votes" without rational. refer to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion. - brenneman{T}{L} 12:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopaedic. --Terence Ong 14:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The festival appears to be real, but doesn't Google well. As the article currently stands, there is nothing to indicate notability. Delete unless expanded. Punkmorten 14:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreeing with Punkmorten; I find nothing to support this event's notability, such as more-than-passing mentions in either major Philadelphia paper. --Kinu t/c 18:35, 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 01:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeder Support for Image Boards[edit]

Non-notable (33 Google hits), possibly stale, software project. Article created by only (?) developer. --Pjacobi 11:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 17:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a very well-known project; among imageboards probably 1 or 2 people use it. Nice idea, but Wikipedia is not Sourceforge. Ashibaka tock 22:40, 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 REDIRECT to Bob Barker seems sensible. -Splashtalk 23:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Barker[edit]

This one line article seems to be about someone actually called George Barker. The Panoramic painting page gives more information, this article is uneccesary, Delete. ::Supergolden:: 11:40, 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 No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem Reaction Solution[edit]

  • Speedy Delete the page has been deleted before which makes it subject to a speedy. Unfortunately the User:Striver who made the page has removed the speedy deletion tag on this article [13]. The article itself is nn and POV trying to promote Alex Jone's movies Jersey Devil 11:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the term is notable, Google gives 25 000 hits on "Problem Reaction Solution" [14] and 27 900 000 hits on Problem Reaction Solution [15]. Alex Jones movie is not THAT popular that i would creat 25 000 hits on a TERM used in it, clearly proving that the term is used widely outside the movie. It is actally irrelevant from where the term comes, 25 000 hits is enogh to make it notable in it self. Being delete once does not mean that it should remain deleted for ever. This is a new and fresh afd--Striver 12:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Speedy Delete as recreated content. I'd do it myself, but the page creator and I edit some of the same pages. Tom Harrison Talk 13:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Isn't David Icke the guy who dresses all in blue turquoise and says lizardmen rule the world? If he agreed with me, I'd keep quiet about it. Tom Harrison Talk 13:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe you find yourself in good company with Art Bell than. You share his views on Sept11. SkeenaR 22:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Would be of dubious notability even if new. It appears to exist online almost exclusively in the context of cranky 9/11 conspiracy theories, e.g. [16] / [17] . This article is one of several equally POV-heavy (and badly written) 9/11-related articles recently created by Striver. Sandstein 13:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean its not notable since its used " almost exclusively in the context of cranky 9/11 conspiracy theories"? So, does that mean that Fard is also non-notable since it is used exclusivly by Muslims? Could you point out the pov, so i can correct it? --Striver 13:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there are a lot more Muslims than 9/11 conspiracy theorists. That's why an Islamic concept such as Fard can be of significance to a great number of people, even non-Muslims. Problem Reaction Solution, on the other hand, seems to be a neologism used only within a small circle of persons with no discernible impact on the broader discourse (on 9/11 or anything else). See WP:NEO (or maybe, considering the seriousness of all this, rather WP:NFT :-). Greetings, Sandstein 14:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It being prominently used among the 9/11 truth movment makes it notable, it is not a neologism, it was used surely more than 20 times in 1999 by David Icke when in University of Toronto Only that in it self makes it notable. --Striver 14:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, even then it warrants at the most a well-sourced brief mention in the main 9-11 conspiracy theories article, and not its own article. Even so, what you call the "9-11 truth movement" is objectively the viewpoint of a small fringe minority (and for most others it's somewhere between paranoid silliness and downright offensive). All those articles of yours might be seen as being designed to give this fringe more weight than they are due - or, in other words, as POV-pushing. Greetings, Sandstein 17:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a 9/11 neologism, it was used prominently already in 1999.

Further, not that it maters, the 9/11 truth movement is not a "small fringe minority". Does "small fringe minority" include a:

No? BUT, even if it was a "small fringe minority", deleting it is a violation of Wikipedia policies. All those articles of yours might be seen as being designed to give this fringe more weight than they are due - or, in other words, as POV-pushing" is against Wikipolicies:

None of this, however, is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.

Source: WP:NPOV#Undue_weight

IF we can have Ass worship, why not this? --Striver 17:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Speedy delete unencyclopedic, fails to demonstrate notability.--MONGO 13:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

25 000 google and you say " fails to demonstrate notability"? --Striver 13:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google does not mean everything for notability, you know. --Terence Ong 14:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but Alex Jones, Dacid Icke using the term does make it notable in it self, even witout 25 000 google hits. You got several articles starting and describing the term, that does make it notable in it self. You see films using that term 30 times, that makes it notable. --Striver 14:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, unencyclopedic, nn. --Terence Ong 14:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Mongo and Ter. --Aaron 17:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote to plain old delete as crankcruft following Striver's expansion of the article. --Aaron 17:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, we can have Facesitting, Smotherbox, Body worship or even Queening stool, but not this? Common people, what are you doing? --Striver 18:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're following WP:CSD. --Aaron 18:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep. Striver's often divisive and inflammatory, and openly admits that his views are waaay outside the norm. I think it's because of these things that this article is getting deep-sixed. This term has been used in news sources, and is in use all over the web. Yes, often in tinfoil-hat-style conspiracy diatribes. But it's in use. (Striver's also right about ass worship -- wtf is that about?) This also seems a lot like an extension of the "Rally 'Round the Flag" effect, which seems to be the academically accepted version of this same concept (i.e., no shady government conspiracies, lizard men, Illuminati, space Nazis, etc.). If that article had been written, I'd suggest merging this content over there. In fact, as it stands, if this article survives (doesn't look promising), I'll probably move it to Rally 'round the flag and rewrite it... muahhahhahahahaha. JDoorjam Talk 18:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Ehh, nevermind. Upon review, there's not really much there that could be salvaged for Rally 'round the flag. JDoorjam Talk 18:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or Delete. This is a dictionary entry. The term satisfies (Wiktionary criterion) Idiomacity, but its Attestation is shaky. I think the citations give enough evidence of Attestation, but I can see how one could disagree.  Cdcon  19:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a neologism used by a small group of people. I doubt that it would be of much interest to Wiktionary. Capitalistroadster 21:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

something used in 1999 is not a neologism. How large is the group using Facesitting? --Striver 21:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article is a one-liner neologism dicdef, followed by an unencyclopedic mess of 9/11 conspiracy theory POV ranting. Another example of a recent rash of such articles. Weregerbil 22:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think most of these recent deletion attempts are bogus. They seem more about suppression of ideas than issues with notability or POV. SkeenaR 22:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crankcruft. Ashibaka tock 22:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crankcruft is a fair evaluation. Zora 21:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm kind of wondering why it takes this article so long to get a point across, whereas divide and rule conveys the same general type of information with less filler. Maybe it's because divide and rule doesn't mention every single use of the idea in an attempt to salvage a semblance of notability. The article needs a major rewrite, and I'm headed to tag it with copyedit right now. Isopropyl 00:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Alex Jones + David Icke != notable. Rhobite 02:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crankcruft --rogerd 03:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are deleting a article that gets 25 000 google hits and is a major term among a significant minority, only since it haves to much information? --Striver 01:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Page is updated, votes regardin neologism and content must be re-evalutated. This still gives 25 000 google hits. --Striver 23:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undecided: It seems to be a real term for a real technique, but the application of it to the September 11 attacks is pure crankcruft. --Carnildo 03:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still delete as crankcruft; this article does not improve by the citation of "the english David Icke" [sic] and the likes of him as an authority. Sandstein 06:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Guys, you are confusing notability and verifaiability with.... i dont know... The term is real, what it means or is used for is totaly irrelevant for the keeping or deleting of the article! --Striver 11:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still delete as one-liner neologism dicdef followed by a couple of pages of non-encyclopedic 9/11 conspiracy theory cruft and a laundry list of individual peoples' opinions (now complete with Adolf!). An article that professes to talk about something, but in reality is an opinion pushing piece about something totally different. Updating the page by adding even more cruft doesn't make the it better because the cruft is the fatal flaw in the first place. Weregerbil 15:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this non notable, but Ass worship, Divide and rule, Facesitting, Smotherbox, Body worship or even Queening stool, is not? Give a answer to that! Your only propblem is with what the term is USED for, not notability, and that is censorship. Content with articles are dealt with, that called editing, problems are addred at talk page. You dont delet a perfectly verifiablen and notable word over conten issues! Why not delete Islamofascism (term)?--Striver 15:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you improve the article so that it is NPOV? So that nobody reading the article can guess that you have a POV agenda on 9/11, anti-SomeCountry, or anything else? I could cut the Example and Use sections but I fear fierce resistance and drawn-out rv wars to any POV-neutralizing edits. Weregerbil 16:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you are meaning that the article is being delete since its being accused of being POV, without any atempts to NPOVing?`--Striver 16:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. I vote delete as one-liner neologism dicdef (incidentally followed by a couple of pages of biased chatter). Is there a real article waiting to be born? A verifiable article about a notable term, not about 9/11 conspiracy theories and anti-SomeCountry propaganda? I don't see it happening due to circumstances, but will be happy to be proven wrong! Weregerbil 16:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something is NOT a neologism if it was used in the 1990. It is notable, 25 000 google hits. It is used by the most prominent conspiracy theorist, again making it notable. and its greatly more notable, used and contentfull than Queening stool. You are obviously agendadriven.--Striver 18:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got 61,500 hits on "red suspender viola". You can get multiple Google hits on the oddest things. Zora 01:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got Zeor (0) hits [18] --Striver 02:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, you used quote marks and I didn't. Zora 03:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I do have an agenda: make Wikipedia a reliable source of information. It is my opinion that this article has a snowball's chance in hell of being a positive contribution to the quality of Wikipedia. This is due to what I perceive to be fierce resistance to making it anything but a laundry list of anti-SomeCountry propaganda and 9/11 conspiracy theorizing. I will be happily surprised by being proven wrong! And I will now be waiting quietly for that to happen, because anything I say will just probably make the resistance dig in deeper in its trenches. Over and out. Weregerbil 18:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to inform the readers that Weregerbil has made zero (0) atempts of editing this article. As if it matered, POV issues, if they even existed, are to be solved by editing and talk page, not deleting the article. He is all talk. --Striver 18:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Weregerbil is under no obligation to attempt to edit an article before joining its AfD discussion. And WP:GD makes it clear that when an article's POV issues are considered extreme enough, an AfD is a perfectly acceptable alternative to "editing and talk": If the text in question is a passage or section within an article that is otherwise satisfactory, it is usually removed by simply editing it out of the article. If, however, all or most of the article is problematic, the page itself may be removed. --Aaron 22:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a single quote from the article that is POV? I doubt it. --Striver 00:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. "Problem Reaction Solution" on Google gives 26,200 hits, while - quite interestingly - "Problem Reaction Solution" -Icke gives 20,900 hits, meaning that claims that this is purely some Icke's mumbo-jumbo neologism are simply not true. Conspiracy theorists' speak? Yes. And why not? From what I've seen in the comments above, it is as if some people think that keeping this article on Wikipedia would be tantamount to saying that Bush orchestrated 9/11. This is not so: understand that it is perfectly acceptable to create articles about viewpoints that we find unappealing and/or downright wrong. This article doesn't do it in the best of ways, but this only means it should be improved. Yes, one could rightly stick NPOV/copyedit/cleanup/whatever notices on this article. But I see no good reason why it should be deleted as a matter of principle. GregorB 20:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does not appear to fall foul of the policy in a claer-cut manner at any point. Batmanand | Talk 14:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per GregorB. It is not a good article, but that is no reason to delete. David Sneek 17:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ... unfortunately. Basically like everyone else said. Yes, it's conspiracy-cruft, but it's referenced enough: the term is widely used enough that we should have an article on it. And we can't just redirect to Thesis, antithesis, synthesis because Hegel used TAS to mean many things, while PRS its really only used to mean "conspiracy"; the meaning is related, but not the same. However, I would be much in favor of shortening the article by quite a lot. It should be something like three paragraphs long: one paragraph defining the term, and referring to Hegel, one paragraph about the term's creationg by Icke, and one list of references, one line per reference, not one paragraph per reference. If the thing is kept, and no one else will do it, I can do that. GRuban 14:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Striver, please, you could at least try to make it a halfway decent article. As it stands, it's spectacularly bad. Personally, I think that we absolutely don't need it and should put all the "please improve me" templates we have on top of it. But unfortunately, I see no reason to delete it after the update. I'm tempted to abstain from my vote, but I guess that would be too much of a cop-out... Striver, I think you should cut the article in half at the very least, and try to layout it in a way that doesn't hurt my head. Please note that I don't have an agenda beyond keeping crappy articles out of Wikipedia as far as possible. I don't care about your conspiracy theories, as long as you clearly label them as such and keep them to a maximum of a few sentences here and there. That's about all consensus will give you, so don't fight it. You are entitled to an opinion, but NOT to valuable space in articles that should cover views that are way, way more subsantiated than yours.Mstroeck 21:57, 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. KnowledgeOfSelf 12:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul_J_Moss[edit]

  • Reason why the page should be deleted Bongos 11:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be vanity? Paul J Moss is not notable as far as I can tell. Googling turned up only a few bizarre hits: :http://www.astronomy.net.nz/frame19.htm (Scroll down that particular page!)
'Googling' turns up 6 million on some days and 12 million on others. The subject has been in #1 response for 5 out of 6 years, and many of the top 10 for many of those years. FACT. moza 10:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
removed my single vote. If discussion doesn't take place here then how can the voting be valid, almost nil discussion took place elsewhere, and the cut and pasters have ripped this page apart so many times, it doesn't make sense, it's not the truth, it has serious ommisions, and it certainly doesnt have any balance. The history of this page shows blatant ignorance of the facts, superficiality on a broad scale, meanspiritedness that I knew existed but found hard to believe every other time I encountered it. The philosphy here is said to be construction, so if the article doesn't fit the rules, why not alter it, build a new one, get the known facts, be vigilant against how things appear on the surface, be all that a wikipedian can be. I have witnessed crowd behaviour here, emotion and assumption, hardly any reality, its a good learning zone about ourselves, at least I contributed to exposing that aspect to the clear minded. moza moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - owning a few domain names, sticking your name in a huge font on a couple of websites to fool google and taking a few pictures of the sky isn't really a big mark of notability, however worthwhile the last occupation is. It's a vanity article too - if it weren't for a humungous amount of edits by the article's subject, the article wouldn't exist. That said, I'm loathe to enourage or endorse the proposer of the AfD since he's got some ulterior motives regarding the article subject --Aim Here 16:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the subject owns many domain names and they have extremely useful content, and are linked to by many great worldwide institutions. moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above: not notable; fails WP:BIO. Google rank in a few arcane sujects does not confer notability, especially when you put your name and list your websites (along with a number of keywords) everywhere you can. bcasterlinetalk 17:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
fabrication to support your POV. moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Um, what? Xtra is the largest ISP in New Zealand! I'm on dial up so my IP is dynamic. Are you going to post every Xtra IP address as proof of a conspiracy? Anyhoo, I didn't mean to cause offense, it's just that your entry seems to violate the terms and spirit of Wiki. If you've done something notable, tell the world about it, and I'll withdraw my delete vote. Oh and gotta love Google Cache... here's that page as it was _before_ you hastily edited out all the questionable content (minus pics for speed): http://www.geocities.com/eastriverqueen/frame19.htm
its illegal to copy and hack other peoples websites, and bad taste to mis use the hacked version to promote your own POV. moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include most web pages"
  • Delete. Article does not establish notability as an astronomer. A Google search for "Paul Moss" astronomy comes up with 702 hits with few verifiable sources [19]. A similar search on Google books came up empty. A search for "Paul Moss" came up with a number of names but none that was immediately associated with this guy. A Google Scholar credit for "Paul Moss" astronomy came up with two entries [20]. In short, he doesn't seem notable enough as yet as an astronomer nor is there any evidence of meeting WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 22:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this user used the previously unpublished search name.moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the pages have either been deleted or put in process by the author.moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Vanity, not noteable etc. Even if the nomination was in bad faith the article still doesn't appear to meet criteria. The guy who is vandalizing the astronomy stuff should see the quote on my user page btw. - SimonLyall 23:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Aim Here. -- Avenue 00:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)*Delete — Wouldn't even satisfy the average professor test. I think it's great what he's doing, but it's just not all that notable. Sorry. :) — RJH 02:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
how about writing an article to serve the same function? moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. 68.87.71.183 06:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: These articles are nothing but vanity, no matter how you look at it. 210.55.80.151 04:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. Now back to adding stuff to Wikipedia... Ziggurat 06:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EVERY web page promotes itself. moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Also violates WP:ASR. Stifle 11:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldnt be, but when POV enters then it becomes one, moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has done notable things in the field of astronomy. excuse me other people have URL's in this so why cant I? paul wrote the entire site Bongos linked, as well as many other related ones such as http://www.rakiuraimages.com/ . please dont edit my post again or things will get nasty 203.97.108.242 08:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes i wondered how that can be allowed as well, the rules are used when it suits, and ignored when it suits, crowd behaviour. (i'd prefer to not see the threats though.)moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
!!! KEEP !!! Paul has some amazing photo's that have been recognised internationally, and the sharing of pictures between sites is mutual. Paul also has some very valid and interesting views, and i think deletion would be a big mistake and a big loss of content. Get a clue Bongos.  (original by 219.89.179.18)
yes i brought this back and no its not mine, check the ip. it was deleted by user 72.242.25.5 in his grand anonymous cleanup. I try and sign my work, proudly and with ID. moza 11:21, 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 DELETE ALL. -Splashtalk 23:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UHW Wrestling, UHW Universal Champion,UHW InterNational Championship, UHW X-Rated Championship, UHW Tag-Team Championship[edit]

The articles below do Does not appear to satisfy the guidelines for inclusion for websites. brenneman{T}{L} 12:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amended per Englishrose. - 22:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Important Note: I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all about this E-wrestling and using wikipedia as a web host.
Englishrose 22:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet the WP:WEB guidelines. Their Geocities website has no Alexa traffic rank. The forum has 66 registered members only. — TheKMantalk 14:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 17:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. "As of 2006, the board has 55 Registered members from all across the globe" doesn't help its notability push. --Kinu t/c 18:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet the WP:WEB guidelines. They are using this site as a web hosts. There geocities page links to two of their "sites", a forum and their "wiki site". Englishrose 22:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Dsol 23:43, 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. However, it's been turned into a redirect which appears to have stuck, so I'll leave it. If the article gets repeatedly reverted, it can have its history deleted or be protected or something. 70.29.239.249's opion on admins is duly set aside. -Splashtalk 00:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gino Ruffolo[edit]

Delete as non-notable under WP:BIO. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Note: in my opinion, administrators should not be able to vote. 70.29.239.249 16:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gino Ruffolo is a political candidate, but does not hold at least a provincial office at the moment, and has not received significant press coverage. (Nothing in Google news, and only two or so related hits on Google.) Does not meet WP:BIO guidelines. — TheKMantalk 14:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The majority (if not all) Vaughan council members record no results on Google news. I don't believe TheKMan's vote should count as he is not familar with the city.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.239.249 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. --Ardenn 21:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incumbent mayors are permitted articles on Wikipedia; mayoral candidates are not. Delete. And by the by, I'm about three reverts away from proposing a permanent Wikipedia block on any IP that resolves to York Region. Bearcat 23:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: in my opinion, administrators should not be able to vote. 70.29.239.249 05:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The opinions of people have already accrued two "you're gonna get blocked if you keep that up" warnings, when their first-ever Wikipedia edit was less than 24 hours ago, kinda sorta tend not to be taken as seriously as the opinions of people who've been around here for a few years, and know how things work, and have established relatively trustworthy reputations. Especially when you're misreading them as actually meaning a comment that was obviously intended sarcastically. HTH, HAND. Bearcat 06:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My first edit was months ago. I choose not to sign up because I do not use this system very often. I am also doing nothing to get blocked. You told me to stop with the personal attacks and I have complied. I am allowed to question the rules. I feel, as an admin, you are far too personally invested in this discussion. 70.29.239.249 16:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by Talk:Vaughan municipal election, 2006, you most certainly have not complied with my statement about personal attacks — your most recent personal attack was posted 25 minutes after you posted this comment. And if you'd care to point out how I'm personally invested in the discussion, I'm all ears — considering that I'm an NDP member in downtown Toronto who's never met anybody involved in this matter and has never been to Vaughan in my life apart from passing through it on the 400, I'd love to know where you think my purported "bias" on the subject lays. Bearcat 18:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above pm_shef 21:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is the ONE and ONLY challenger in a major GTA mayor race. My IP is not from York Region, so my vote should count for double. 70.29.239.249 05:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification No he's not, he's running against an incumbent, thus making him NOT the only candidate. pm_shef 05:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the above clarification remark was removed by 70.29.239.249 here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the text Cambridge. You appear to have ulterior motives when you post such things. I took off the clarification because it is not necessary anymore. Pm_shef's comment does not make any sense. Read it. I fixed my comment a few minutes after I posted and the clarification should be removed. Since the admins can do this, I hearby ask that you remove the irrelevant clarification. Thank you. 70.29.239.249 16:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mangojuice 06:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification Basically, theirs two choices, either all incumbents and candidates articles should be deleted or all kept. No in betweens. I vote Keep but if one is deleted then they all should be Deleted both incumbents and candidates. Also to clarify Ruffolo is in fact currently the ONLY challenger to the incumbent in the Mayors race.--Eyeonvaughan 06:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it's that simple. The other candidates may have notability outside of the scope of this particular political race. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being a candidate does ot amount to notablility. However, incumbant people do a lot of work, which if notable, should be documented. Stress is on the notability of the work done by them. Candidates can't do much with respect to notability in being a candidate unless they are engaged in some historic battle, which does require notability out of candidature. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just wanted to bring to everyone’s attention that John Greer a candidate for councillor in Toronto posted his own article in Jan. (which he admitted in the talk page). Soon after he posted it someone put it up for deletion. Even though he posted it himself the article won the debate to stay an article since he is a current candidate for councillor in the 2006 municipal election. With all do respect to Greer he really has not accomplished enough in the past to be an article and is pretty non-notable. His won the debate to stay so shouldn’t Ruffolo’s also? --Eyeonvaughan 09:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't won any debate — there hasn't been one. Somebody suggested on the talk page that it should be listed on AFD, but as of today nobody's ever actually listed it for deletion. Frankly, I sincerely doubt that it would survive an AFD, but being here because nobody's nominated it for deletion in the first place is hardly the same thing as actually surviving an AFD. Bearcat 09:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't up for deletion? whats this then? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Greer&oldid=36682359 I looked through the history and found a "speedy deletion" then the speedy deletion message was taken down--Eyeonvaughan 09:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More info: I have nominated John Greer for AfD. This should settle the debate. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I added more information to make this candidate a bit more notable. 70.29.239.249 16:02, 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. Mailer Diablo 07:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SplOg[edit]

Delete as non-notable. (Google search yields only 3 results.) -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:52, 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 speedy delete as recreation of deleted content, CSD G4. Chick Bowen 20:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best Friends... Different Personalities[edit]

Prodded under not a crystal ball. Prod tag removed, improperly restored (though probably with no ill intent). Moving here as contested. It's Disney Channel show for 2008. Delete as too far in the future to bother speculating about. 12:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC) NickelShoe 12:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unverifiable (nothing on IMDB or Google), and per nominator. — TheKMantalk 14:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I {{prod}}ded the page originally and I will assume good faith on behalf of the editor who removed the tag. I don't see how any edits to the page could prevent a television programme due to be transmitted in 2008 anything other than crystal ballism.  (aeropagitica)  16:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crystal ball. Include one year after release if it turns out to e significant. Just zis Guy you know? 16:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Substantially the same article just went through AfD as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Best_Friends...Different_Personalities and was deleted earlier this week. The difference is that this time, the writer put an extra space in the article title. This show is a hoax. --Metropolitan90 19:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The writer didn't put the extra space in; another editor did. Anyway, this should be a speedy delete as recreation of deleted content. --Metropolitan90 19:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: G4 as recreation of deleted material. I see no major changes in this version. The original deleted page, Best_Friends...Different_Personalities, is now serving as a redirect to here; recommend a {{deletedpage}} on both to prevent threepeat creation. --Kinu t/c 20:20, 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 01:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cycloball[edit]

Tagged as speedy, but not quite. Better to be examined with more eyeballs. Abstain. brenneman{T}{L} 12:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google doesn't really turn up anything for the term [21], and nothing at all for some of the terms mentioned in the article ("Cranbury Springs Tournament", "Crazy Eddie Five Hands", etc.). Probably a hoax. bcasterlinetalk 16:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 2,450 Google hits, most of them just mentions of the word without any context. --djrobgordon 16:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insignificant. Have you come across unicycle hockey? That gets many more references, of which a far greater proportion are relevant, and we still dont justify a separate article. This looks like a case of WP:NFT to me. Just zis Guy you know? 16:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per JZG, WP:NFT. PJM 17:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete The sport exists, and is popular in Germany, where it's known as Radball. Players use special bikes with U-shaped bars which they hold like sticks. You guys should Google it, you get 200,000+ hits, which is significant. It's a surprisingly old sport as well. The article is poorly written though, and needs editing. I've just gotten an account BTW, I know very little of the techincal side of Wikipedia. BKmetic 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFT. Stifle 11:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Not a notable sport. Nigelthefish 13:54, 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 Speedy delete G$. -Doc ask? 13:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cougar Mountain Software[edit]

Previously deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_9#Cougar_Mountain_Software Speedy delete. Sleepyhead 13:00, 25 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cougar Mountain Software[edit]

Not notable. Advertising. Not up to levels of WP:CORP Sleepyhead 09:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saving Dawn[edit]

Rock band, doesn't appear to meet WP:BAND. PROd tag removed by the author. Sandstein 13:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the article doesn't claim that they're anything more than a local band with no tours and no albums. --djrobgordon 16:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 17:32, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion//User talk:86.10.231.219

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 07:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Brett[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable book, non-notable author. Claims to have invented ROTFL acronym too! -- Aim Here 13:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete whether or not the subject is notable., this article is (a) spam and (b) a Geogre's Law failure. If somebody feels motivated to fix it up in the next few days I'll change my vote, but we don't need the article as nominated. Just zis Guy you know? 15:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to Capitalistroadster for cleaning it up; I think it's still delete since (a) it's a "pocket-sized book" (i.e. very small) and (b) it does not seem to be widely available (I couldn't find it on Amazon or Barnes and Noble, for example). But at least if it gets kept it's no longer part of her relentless self-publicity campaign. Just zis Guy you know? 11:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Such original and brilliant book surely doesn't need promotion here. Pavel Vozenilek 16:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I liked the quote from the critic: this book is original and brilliant. Unfortunately, that which is original is not brilliant, and that which is brilliant is not original. I think we've seen a few articles herebaouts which fit that description :-)
Changed to No vote after rewrite. Whether someone with single book is notable enough is question I can't answer. Pavel Vozenilek 00:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. Her website claims that she's written for "New Woman, Vogue, Vogue Girl, 9to5 Magazine, The Sydney Morning Herald, and the Daily Telegraph" [22]. Some of the pages turned up by Google [23] seem to suggest that she's somewhat notable in Australia, although Amazon doesn't show anything [24]. (Maybe her next brilliant book?) But since WP:BIO only requires an audience of 5000 or more, I think she qualifies -- if just barely. The style of the current article ("dazzled", "catapulted", "positively effervescent", etc.) needs some NPOV and cleanup work though. If the consensus is delete, I'll change my vote. bcasterlinetalk 16:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and strong cleanup. The article is positively saccharine in its descriptors of Ms Brett but it doesn't have a lot to say about her actual worth as a journalist. Book reviews? Citations? Awards for journalistic endeavour? The acronyms and text images mentioned in her book also appear to have existed prior to its publication, Google groups search example.  (aeropagitica)  18:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom and JzG. Probable WP:VANITY/WP:AUTO violation; this article is Rosewiki's only contribution to Wikipedia. I'd even argue it's worth a speedy delete as patent nonsense. --Aaron 18:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Brett has been featured in major Australian publications and websites. She is notable. Improve content. This is a stub. Remove critical review text since it reads like promotional material. Include information of how she has influenced Australian culture.  Cdcon  19:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. The book exists and was reasonably widely reviewed in Australia. A search of an Australian newspaper database for "Samantha Brett" came up with 16 hits all of which appear to be about her. Capitalistroadster 22:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten this article. No change of position from Keep. Capitalistroadster 00:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 22:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
  • keep as per above Jcuk 22:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Now the article has been rewritten it's no longer an advert, and I'm a bit happier with it now. Not sure about Ms Brett's notability still (It didn't exactly flood me with hits on a quick google search when I nommed the article), but I'll go with the flow. --Aim Here 00:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It may be rewritten but its still not notable. Mike (T C) 02:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Capitalistroadster's version, Delete otherwise as advertising. -Colin Kimbrell 15:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre's law. Stifle 11:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she currently has a blog published at the Sydney Morning Herald website Sam and the city -- Paul foord 06:27, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beurre mixer[edit]

This article is a dictdef that has been transwikid to Wiktionary (Transwiki:Beurre mixer) James084 13:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - As I read the speedy category it involved the article being brought here first. The speedy category is pretty odd, actually. James084 16:26, 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 largely moot since it's already been portalfied which seems like an alright compromise. I'm going to remove the cross-namespace redirect though. For archival sake, the poralfied version is at Portal:Puerto Rico/Did you know. -Splashtalk 00:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Know - Puerto Rico[edit]

WP:NOT a collection of random information Delete -Doc ask? 13:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note for Closing Party This AfD was promoted on user talk pages, which an urge to vote keep. Esteffect 02:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw it mentioned on talk pages of users I hang out with but didn't see any keep urging, do you have some diffs? And if so? so what? I mentioned it on Talk:Puerto Rico for that matter. Users with well established talk pages (evincing some history here) and a particular history of editing Puerto Rico pages seem naturals for notification, we're talking about contributions from the non-footwear community here, after all. ++Lar: t/c 04:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Puerto Rico or move to portal or something like that. No need for a separate article. --Tone 15:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what is verifiable and significant to the appropriate articles (mainly Peurto Rico) and delete the rest as trivial. Just zis Guy you know? 15:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge much as I despise triva sections, that's probably the best place for a lot of this information --djrobgordon 16:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge' to Puerto Rico. --Terence Ong 16:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and keep Did You Know - Puerto Rico originally was a section in the Puerto Rico article but it was getting too long. It was decided here to create a template to emulate the wikipedia main page's did you know. This was done (and it's the section presently found in the Puerto Rico article) but since so many facts had been accumulated an article was created to list them all. Everyone of these facts is verifiable since the majority come from existing Wikipedia articles. The problem with merging would be that the section would get unmaneagable and long and would detract from other useful information. I forgot to add that it is not random information since it all pertains to a single subject, Puerto Rico and its people. Joelito 17:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portalfy After debate I have changed my mind. But I vote to keep the section on Puerto Rico \. Joelito 04:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, what if you make it this way: sort all the facts into groups and then put them into the adequate articles under trivia section, like: Geography of Puerto Rico, Economy of Puerto Rico etc. Making it this way will make the other articles more interesting and it won't be too long. --Tone 17:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per Joelr31. Tony the Marine 00:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep to avoid circular migration of exported article content. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeletePortalfy under "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information," and delete the "Did You Know" section from Puerto Rico entirely, which is already at Portal:Puerto Rico. I do not think this should be in the article namespace. Adniel 02:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I change my vote, now that the page has been moved. Adniel 05:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per WP:NOT and Adniel. --BWD (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Portalfy now makes more sense. --BWD (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to templatespace. Set it up the way the main DYK is... the template contains the current tidbits and the template talk has an archive of all the previously displayed tidbits. A few trivia facts at a time are nice but the whole list may not be necessary in articlespace. (note, the DYK at the portal and the one in the main article should be driven by the same template and work from the same list of facts, IMHO, rather than being separate (and different in appearance) as they are now) If that's not acceptable, then keep it the way it is. This comment is NOT to be construed as a delete comment under any circumstances. ++Lar: t/c 02:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What, you mean like the already existing Template:Wikiportal:Puerto Rico/Did you know? Adniel 02:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That template's talk page is empty though, unlike the main DYK template which has the stash of previously used and not yet used factlets. (or trivions, if you prefer, it's a UOM thing I guess)... Move these facts there, and then use the template in the portal in the main article too. What fooled me was that the template invocation on the portal page is buried in a bunch of <div>s and stuff and I missed the template inclusion. ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I do not support a merge into any article, as long as that merge will be in the form of new "trivia" sections. Please, if there is going to be a merge, please do it so that it flows nicely within the text. I prefer "Although it is a misconception that in his time, Napoleon Bonaparte was a man of short stature, he was 5'6.5", a perfectly acceptable height for Frenchmen of his time," in the appropriate section, over "Did you know Napoleon Bonaparte was actually 5'6.5"?" Adniel 02:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lar. They should be driven by the the same information. The original idea was a template with the template talk pertaining the unused facts (as the wiki DYK) but it was changed for simplicity for users. The portal is a work in progress so please bear with me on the <div>. Also if it is to be kept it should be in the style of the wiki main page since it's an accepted style and it was the form from which it was conceived. Joelito 03:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't sweat the div stuff, I was just explaining why I missed it, not criticising! ++Lar: t/c
  • I do not support the idea of merging to specific articles since the information is already contained within those articles Joelito 03:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portalfy to the Puerto Rico portal. Main article space is not an indiscriminate collection of "Did you knows" ... Cyde Weys 02:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think links to Did You Know - Puerto Rico should link to the portal template, if the article is deleted and merged into other articles. Adniel 02:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I honestly do not see why the information should be relegated to the portal. I think main space is a good place to have the information because people do not usually access portals. Joelito 03:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because of WP:NOT. --BWD (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have read WP:NOT and I do not see any of the topics applying in this case. Certainly I do not find " a collection of random information" in there Joelito 03:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --BWD (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every one of these facts already IS in the encyclopedia though, and the links in the DYK tidbits show you where, this DYK is just a different way to get connected. As a surfer (I hit random articles for fun, for the discovery of what I might find...), I like to find interesting things that I didn't know were connected. Moving the facts to the specific articles reduces the serendipity effect by burying them where they're harder to find. They're all relevant to Puerto Rico, after all. Unless you're saying you think the DYK concept as a whole is flawed? I admit a POV there, I'm 6 for 6 on articles I initially created that were nominated for DYK being selected for the main page so I obviously like DYK. ++Lar: t/c 03:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between the Did You Know on the main page and other portals and this one is that it is not in the article space. Shall we create similar articles for every county, and for other subjects?
Did You Know - American Flags
I don't want Wikipedia to turn into a trivia website. Adniel 03:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, we shouldn't create similar articles for every main article. That sort of feels like a strawdog to me... Please review my input to consensus (I hate calling it a "vote") above... I said move it to templatespace and make it be one unified template that is used both on the portal and the main article, with keep as a second choice. But I'd say that any subject big enough to have a portal may well be deserving of a DYK if the portal editors want to make one. They're adding valuable content and links. (your flag example would be fine in my book, as a template, if WP ever gets large enough to have a portal for American flags... (maybe it already does? I didn't go check!) Again, are you against DYK as a concept? ++Lar: t/c 03:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with DYK, but only in the portal pages and template namespaces, with DYK templates not being used in mainspace articles. Adniel 03:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that someone has already moved the article into the Portal namespace, so I'm fine with the article now. Can the Did You Know section be taken out of Puerto Rico? A link to the Wikiportal has already been put at the bottom of the page. Adniel 03:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The DYK in or out would be something to bring up on the Talk:Puerto Rico page, I suspect. Personally I think it is interesting to see how well a DYK in a lead article works, I'd say let it stay there (as an invocation) for a while... Now that the article has been moved (portalfy-ed) maybe this AfD is now moot? Dunno. If the consensus comes out delete though, now the previous DYK at the portal would be deleted I think as they're being merged... that would be a bad outcome. ++Lar: t/c 04:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Portal:Puerto Rico/Did you know so we can keep an archive of Puerto Rico's Did you know? trivia. The current trivia links to it now. —Joseph | Talk 03:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is not "random information" since all of it pertains to Puerto Rico. It should not be merged into Puerto Rico as it is 47kb long already. --Vizcarra 04:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article has a lot iof interesting and historical facts or tid-bits pertaining to the island, that I, even though I was born and raised in the island, didn't know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguelfp1 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 25 February 2006
  • Portalfyany relevent information and redirect pschemp | talk 04:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has many good facts I never knew about. --Stux 07:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not understand why the article is on this list in first place. Articles of the same category but for other different countries should be made as well. WP is not a random collection of information, but it is made to inform people about topics. That's wikipedia's essential function. Well, actually, if you think about it, wikipedia sort of is a random collection of information actually, since we cover everything from disasters to Miss Universe, from Religion and art to boxing, from Medicine to poverty....Antonio Hyperactive Child Martin 09:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although this article is quite different from most of wikipedia I belive it's to long to merge with Puerto Rico and also consider that it contains to much valuable information as to simply delete it. A possible solution maybe changing the style of the article from 'trivia' to prose.Nnfolz 05:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is definitely too long to merge with Puerto Rico, but the information is too varied to turn to prose. I think that it's fine the way it is. And for those who claim that the article is "different" from wikipedia, why don't you check wikipedia's own Did you know archive? This is what this page was modeled after. If it needs to go in a portal that's fine, but we already have precedent for a page like this. --Stux 17:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Portalfy into Puerto Rico portal and/or merge these facts into Puerto Rico and/or the other articles they are about. Johntex\talk 02:22, 28 February 2006
  • Keep in Portal form. Smylere Snape 02:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or the like. Belongs in Portal space, if at all, so move. Stifle 11:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noticed it's already moved. Stifle 11:30, 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 Speedily deleted as attack page. Just zis Guy you know? 15:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Tan[edit]

Demeaning article created by a user with no other edits CG janitor 14:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as nn-bio. --Terence Ong 14:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. The original article wasn't meant to be nearly as demeaning as it is in its current form, but along the way it attracted a bunch of childish vandalism. Neverless, the original article doesn't make much of a case as to why it's relevant. --Elkman 15:49, 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. -Splashtalk 00:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dano Shen Ryu and Zen Texas[edit]

Not encylopedic. Does not provide references, advertorial tone, does not provide evidence that it is to be discriminated from multitude of other similar entities. Also adding to this the Zen Texas article, same author, same reasons. brenneman{T}{L} 14:21, 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 07:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kundan Amitabh[edit]

nn bio; Vanity page; 185 hits on Google, mostly from WP forks and his own sites; mostly contributed by an anon IP which also worked on a related (but notable) topic, Angika language; The plot thickens because I believe that the ip is used by User:Kundanamitabh who also edited Angika language around the same time - and thus I believe that the ip's edits also violate WP:AUTO. A Strong delete -- Gurubrahma 14:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I had put my comments long back on the talk page of Kundan Amitabh about a month before. To-day, I carefully studied the matter, and requested Gurubrahma's opinion, and he agreed with me about the NN nature of the page. I have to vote a delete, though I wish the young Mr. Kundan Amitabh all the best in life. --Bhadani 14:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete. The problem is that the bio isn't written by 3rd party and verifiable by different sources than those written by Kundan Amitabh. Question on Hindu Wiki should be made before final decision. Pavel Vozenilek 15:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn-bio, vanity. --Terence Ong 16:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 17:08, 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 01:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YayPit[edit]

An obscure game server and its associated online forum. Little or no impact outside its core group of users. Brought here as a contested PROD, as an anon removed the tag. Joyous | Talk 14:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 30 unique Googles, very unlikely to be of any significance. Just zis Guy you know? 15:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No chance to maintain fan material on WP. Pavel Vozenilek 16:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn game server and forum. --Terence Ong 16:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn per above. Kuru talk 19:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yaypit people are just trolling wikipedia, they're a bunch of adolescents seeking attention.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Unclear on merging or not and no outright position to delete. IMO, we really should be avoiding such navel gazing. -Splashtalk 00:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and public opinion[edit]

Title is misleading--"Wikipedia editing scandals" more accurately describes the content. The topic seems inherently POV, and this write-up certainly is. betsythedevine 14:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC) (Article history)[reply]

  • Keep Could have a better name, as it is somewhat vague but so is Mass media and public opinion, which the article is loosely based on. But is this really a AfD issue? As for NPOV, there's a flag for that.Yeago 15:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is not perfect, and tone could be improved. But the topic seems sufficiently encyclopedic, and avoids WP:SELF as long as it relies on external sources that mention Wikipedia rather than on WP itself (which it does currently). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would definitely oppose a rename to Wikipedia editing scandals. That title is inherently POV, since judging what is a "scandal" expresses a very non-neutral opinion about the allegedly scandalous events in questin. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I agree, that's a bad article title--just my attempt to describe what's now in the article Wikipedia_and_public_opinion. As for public opinion of Wikipedia, maybe what we need is a category that would link to such scattered articles as Wikipedia#Evaluations, Criticism_of_Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Criticisms, Wikipedia:Testimonials, Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great, and Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections. betsythedevine 18:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of those pages is at all relevant to this article, since most are within the WP namespace. If anything, the meaning of WP:SELF is that article space pages should not link to Wikipedia space internal pages. Criticisms of Wikipedia is roughly on topic, maybe I'll add a "see also". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's right, irrelevant. Your suggestions indicate that your (unspecified) NPOV claim is based on a fear that these articles are being used as examples to discredit Wikipedia. While this is not happening in the article, it is happening widely in the press.
You have the relationship backwards. It is How Wikipedia effects public opinion, not the public opinion of Wikipedia.Yeago 22:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the article exists, I can certainly see the motivation for the merge sentiment: it's mostly roughly things where the mass media was critical of WP. However, I've changed the intro a little bit to allow expansion to a topic more fitting to the title. Ideally, I'd like the article to include areas where WP affects public opinion, but not simply as a criticism of WP (not necessarily praise as such either, but more subtle external mentions of WP's effects, especially in how people understand authority and knowledge). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With the growth of Wikipedia popularity number of people angry with this or that will grow as well and sensationalist media will pick it. Stating obvious truth that it is not possible to please everyone doesn't make an article. Pavel Vozenilek 02:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Yeago comments, the idea of the article isn't "What does the public think of WP?" Rather it is "How does WP influence public opinion on other topics". See the comment I just added to the article talk page for more clarification. It's sort of like an article on Conservative think tanks and public opinion... presumably it wouldn't be about "What do people think of the think tanks". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I simply happen to believe that contributions bordering on propaganda should be internally tracked.
As for obviousness, you could remove thousands of sections with that logic.Yeago 02:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:POV. Article is a short list of "scandals" that would seem to be either better merged into Criticism of Wikipedia or are simply not a fair representation of bad edits. Article is self-referential in a non-encyclopeadic manner. The list of scandals would be better suited for the Wikipedia: namespace. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 10:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ASR. Or move to Wikipedia: space. Stifle 11:28, 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 01:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HMath[edit]

Delete vaporware software project, no files on SourceForge Michaelfavor 15:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have used a prod tag, instead of AfD. -- Michaelfavor 15:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to be on the safe side. Just zis Guy you know? 23:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no files and little activity. The domain name (official site link) redirects to another domain for a differently named tool. -- JLaTondre 14:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vaporware. Stifle 11:27, 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 01:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Escape[edit]

I don't believe this home-made game meets the criteria defined in WP:SOFTWARE. The article was created by user:Nickdude9110, who appears to be the author of the game itself. Although asked by user:NickelShoe to discuss a proposed speedy on this article, the author did not do so. Googlers should note that there are games with similar names such as The Dungeon Escape and the rather entertaining Dungeon Escape, neither of which should be mistaken for this game. Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete even though Geocities have generously agreed to host it for them. Just zis Guy you know? 15:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn game. --Terence Ong 16:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable advertisement. --Hetar 18:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising for non-notable software hosted at GeoCities. --Kinu t/c 19:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Mangojuice 15:10, 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 Speedy delete (non-notable bio) xaosflux Talk/CVU 16:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foo Chee Hoe[edit]

Non notable unwikified bio stub Maniacgeorge 15:58, 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 MERGE to List of cinemas in Singapore — the nomination makes a fairly compelling case for this! -Splashtalk 00:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lido 8 Cineplex[edit]

An article of a multiplex. This is a very notable multiplex in my country, Singapore, but does not need an article of its own on Wikipedia. Delete Terence Ong 16:10, 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 01:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orchard Cineplex[edit]

The article really reads like an ad. Again, this one of the more notable multiplexes in Singapore, but not needed for an article on its own. Delete Terence Ong 16:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 16:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --KimvdLinde 17:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Stifle 11:27, 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 01:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of wrestlers over 300 pounds[edit]

Tagged for speedy as pointless, unreferenced, unwikified, unconverted, unnecessary list - all of which are valid, and I'll add that it's also completely arbitrary and contains systemic bias, since no Sumos are listed. However, none of these is a speedy criterion, more's the pity. Just zis Guy you know? 16:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Back-support-belt delete, per nom. PJM 17:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 301 lb Delete. Agree with all the things mentioned on the speedy tag. Also can't see how this list would be useful in any way whatsoever. Why a 300 lb threshold? --TheParanoidOne 17:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a collection of lists (see WP:NOT), especially ones as horrid as this one. --Hetar 18:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I fail to see the value in this list. 23skidoo 20:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. –Sommers (Talk) 23:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I seem to be a pretty strong inclusionist when it comes to lists, but this is just pointless and potentially endless. Grandmasterka 02:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I like lists too, but c'mon. dbtfztalk 03:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I rarely vote to delete lists, and contrary to others I don't think lists that may be infinite or of an not knowable quantity, but this lacks any bearing as to time or relevance. If 300 lbs were a threshold of some sort for a competitive category (super-heavyweight?), it might make sense were it titled appropriately. Carlossuarez46 02:19, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google Eyes[edit]

Neologism, unverified and probably unverifiable. Article suggests googling 'Google Eyes' which brings up thousands of, AFAICT, unrelated instances of the phrase -- Aim Here 16:54, 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 01:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

34 Elton road[edit]

Completely non-notable. Doesn't seem to match any WP:CSD criteria though (the closest being A7), hence this AFD. TheParanoidOne 17:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definite delete. I think it might fall under the 'disclosing personal information' category - does anyone else? David | Talk 17:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per {{db-bio}}, otherwise Delete per nomination. Jaxal1 17:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Regrettably I don't think it's a speedy. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Erebus555 17:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --KimvdLinde 17:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like student WP spam; delete as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  18:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nomination. -- Arthur Frayn 19:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - CSD A7. --CrypticBacon 23:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NFT. Just zis Guy you know? 23:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - either a complaint about the standard of the house (redirect to Bristol City Council) or an advertisement for new tenants (redirect to Bristol Students Union noticeboard and the window of the local shop). Green Giant 02:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BAI. Stifle 11:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Vanity page....sort of. Nigelthefish 13:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is semi-vanity in addition to being worthless information. Cool3 20:47, 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 -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.seduction.fast[edit]

Non-notable website and also is not in NPOV. Erebus555 17:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable crap. Jaxal1 17:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Advert -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 17:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn per nom. Kuru talk 19:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and likely vanispam from the same person who created Ethan Wilson. --Kinu t/c 19:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to an article that does not yet exist: Disagree that it is "non-notable" (see also Neil Strauss, but at the same time it is not really deserving of its own article. A general article covering "pickup artistry" is lacking on Wikipedia, however I don't think this is the appropriate header for it. IMO the content of this page should be merged into such a general overview of the area.Hynca-Hooley 20:07, 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 and REDIRECT. -Splashtalk 00:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orpheus and Eurdice[edit]

Delete The page is quite childish description of the myth that is far better written in the Orpheus page Ruziklan 17:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Orfeo ed Euridice. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Horribly mangled and badly written version of the myth, confused with some others (She turned into a pillar of salt?). No point in redirect since Eurydice is misspelled in the title. Fan1967 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A slipshod interpretation at best. No redirect, even though they are cheap and easy, since there's no reason to have one for every possible misspelling. --Kinu t/c 19:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Quite purile in its retelling of the myth.  (aeropagitica)  19:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (after deletnig OR) per Finlay above. Common English translation of well-known opera title. Just zis Guy you know? 23:41, 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 —Xezbeth 20:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cretan/Spartan connection[edit]

Original research. I had put a prod tag on it, but Sam Spade removed it without explanation. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While there were certainly some links between Doric Crete and Sparta, this article is a POV essay trying to argue that the societies "shared a unity of national character," whatever that means. - SimonP 19:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Abe Lincon would speedy delete this page, if he were either alive or a wikipedia admin-64.12.116.195 19:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make an External Link It deserves to be an external link and you can vote for that.WHEELER 23:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no idea what that means. What do you mean, Make an External Link? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can Zoe vote to make an article an external link.WHEELER 00:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how this is accomplished, as I have never seen this done before. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example for you Zoe. Here is the deletion page for "Culture defines politics" which they decided to make an external link: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Culture_defines_politics. This is the article which I discovered recently that they were trying to "wash". I created it but ****they**** deleted as "orignial research" but later on the hypocrites liked it so much that they were attempting to steal it!!!! Just like this article and the article on Revolution within the form, they will delete as "original research" and then, sometime in the future they will steal it. Or if someone else writes it, they will accept it. Me, they just hate. I could write an article on "Why the Sky is Blue" and they will delete it. See, I have a higher standard than anybody else around here, I should be proud of it, All work done by me will be deleted, nothing will satisfy them. They also deleted the Classical definition of republic as "original research". There was a comment recently posted about that Talk:Republic#Article_is_still_horrible. I think it speaks volumes about what goes on around here. Wikipedia is a popularity and ideological contest. If you don't fit in, and meet their approval---you get harrassed and your stuff gets deleted. "Merit" means nothing.WHEELER 00:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The subject itself presupposes a conclusion which contradicts (or bypasses) the current standard view (there have been significant developments in Aegean prehistory since the 19th century), of which there is no mention. Article takes texts at face value.--Nema Fakei 00:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of voting to delete, why don't you improve the article? No article starts off being perfect, yet everything I do everybody expects it to be perfect but nobody here at Wikipedia has the same standard put to them like what is done to me. Improve the Article.WHEELER 00:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the articles you've (mostly) written I would like to improve when I have the time and the resources. This one, however, I don't think can ever really approach a good and useful article. Even with a total rewrite, the name would need changing.
  • Delete -- WHEELERcruft. I knew it before I even checked the article history Haikupoet 02:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The article is in need of cleanup and expansion, with more input from more recent secondary sources - what is the state of current scholarship on this topic? The article should probably be moved to a new title - the name - X/X seems very unencyclopedic. An alternative would be to merge it into the existing Dorian article. --Joe 00:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle 11:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Macrakis 14:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I won't vouch for or against the article's accuracy or value, but I want to point out that for as long as the text is kept, the external link to Wikinfo has to be retained as well -- this is explicitly required by the GFDL, section 4F. —David Wahler (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentCritical views of Wikipedia/Policy CriticismsWHEELER 00:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe subject of the article is NOT original research. I quote from a published Classicist!!! He is actually responding in his quotes to earlier opinions. He proves the contention that Sparta got most of her stuff from Crete. I have of course made other deductions of value. You are free to delete those. I prefer an external link though because this of my learning in the subject area, I provide more evidence. Second, This article does fill a hole in the learning of the matrix of Dorian culture and Greek culture. This is nowhere on Wikipedia. This article is to fill a niche that you can not provide. An external link to this article is necessary and right. This article is necessary to understand What Socrates and Plato said.WHEELER 23:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WHEELER's POV-ridden essays have very little salvagable encyclopedic information. older ≠ wiser 02:03, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counter Misinformation Team[edit]

Exceedingly minor, informal group of people at the State Department non-notable (only 102 Google hits, almost all of which are from left-wing bloggers); created by Striver as part of his ongoing campaign to make a POV argument on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks. Aaron 17:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, lets do that, lets delete official State Department groups, only since i created it.... --Striver 18:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a page for the State Department HR Department? I'll bet it's larger than this. --Mmx1 18:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tag some 9/11 conspiracy theories on the HR dept article? If you can figure out a way to do that we surely should have it ASAP. Weregerbil 19:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, where are the delete votes? Dont tell me you created a AFD just out of spite for me, but dont actualy want to vote delete? --Striver 19:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I am waiting for someone to come up with evidence that this team is notable. Is there any? So far the article seems to be just an excuse for listing out of context second hand quotes of some journalist playing devil's advocate on his political gossip column. Weregerbil 20:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn--MONGO 20:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to some more appropriate State Dept-related article. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Information control at such a high level definitely needs the eyes of the Wiki keeping vigil. Ombudsman 21:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And here I thought we were writing an encyclopedia. --Aaron 22:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason for the Wiki to monitor the often clandestine media manipulation by government agencies dedicated to either disseminating information or countering disinformation. Remember the fake news bruhaha? Almost by definition, an entity of this type, especially within the highest reaches of the US government, is noteworthy as an influence upon institutional memory, and is entirely relevant to the Wiki's fundamental mission. Ombudsman 03:10, 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. This seems to be the significantly dominant position before the rewrite, after the rewrite and altogether. -Splashtalk 00:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution within the form[edit]

This was created by WHEELER with the full knowledge that it is original research and not appropriate on Wikipedia. Let's Delete this. --Improv 17:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Just zis Guy you know? 23:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nikodemos 02:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia's use of the term "original research" helps to debase the notions of originality and research. Meanwhile, delete this stuff. -- Hoary 08:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, roughly in line with nomination, though agreeing with Hoary. It's not that the article says anything terribly wrong, but there's no recognised term of the sort used for its title, and some of its claims about individual writers are far from uncontroversial. I notice also that it contains a red link to "classical republic", which anyone who knws WHEELER's history will recognise... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make External link. I ask that you all vote to make this an external link. I don't want you to be stealing stuff. I have caught you people trying to "Article laundering" in defiance of GNU license.WHEELER 23:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's this Kwisatz Haderach? No bibliography, no references, no scholary input, no academic overview and this is not Original Research but "Revolution within the Form" is???

When doing a Google Search there are many hits on this. Original research. Bah-humbug.WHEELER 23:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • The difference between the two is that your essay, interesting though it is (and surprisingly, a few of my IRL friends who are also greek have expressed similar sentiments), comes to conclusions of its own, while things like Kwisatz Haderach (personally I find it odd we even have articles on characters) are more of a descriptive thing. I don't think anyone here is saying that your writing is bad, it just isn't suitable for the kind of project Wikipedia is. You can be proud to have a well-argued, well-researched perspective, and if I were you I'd certainly make it available to the world somewhere, I just don't think here is the place. Take care. --Improv 08:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia is not a link farm. Make deleted is good, make external link is unacceptable. Just zis Guy you know? 23:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's an important concept and WP should have some mention of it. Words change their meaning over time, sometimes by natural development, sometimes by design. However, I suspect this would be much better written as an article (or article section) on diachronic pragmatics. WP's current treatment of historical linguistics seems unhelpful.--Nema Fakei 00:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Many" Google hits? I see only 687 [26]. -- Nikodemos 05:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Verifiability is in question also. Stifle 09:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have removed the original research part of this article, which was normative rather than descriptive. What remains is a discussion of a concept named by Garet Garrett and its historical antecedents. I am not sure this is notable enough to be encyclopedic, but it is no longer the original-research essay that it was previously. I would tend to think it is not notable -- the phrase only comes up twice each in books.google.com and scholar.google.com and 291 times in general Google search -- but perhaps it is important enough to parts of the Old Right to be worth mentioning. --Macrakis 15:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Macrakis. And you are also right in "...it is important enough to parts of the Old Right to be worth mentioning." Thanks for your work and for pointing out that this info is also important to a small minority of people---maybe not for the General Public---but for the few remaining out here, Thanks.WHEELER 00:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The phrase and its meaning might merit a mention in the article on Garrett, but it doesn't seem to be a term used by many other than him. - SimonP 00:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - verifiable and potentially useful to users of the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 01:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. While Macrakis' edits have done much to make the article less POV, the article is essentially about a relatively uncommon neologism. At best, perhaps some mention of the term could be made in the Garrett article and the term redirected there. older ≠ wiser 02:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This concept seems to have a pretty small following in the world at large. It only pulls about 145 unique Google hits, several of which are due to the promotion of the term by WHEELER himself: [27]. The idea could be concisely and comfortably expressed and placed in context in a few sentences of Garet Garrett, if WHEELER is so moved. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:25, 4 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. Nearest thing to an assertion of notability is "professional webmaster". -Splashtalk 22:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Wilson[edit]

Delete non-notable vanity zzuuzz (talk) 17:49, 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 Speedy delete by Finlay McWalter. Aaron 18:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roguesaints[edit]

Speedy tag ( {{db-club}} ) removed without comment. Brought to AfD. I vote delete. Jaxal1 17:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was removed by the articles creator, which is not allowed. Speedy Delete as nn-club. Fightindaman 17:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted it; it fell clearly within the A7 definition. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:00, 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 REDIRECT to Scholars for 9/11 Truth. I'm not going to merge since the only content in this article is summaries of other articles...that exist to contain their summaries! -Splashtalk 00:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars for 9 11 Truth[edit]

Essentially an advertisement; WP:NPOV violation; one of a number of pages created by Striver as part of his ongoing campaign to make a POV argument on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks. Aaron 18:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Violates WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a list of links or someone's personal soapbox. --Hetar 18:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Read: WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox:

Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article.
Oh, wow, cool, it already existed. I guess you are now going to delete that article as well using the same arguement? --Striver 20:01, 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 speedy deleted as G4/G7/A3. NSLE (T+C) at 10:01 UTC (2006-03-01)

Post-9/11-modernity[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Five Google hits (Internet forums). Delete. --Neutralitytalk 18:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Aaron 18:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all protologisms. Just zis Guy you know? 23:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep you think i would let one of my own ideas deleted? Rather expand it. I think the idea is good, but content's still missing. Anyway, otherwise, change title to post-9/11-society. And even those five google hits aren't about "post-9/11-modernity". --Lord Snoeckx 19:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. The author has blanked the page, that qualifies it for general CSD 7. Stifle 09:55, 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 01:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amusement Wiki[edit]

Delete - Had first tagged this for speedy. But author requested removing it. So am putting it here. NN Wiki, with only 100 articles started in January 2006 Aksi great 18:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There's no evidence that this meets the benchmark established in WP:WEB. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A7, its not notable whatsoever, just because its funny (according to the article's creator) dosen't mean it notable. Mike (T C) 19:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A7 covers "people or groups", and really this is an article about a website. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The author of the article changed tag from AfD to prod. Am confused as to his stand - Aksi great 19:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think he's trying to be helpful (folks often don't realise that things here have to meet our notability criteria). Unfortunately I don't believe a CSD is met, so I've restored the AfD tag. It's not doing any harm being here for the few days AfD will run. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Just zis Guy you know? 23:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Around 50 edits totally, couple of articles about high school students and their nicknames, not funny but boring as it looks now. Pavel Vozenilek 01:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. I can't see a speedy deletion criterion being hit. Stifle 09:54, 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 Speedy delete A7 by Finlay McWalter. Aaron 19:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If i may[edit]

Delete - NN Band Aksi great 18:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I speedy deleted it - as a group, and with no indication or assertion of notability or significance, it falls under CSD A7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finlay McWalter (talk • contribs) 13:45, February 25, 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 redirect. Punkmorten 19:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptophan synthase scientific name[edit]

This is a spoof page Blastwizard 02:12, 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 01:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen katherine IV[edit]

Delete Spoof article. See King of Ireland if in any doubt. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as vandalism; I think we have sufficient evidence that Ireland has been a republic since 1949 and that the person described in this article could not have existed as such. --Metropolitan90 19:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. joke. JPD (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely unfunny hoax. Camillus (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bad joke Just zis Guy you know? 23:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Complete bollocks. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN, because that's exactly what it is. Stifle 09:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny enough for BJAODN? I don't think so. Hynca-Hooley 00:28, 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 speedy deleted, CSD A7. "Professional magician" is not an assertion of notability. Chick Bowen 21:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Jay[edit]

No comment. Was hit with PROD tag twice in error. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment 1000 Ghits [28], mainly commercial listings, a few odd ("Available for weddings throughout the UK" in a Toronto directory?). Would seem nn professional magician, but I don't know what makes a magician notable. Fan1967 19:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A fair number of Google hits, and his client list includes some big names. But: it's obviously a vanity article and advertiseent; and, even if the article did assert importance, he's not sufficiently notable per WP:BIO. bcasterlinetalk 20:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not the Yellow Pages Advertisment.  (aeropagitica)  20:13, 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 01:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Song[edit]

No comment. Was hit with PROD tag twice in error. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity page with not much there. Anything interesting was removed as unverifiable ("He is also rumoured to be...") Fan1967 20:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fightindaman 21:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Fails any reasonable test of notability. Just zis Guy you know? 23:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precision Compounding Pharmacy & Surgical Supplies[edit]

A local pharmacy business, with no indication it's more than a single branch, and no indication it meets the benchmark at WP:CORP. Its creator only made this page and a link to it, so asking them to provide evidence of notability or importance isn't practical, I'm afraid. Wikipedia isn't, and shouldn't become, a business directory. Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:40, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars for 9/11 Truth[edit]

Bad faith article created as POV fork. The single "scientific study" it uses as its main crutch of notability is not peer-reviewed. Reads like an advertisement for the POV inof as an encyclopedic article. Only one internal wikilinks other than to talk pages and previous AfD. (First nomination closed without consensus.) Aaron 20:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: From WP:DP: There is no policy or consensus for a hard time limit before an article can be renominated. --Aaron 20:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But you'll very rarely get a good reaction by renominating something so soon. Lack of explicit policy does not equal explicit encouragement. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would not have renominated this so soon had the first nomination resulted in a "keep" consensus, but with no consensus at all, I couldn't come up with any logical reason not to give it another go, where presumably a somewhat different group of editors would participate in the debate. (For the record, I did not participate in the original nomination, and indeed was unaware it had even taken place until I read the article's talk page a few hours ago.) --Aaron 00:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait... you < bang head > didn't look < bang head > at the talk page < bang head > before you AfD'ed it? Georgewilliamherbert 23:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That is not what I said; you're misreading my statement. All I meant was that I had not been following this article at all until a few hours before I made this nomination; I wanted to make clear to everyone that I had absolutely zero involvement in its first nomination or any discussion leading up to said first nomination. I most certainly read its talk page before AfDing it; how else would I have even known there had been a first nomination? --Aaron 01:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep welcome to censure land... --Striver 20:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there was an excellent article about how "fringe" these issues really are in the San Francisco Weekly about a year ago. --Pansophia 03:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as before...this is a advertisment for a heavily POV and inaccurate website built on falicies and misrepresentation of evidence...POV push for sure.--MONGO 20:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Rewrite. Unable to breathe because of massive POV being crammed down my throat. I am astounded that the page provides a miniature biography of everyone involved with the project in order to maintain a semblance of credibility. See parallel at Manhattan Project, which was able to incorporate the contributions of many experts and high-level academics in a way that doesn't read like an advertising pamphlet. Isopropyl 20:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What Pov? Could you quote it? I dont see any POV. Only NPOV statmensts like:
  • The group believes that the investigations...
  • According to their website they "...
  • Their conclusion is based on...
  • These experts contend that the official version...
  • They believe that the...
It doesnt get more NPOV than that :) --Striver 20:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sriver's examples aren't weasel words...they attribute specific positions to a specific source, the very opposite of weasel words. Babajobu 16:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Merge to researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 (per Isopropyl). Notability is marginal, and would seem to stem from the membership rather than the accomplishments of the group. Voting delete because information about this group would be more encyclopedic as a single link from a more general article on independent reviews of the events of 9/11. As it stands, there doesn't seem to be much that can be said about this subject without resorting to POV, Original Research, or Weasel Words. --Dystopos 21:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep as premature nomination of nominally notable group. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep: An unfortunate serial AfD attempt; distracts from actually building an encyclopedia; disruptive at best. Ombudsman 21:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Let me also remind the jury that this information is available with much less filler and many fewer calories at researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. Consider the implications of a content/POV fork. Isopropyl 21:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We looked at that in the AfD which completed a few days ago, and concluded that the fork issue wasn't fatal. Nothing has changed of note in the last ten days. Georgewilliamherbert 21:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This group contains very notable people. I don't know the notability guidelines for groups containing very notable people that have not performed notably as a group, so I assume, based on personal judgment, that the group passes the notability criterion. This article is distinct from the 9/11 Truth Movement. Assert importance. How has this group affected society, or otherwise made an impact on the world? The opening sentence says nothing.  Cdcon  21:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - Look, I know why people want to delete this. The viewpoints these people represent are, in my opinion, fringe, crank, conspiracy theory types of views. And their science is junk in my opinion (and i've done point by point rebuttals of some of their "science papers" before). This article does not exist because it's factually correct history or science. This article exists because it is notable that a large number of people legitimately and truthfully believe the things documented here. That large number of people may be a small fraction of the total population, but it's a real and valid part of our society and history, as much as UFO enthusiasts or Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy enthusiasts, etc. There's nothing wrong with adding more NPOV regarding the verifyable and referenceable accuracy of claims made on the page, but deleting it because we disagree with them is wrong. Knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert 21:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I would agree with you if these comments were in reference to 9/11_conspiracy_theories. Please do not immediately assume that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Isopropyl 21:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Duplicates material already on researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, and other pages. Tom Harrison Talk 21:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont get this, who come we have a million pokemon, magic the gathering and lego article, but we cant have more than seven-eight 9/11 sceptic articles? --Striver 22:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The community of Wikipedians have many virtues, among which consistent application of notability guidelines is glaringly absent. The de facto precedent set by the fanboy backwater of the community need not impel us to proliferate articles on this topic. The point is that this group — whose only notable publication so far is a press release calling for more investigation — has given us nothing verifiable to say that can't be said in the Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 article. --Dystopos 22:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prof. Jones, who is clearly notable as having authored the detailed and peer-reviewed study, founded the group. He has other people agreeing with him, who are at least semi-notable, as group members.
We could combine all the 9/11 conspiracy articles into one if we wanted to, but I don't see why. There are variations and particular points of some of these groups, and separate articles seem appropriate; one article adequately and accurately reporting on the diversity of beliefs seems difficult. Unless your argument is that we should combine them all, then this article is IMHO sufficiently notable that it should remain separate. Georgewilliamherbert 23:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Cite, please, that Jones's article has been peer-reviewed? --Aaron 01:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, they have made mutliple press releases and statements, but i guess that is hard to know witout fully reading the article, isnt it?--Striver 23:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In order to make a point, it appears that someone has added every single work the group has ever published to the page. Please see WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia is not a battleground, soapbox, or collection of external links. Isopropyl 23:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT more than the others, I think. However, Striver's point is that the group is active in the real world and getting press coverage in the real world. Georgewilliamherbert 00:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken (excuse the pun!). However, evidence of credibility is probably better added to this discussion, or the article's talk page. 00:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The website lists three peer-reviewed papers, of which none are authored by the group, but by persons who , with one exception, already have articles on Wikipedia detailing the variations and particular points of their research. For what it's worth, none of these have actually been published and only Fetzer's is scheduled to appear in a reviewed journal. Perhaps an article on Fetzer would be more productive than further accusations here? --Dystopos 23:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Regarding the opposition to merge, as "one article adequately and accurately reporting on the diversity of beliefs seems difficult", please see a parallel at pro-life, where it has been done successfully. Isopropyl 23:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deletion attempt is bogus, has nothing to do with notability or NPOV issues. SkeenaR 22:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Closing admin please note that the above "keep" vote was solicited. --Aaron 01:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please notice I voted on the problem reaction solution article before the above linked comment was added to my talk page. I was aware of the deletion proposal already and would have voted anyway. SkeenaR 02:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Isopropyl for little substantial content. Sandstein 22:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sure last AfD was nine days ago, but the group still only gets 181 unique Googles, which is about what I get and I am not claiming to be notable. Isopropyl's argument is also valid. Just zis Guy you know? 23:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your count is based on a common but inaccurate reading of Google results. When Google snips all results above a certain number, it does not mean that the rest are duplicates. Note also that Microsoft gets only 500 or so "unique" hits by this reading. There is no search term anywhere that would not get hits in the three-digits this way. I see this cited a lot, and I know you're doing it in good faith, but it's just not correct. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' - 56,200 result at Google search. A human 00:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you mean 51,900 when you said 181 [30].

As of 2006-02-26, a "news.google.com" search gave 29 hits on the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" searchstring [31] --Striver 00:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Does this group have one identifiable perspective that differs from "question the official account of 9/11"? If so, I may be coming around. The article might be useful as a short description of how these scholars are collected under one banner, and a description of that would be useful as a link from the individual biographies as well as from the generic article. In any case, detailed recountings of their research seem to be more germane to the biographical articles since, as I noted before, they don't seem to have done much as a group besides collect the member's disparate work onto one site. --Dystopos 01:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Highly NPOV, almost seems like original research as well since it hasen't been published in a peer reviewed journal. If you can provide one study that was published in a PEER REVIEWED journal my vote will change to Keep. As well since when is a prof from a physics/astronomy dept a authority on civil engineering? Mike (T C) 02:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What the group believes is highly POV; that they exist, and reporting what they believe, is not a POV statement. If it were, we'd have to nuke the articles on Democratic party, Republican Party, etc. I do not believe these people are factually correct, however, they believe that, they're making the most coherently argued case for their beliefs of any of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and that's notable. Accurately recording their existence and beliefs is important, even if they're wrong (and, yes, I do think they're wrong, personally). Georgewilliamherbert 09:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Striver, There are actually not a million Lego articles here. Not even a hundred I don't think. Perhaps you're thinking of Brickwiki? How many different 9/11 skeptic articles do we need? Is every org that has some skeptics in it notable? This one hasn't necessarily estabilished notability yet has it? But the renom seems a little too close in. When thinking about a nom it may be a good idea to check the talk page to see if there's been one before. When this is nomed after a reasonable period, I'd probably vote delete unless more substantive notability was offered. If this does stick around it needs to be deweaseled and it needs to have explicit cites added. ++Lar: t/c 02:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might be the wrong place, but could you people also take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Citizens' Commission on 9-11? --Striver 02:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to closing admin: I am happy to support the above if that helps in the weighing of the opinions. Just zis Guy you know? 10:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with JzG. --Aaron 22:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- putting together a collection of nn doesn't make it n. Morton devonshire 11:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, this is a list of nn?:
  • Keep. What criteria for being "encyclopedic" does this article topic not meet? Kevin Baastalk 19:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deletion does not make sense to me; if an outlandish and unscientific agenda is reason enough, we might as well start with Flat Earth Society. GregorB 19:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think this article should be deleted because it is a POV fork. However this AfD is not helpful since it is so close to the previous AfD. Wait some time, and if the article is still unnecessary we can nominate it then. Rhobite 20:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Kevin Baas (which criteria for being "encyclopedic" does this article not meet), and I am suprised that it has come up again for deletion. I also agree that the point of view of the group is POV. If we should delete all articles mentioning POV views, there would not be much left. 9/11 truth is a group of specialist with a controversal view of 9/11 who have managed to make it into the main medias, even though the group has not been around for a long time. EyesAllMine 22:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitly not a pov Fork! Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 is a list of people, this is a article about a group that is notable iin themselve, having multiple University teachers, former government officials and having made a notable news impact. --Striver 04:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per all others. Arbusto 06:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we censor the wikipedia too much, we will have to move on to a more open system than this one.
  • Keep Pseudoscientists or not, the subjects of this article seem fairly notable. Dick Clark 22:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't understand this line of reasoning. If these same people got together and formed a Thursday-night bowling league, would the bowling league merit a Wikipedia entry? --Aaron 22:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No, because such a bowling venture is unlikely to draw much attention, and these guys aren't noted for bowling in the first place. The fact of the matter is that a former Bush administration advisor (Morgan Reynolds), former director of the U.S. Advanced Space Programs Development (Robert M. Bowman), a former director of the German Sectret Service (Andreas Von Buelow), et al. have contested the US government's official account of 9/11 and this is notable. Why is this more notable than if a bunch of garbage collectors were in such an association? Well, because many of these guys are notable for other endeavors. Some (although certainly not all) are experts in government policy and/or procedure. Dick Clark 23:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No. But they're the most credible list of people leading the 9/11 conspiracy movement. The 9/11 conspiracy movement is notable (see Zogby Poll results in this newsclip if 49% of New Yorkers believe there was some sort of coverup. The leader is a physics professor (college professor is one of the defined notability examples) who's writing technical articles on the subject. Because of this activity, it's notable. The activity may be crank activity or pseudoscience, but 49% of New Yorkers is more than enough to push the topic into notability, and this is the most notable collection of people under the topic. Georgewilliamherbert 23:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Where do they get this people? Jeeeessuuusss 22:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)~Rogerman
  • Comment Too bad no more User:Conwiki, who had an idea for a Wikiconspiracy. Schizombie 23:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable and deserves an article that is separate from the researchers questioning page. --James 05:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The reasoning behind some of the votes in favour of deletion surprises me. Too bad if this group has published no peer-reviewed articles, but it can certainly be notable without them; Oolong never had any peer-reviewed articles published. If the article is POV, that's a good reason to improve it, not to delete it. David Sneek 12:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is unreasonable to expect a notable rabbit to be peer-reviewed. It is not unreasonable to expect a notable group of scholars to be peer-reviewed. --Mmx1 16:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that even if the work of this group would not be notable from a scholarly point of view (I'm agnostic on that), it can still be notable. Peer-review is not the only possible standard for notability. David Sneek 16:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable organization propagating crackpot theories. Notable members, citations in notable sources. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on notable crackpots! Babajobu 16:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NPOV. Stifle 09:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That link says: "Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly." David Sneek 10:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable group. The group hasn't actually done anything yet aside from a conclusion is based on the results of their own scientific and political research. Funny the way these groups have professors of philosophy but never include a civil or structural engineer. Peter Grey 18:19, 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 01:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Gun Politicians[edit]

I don't think anyone could dispute that the page as it stands is POV. I don't see that an article with this title could be made properly NPOV. It also has very limited geographic scope (only to one country). If this is intended as a list, then it would have to be a list of politicians by stance on gun ownership, or similar. David | Talk 20:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The title is inherently NPOV, and the article even more so. There are good articles on the gun control/gun ownership issue. This isn't one. Fan1967 20:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NPOV violation. It appears as if the author has a pro-gun control stance and is using WP to grind an axe. Even the title exhibits bias in the debate, so no amount of cleaning up will excise the NPOV violation.  (aeropagitica)  20:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. List could never be encyclopedic anyway without adding untold thousands of names. --Aaron 20:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started this page as a way to get the facts into wikipedia.I DISPUTE TKAT THIS PAGE AS IT STANDS IS POV. Since this page deals with the policies and actions of politicians with a certain philosophy ,namely,the most contentious issue in our country today,why not tell it like it is.As long as we stick to the facts and don't call it like we see it,then how can it be a certain point of view?
The politicians who work to subvert the Constitution are not ashamed of their actions,why should I and you,not chronicle them.
If you go to the page on Diane Feinstein and the talk page you will find that it would take about 6 paragraphs to accurately list her furtherance of gun control.tHAT WOULD PRODUCE A WILDLY LOPSIDED ARTICLE that would look POV,but this page is about the efforts of the Anti-Gun Politicians to remove guns from the hands of civilians.Wheather you think the result of that course of action would result in a safer country or a bloodbath of disarmed citizens,is your point of view.I have not inserted any point of view,or conversely,in the over view,I have presented both sides.(Safety vs.power)
Finally,I AM offended.You can help edit this page and help keep it from becoming POV,but if you delete this page YOU guys are going to look to a bunch of people like some gun-control epithets.Try sticking to the facts.
Matter of fact,I an really offended.If I type the fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,do have to include the fact that Islam doesn't agree with that fact,to meet the standard of NPOV/POV?
TALK TO ME BEFORE YOU DELETE MY WORK.PLEASE.Saltforkgunman 21:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your remarks about 'this country' are quite mysterious. There's nothing in the constitution of this country about it. But, yes, a page can be NPOV merely by listing facts. The reasons for this page being POV are that it covers only one side of the debate, and refers to them in terms which may not be entirely acceptable (would everyone on the list accept the title of "Anti-Gun politician"?). And no, you can't just put that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. You can say he is accepted as the Son of God by the Christian religion, and that's OK. David | Talk 21:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Irredeemably POV per nom. The people on the list do not fit the definition given: "An anti-gun politician is a politician that believes that civilians do not need and should not own,carry,or use guns." They might believe in restricting guns to a much greater extent than many people would like, but not to the extent of the definition or the title of the page. The summary of the differences of opinion about the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is POV. Most of the assertions lack citations, and the one that is present looks quite POV so reliability is a possible issue. Also keep in mind WP:OWN. AFAIK you're quite welcome to assert your belief JCitSoG on talk pages. Schizombie 21:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as POV fork. Also, for the creator of the page please be civil. In other talk pages the author of the article has also made it impossible to be seen as a NPOV contributor see these comments on Ted Kennedy talk page [32] [33].--Jersey Devil 22:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For a start the title should be something like American Anti-Gun Polititians as it seems to deal exclusively with that country.... Jcuk 23:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete partly original research, wholly POV. Just zis Guy you know? 23:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: title, anyone can change his stand at any time. Pavel Vozenilek 01:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I think "anti-gun" is too broad. Grandmasterka 02:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like it's unanimous.I'll comment on some of the points raised,and talk a bit more and then I think I'm about done replying to this.

If it appears,as you say, that I have a pro gun control stance,then I must be masking my pro freedom stance quite well and staying NPOV.

List is encyclopedic.There would be more names added to the list.This is just a start.

I don't see anything 'mysterious about my comments .And the words were:our country,not:this country.Yes,there is something in the (Constitution is spelled with a capital C,when referring to the U.S.Constitution) about it.It is called the Second Amendment.The page isn't a debate,it is about politicians with a certain agenda.Who cares what title they would accept?They earn the title when they try to subvert the Constitution and they violate their oath of office.

Granted gun control beliefs come in varying degrees of extremism,just as I have seen in progun stances.I disagree that the summary of the summary of differences are POV.The assertions are all true and the citations are in the internet to be found,as the page expands.haha.I deleted the one citation i posted,the only one I could find that showed the picture of Diane with the AK.

Hi Jersey.I was not being uncivil to anyone,on the Ted talk page,I was expressing my opinion that Ted is a piece of crap.I think Adolph Hitler was piece of crap,too.Idon't have to be seen as a NPOV contributor,that rule is restricted to my article.You should not judge this page by MY point of view expressed on talk.I'm a nice guy,and darn it,people like me.

I don't know.Our country is one of a handful of countrys where the people still have guns.It isn't hard to 'get it'that this about the U.S.

As soon as someone changes his stand,he can be deleted from the list.It's called editing.You're really stretching for that one.

Anti-gun is,once again,a fact,Would 'gun safety advocate' be more appealing?

Once more time.If a page contains a statement that Senator Feinstein is a socialist sow that seeks to subvert the Bill Of Rights,Violates her oath of office,and wipes her butt on the U.S. Constitution,then I have made a POV statement.I have been as NPOV as the facts can allow.

This is all sort of sad.I was going to make a contribution to wiki when I got my tax return.Saltforkgunman 19:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I understand many people on opposing sides of the issue have strong beliefs about it. But again, while the people on your list may believe in gun control or restricting gun rights (or whatever is the most neutral way of putting it), they don't fit your definition: "An anti-gun politician is a politician that believes that civilians do not need and should not own,carry,or use guns." And picking on someone for not capitalizing a letter is like picking on someone for failing to place an end quote, using sentence fragments, or not putting spaces after punctuation. In an article it would matter, but on a talk page, not so much. Schizombie 20:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs work, possible rename. It's notable that some politicians are strongly pro-gun-control, and also that some are strongly anit-gun-control. The existing article is not sufficiently encyclopedic and neutral. I would prefer that it be rewritten from scratch with more NPOV and possibly rename to Politicians favoring Gun Control to enhance neutrality. Georgewilliamherbert 21:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Don't see how any change to this could make it NPOV. The list is based on the premise that all politicians who in any way differ from the poster's views on guns should be grouped together. We have (according to the article as written) a politician who believes private citizens should not have guns at all, and one who says there should be some qualifications required for concealed carry. In this poster's POV, it seems, these are the same. Unsuitable for WP. Fan1967 03:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please separate the author/editor's POV and the article. If the editor who created it can't find his way to neutral POV then someone else can do the edits, but there's a difference between "the article can't be NPOV" and "this editor can't be NPOV". The breadth of the brush used is a POV issue, yes, but is repairable (along with the rest). It may be easier to nuke from orbit and rebuild elsewhere, but that may not be the best way forwards. Georgewilliamherbert 03:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I think "nuke from orbit and rebuild elsewhere" would exactly be the best way forward. If you think there's a NPOV article to be done on this subject (and I'm not convinced there is), I'd say pitch this one and start from scratch. Fan1967 04:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete because it's a POV magnet, and currently little more than an unverifiable list of politicians who may or may not support gun control. Stifle 09:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is clearly a POV fork; whatever content can remain should be included at Gun politics in the United States. Mangojuice 15:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The list probably is (necessarily) POV, and in most cases, we shouldn't delete POV, just *edit* it; but here it's beyond hope: How can we tell who should and shouldn't be on the list? Moreover, it is ambiguous: "anti-gun"? are we talking pro-gun control or are we talking pacifist here, or are we saying people who think that certain people shouldn't have guns at certain times? If the latter, the list is probably coterminous with List of Politicians Carlossuarez46 02:28, 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 USERFY AND DELETE. Harro5 23:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brenden Wood[edit]

This article was written by Brendenwood, which makes it look autobiographical or vanity. Understandably, that in and of itself does not automatically qualify for deletion. However, Mr. Wood just doesn't seem to meet the qualificaitons set forth in WP:BIO. His accomplishments really aren't more than any other radio personality. James084 20:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Improve Notability or Delete. He is a locally famous music industry executive. Does he have any claim to global importance? Government-official interviews, high-profile media coverage, etc.? I can't see anything here that anyone not from Australia could care about.  Cdcon  21:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia has thousands of articles on things and people that non-Americans would not care about. "Nationally notable" should not be a reason to delete, particularly as "nationally" never seems to apply to the USA. End systemic bias now! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the Userfy option as well. I will join in voting Userfy. James084 23:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and if author wishes, Userfy). Does not meet WP:BIO. —ERcheck @ 00:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as locally notable. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per Guy. Stifle 09:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete Mangojuice 15:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Being a professional rugby league referee (in the top grade of the national competition of the strongest league country in the world) just pushes him over the line, as far as I'm concerned, although I appreciate that he may not be quite there in comparison to those we want articles on (famous MLB baseball umpires, international football (soccer) referees, radio presenters). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Being an umpire doesn't warrant an article unless you are Dickie Bird. Harro5 22:50, 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 NO CONSENSUS. Seems like a possible merge is in order, but that's not a particularly clear position in this debate. -Splashtalk 00:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of 2004[edit]

Without the (copyvio) list of people, it's no use as an aticle. Originally deleted after being listed on 2006-02-04. -- Jeandré, 2006-02-25t20:26z

  • Comment: Only the list was deleted. Just clearing up any lingering, possibly prejudicial, confusion: this form of the article has not been deleted before. Hu 18:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it's a useful stub, and I think it could be fleshed out into a better article. Even as a stub, the article says that it was published on April 20, that 2004 was their first annual such list, and the article describes how the names were arranged. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 22:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some below have suggested merging. This suggestion is fine with me. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per numerous precedents. A sentence in Time magazine covers the subject adequately. Just zis Guy you know? 23:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and associated pages. As with other magazine lists recently, this is copyrighted to the respective publishers and authors of the original article. It is also subjective, POV and unencyclopædic.  (aeropagitica)  23:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you read it? The list isn't included, and it's not a copyright violation. It also isn't a POV problem to describe TIME Magazine's POV.
  • Delete this and the 2005 sibling too. Pavel Vozenilek 01:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no copyvio here, as there is no list! While the article is currently a stub and cannot ever be as thorough as it should be sans copyright law, I'm willing to trust that it could turn into something rather useful. Quadell is quite correct that, even as it stands right now, it accurately describes what the list is and how the names are arranged. This is of at least some use. - Jersyko·talk 16:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a useful referrent point for other articles that might be about people on the list. Stubs can grow, that being a prime Wikipedia mechanism. The article is certainly about a more notable topic than 90 percent of the lists that proliferate around here. If you feel the article is PoV, then don't delete it, edit it to make it neutral PoV, that is the Wikipedia way. Hu 18:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC) (see also endorsement of user Volatile's vote)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I believe the article is still useful (provides something to link to when mentioned in articles about those recognized by the list). Provided that the stub gets cleaned up a bit, the stub should remain. I'm not familiar with this list, but if Time publishes it on a yearly basis, wouldn't it be more appropriate to have a general article "TIME Magazine's 100 Most Influential People" and have all descendent lists (...of 2003, ...of 2004, ...of 2005,etc.) redirect there? Volatile 20:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse this suggestion to merge into a single general article. Hu 20:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, but only if the single article explains differences in criteria among the lists, if any, perhaps containing a subsection on each yearly lists (if differences are readily apparent). - Jersyko·talk 14:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or Merge into a related list of influential people lists. Karmafist 20:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As mentioned before, the copyvio has been eliminated, thus there is no valid reason to delete. Volatile makes a good point that a move to a more general name with pointers to each years list might be a "good move", but that is a different discussion.--Blainster 23:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Volatile's suggestion.--nixie 00:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy and (aeropagitica). --kingboyk 00:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge per Volatle. Carlossuarez46 02:31, 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 Speedy delete (blatant copyright infringement (criteria A8) of http://myth.bungie.org/legends/encyclopedia/who.html) --Allen3 talk 21:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summoner, The[edit]

Fancruft of some video game. Information contained therein is limited to a single sentence about the subject, followed by useless quotes from the game.

  • Comment WP:AFD says "Make a good-faith effort to notify the creator and/or main contributor(s) of the article when nominating, as they may be able to address concerns raised.", yet you've not asked the creator, User:-Ilhador-, anything about the article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:38, 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 Speedy delete by User:Allen3 as copyvio. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tain, The[edit]

This page appears to be pure fancruft of an unknown video game, rife with quotes and generally non-encyclopedic information.


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

Binty[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 -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as speedy deletion, but "neologism" is not a speedy deletion criterion. However, it should still be deleted. Chick Bowen 21:00, 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. I'm not at all sure the redirect is sensible, and it's hard to judge without any explication at all. Still, it can always be made by someone if they feel like it. -Splashtalk 00:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bubbe-maise[edit]

This article is a dictdef that has been transwikid to Wiktionary (Transwiki:bubbe-maise)James084 21:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Fable. — RJH 02:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no real potential for expansion into an encyclopaedia article. Stifle 09:50, 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, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamesgamesgames.co.uk[edit]

Advert for non-notable website. Tagged for proposed deletion but detagged by an anon editor. Does not meet any of the criteria at WP:WEB. Delete. JeremyA 21:01, 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 no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 02:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austin elementary school[edit]

  • Is this school eligible for an article on a non-local encyclopedia. If so, please explain. If not, Delete. Georgia guy 21:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very accurate article. I know this (laughs) because I am an insider. On whether or not it is elligible for a non-local listing in an encyclopedia, I believe that it is as elligible to stay as any

school listed in Wikipedia. Gigor 21:02, 25 February 2006

The act of existing, while commendable, is not notable. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not entirely sure if elementary schools should be included, but the precedent to keep them is clear and the article is more than a substub. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, article is off to a good start. Silensor 23:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep  ALKIVAR™ 02:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 02:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, suitable for a local encyclopedia or one aiming to be comprehensive. Kappa 02:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Adrian. If this comes in, all schools do, then all churches with schools, and all clubs at schools, and we won't have an encyclopedia we'll have the Internet. Carlossuarez46 02:34, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 02:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seanbaby[edit]

Delete; there is nothing substantial or noteworthy about this obscure individual that would necessitate their inclusion in an encyclopedic reference. There are millions of other entertainment journalists out there and hundreds of millions of people with their own website -- they all can't have an entry in the Wikipedia. The article is most likely a vanity page as the subject of the article or one of his "fans" created the article to boost his noteriety. Please read Wikipedia:Vanity_guidelines for further clarification. -- updated: Stereoisomer 23:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. There is a difference between new sites that haven't developed a readership yet, and well-known, established sites that aren't updating much anymore. Once established, sites shouldn't stop being notable any more than authors stop being notable when their books become less popular. They're part of the historical fabric. · rodii · 21:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His numerous televsion appearances on major networks give him notability.  Cdcon  21:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This guy is definitely an internet phenomenon and this page is well-written and fairly complete, informative and not especially biased. No way it should be deleted. -- Arvedui 00:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Television appearances, fairly widely published writing, formerly popular website. This article isn't doing much to promote him, by any means. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even wikipedia thinks he's notable since 14 other articles link here (excluding talk and (my) user pages). --Aranae 05:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep.His page is obviously quite a few cuts above being anything like average and he's also well known for his "Wave" articles, amongst other things. The fact that he has a page on Wiki just proves his popularity more than anything else. There is no shortage of other popular writer/journalists who also have their own pages.
  • Strong keep Obscure?!? Seanbaby is *extremely* well-known and notable, and has been that way since before Wikipedia, or even the wiki concept itself, was thought of. Turnstep 15:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Absurd--Seanbaby is part of the net. The person who nominated this entry for deletion is obviously angry about something.
  • Strong Keep Magazines, TV, the internet...this is about as clear cut as they come. --InShaneee 05:10, 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. -Splashtalk 00:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yair Shachak[edit]

Not notable. He's probably really talented, but not famous at all. Google agrees. (teacher does not have Wikipedia article, nowadays everyone can give concerts, perfect pitch is not a criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia...) Missmarple 21:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment without references and with all Google links originating here this could be hoax as well. Pavel Vozenilek 01:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, possible hoax. Stifle 09:49, 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 nomination withdrawn. Chick Bowen 17:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Returnee[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion, but "Neologism" is not a CSD. No vote. Nomination withdrawn--the only problem here is with the title of the article; it should never have been tagged speedy in the first place. Chick Bowen 21:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I am the article's author. This is the first wiki entry I've created. I see that it was originally tagged for speedy deletion because it is considered neologism. Is there a wiki criteria for what is considered neologism? I certainly was not the person that coined the term "Returnee" or "Hong Kong Returnee", but I concede it is a relatively new term. Also, I only created the entry several hours ago. I know it is short, but I plan on expanding it in the next few days during my free time. Any advice on how I can take this entry out of AFD status would be much appreciated. Hong Qi Gong 23:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The policy in question is Wikipedia:Verifiability. An article has to be based on sources other Wikipedians can check. So a term can't just be on the web or in everyday parlance, there has to be a citation to a valid media outlet (like a national or international newspaper) or a scholarly source. Chick Bowen 23:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The one external link that I've provided in the entry is an academic paper written by Nan M. Sussman, Ph.D. Dr. Sussman is a social psychologist and a cross-cultural specialist. Is that considered a "scholarly source"? If not, may I ask what would be a better example of a scholarly source? At any rate, I will work on providing more and better sources. Hong Qi Gong 02:29, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oreun[edit]

Band vanity, much like its relative Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuero, which I've recently deleted again. Aside from wikipedia mirrors it gets about 4 google hits. —Xezbeth 21:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Didn't have much success trying to track down any non-WP info on this band. They sure don't seem too notable. — RJH 02:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No albums released on major labels, no evidence of WP:NMG being met. Stifle 09:48, 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 -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Film Loop[edit]

  • Delete - seems to be linkspam Tawker 21:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is more of an advertisement than an article.--The Archetype 21:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as spam for beta product --BillC 22:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advertising. —ERcheck @ 00:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dump and redirect to Dubbing (filmmaking) as reasonable search term. --Kinu t/c 19:20, 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 REDIRECT to The Victors. I am not minded to try to divine which tiny bit of information caught JzG's eye. There's an edit history is anyone wants it. -Splashtalk 00:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Elbel[edit]

Non-notable subject · rodii · 21:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article is notable for one thing: writing the University of Michigan fight song The Victors. Please note that everything in this article is actually about The Victors, and it's all contained at The Victors. There is nothing abut Elbel himself, because his only contribution to history was that, you guessed it, he wrote The Victors. The only other point in the article is that a small athletic field at Michigan has been named after him. · rodii · 21:17, 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 List as copyvio. Copyvio supercedes everything else, but I'd rather be safe and list it on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Wing (translations)[edit]

Simply includes a transcript of a video game script (which is a copyright violation just like song lyrics), and then a bunch of different options for the English translation (which I believe constitute original research) (ESkog)(Talk) 21:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have moved the page to All your base are belong to us/Translations, which I believe is more fitting as this information was originally on the AYB page. The translations are provided by the author under fair use, and the words are already all over the interet as it is. It appears that the author decided the translations were taking too much room on the originaly AYB page and decided to make another article; I have reflected the arcle's origins in moving it to a subarticle of AYB. Isopropyl 21:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep valid fork per Isopropyl. Just zis Guy you know? 23:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yikes! Speedy delete as copyvio, and strong delete even then as original research and source material! This is the entire script of a game, from both the Japanese and English-language versions, as well as some OR translations. This is totally inappropriate, even if moved to somewhere else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe nobody noticed, but this is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. That text is the entire dialogue, not merely a short quote. It's not a text-heavy game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Prove it. In a proposed deletion of an article, I think the burden of proof rests on those who want it gone. And for what it's worth, the company that published the game no longer exists. --BRossow 03:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Prove it"? I still don't understand your confrontational tone through all of this. If we had a script of an episode of Seinfeld up here, it would be deleted on sight. We regularly do speedy-delete song lyrics and copyrighted works of modern literature. Why is this any different? (ESkog)(Talk) 04:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. Toaplan went out of business in 1994. Also, the comparison to "song lyrics and copyrighted works of modern literature" is not valid. Compare to the Muhammad cartoons controversy; Wikipedia includes the (copyrighted) drawings in their entirety because it is necessary to understand the situation. Simiarly, this bit of dialogue from a game produced decades ago by a company dead for almost as long as I've been alive is necessary to set the context for the AYBABTU meme. Isopropyl 05:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If I seem confrontational, it's because you've suggested the deletion of a page of information, used under fair use, that is critical to understanding the AYBABTU phenomenon. I'm truly sorry that you don't see this. A lot of work has gone into this and related articles and it's disturbing to see it being proposed for deletion on grounds I consider shaky at best. --BRossow 14:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, okay, so the copyvio isn't an issue. That said, this is still source material and the other translations are original research, neither of which is appropriate to Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete AYBABTUcruft. If there was anything worthwhile, it would go into the appropriate article.Keep for great justice! After long hard consideration, I have to admit that several people do have a point about the, um, "historical" (or is that hysterical?) importance of the translations.--All your base are belong to us 00:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All my thanks are belong to you. Nova SS 17:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep The text presented is integral to the understanding of the AYBABTU phenomenon but also is relevant to the Zero Wing game page as well, which is in large part why it was made a separate page and not a subpage of AYBABTU. (Also, it was my understanding that subpages were discouraged.) The text was originally found in the AYBABTU article as mentioned above and existed peacefully without complaint for months or even years. Removal of this page would be hugely detrimental to the AYBABTU page and would completely defeat the purpose of fair use laws. As for the comment above that this is "the entire script of a game," I take extreme issue as the text presented is only a few lines from the opening and closing scenes, certainly not the entire game! I could go on, but it would be pointless. --BRossow 02:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per what BRossow said. This is an important part of understanding AYBABTU. I feel this is a very misinformed and petty AFD that is based on conclusions derived from (unwritten) original research of copyright law. If this is a problem, then many very public sites have the same problem[34]. Even Amazon.com has it.[35] AFD originator should have completed these steps before submitting AFD:
    • Establish why the copyright hasn't been diluted due to clear lack of enforcement and widespread use.
    • Establish the identity of the copyright owner since the company is apparently dead. (If you don't know who owns the copyright, how do you know there is even a valid copyright? How do we know the copyright didn't lapse into public domain?)
    • Establish why this isn't simply fair use since the entire text of that opening statement is necessary to understand the phenomenon.
    • Establish why the concept of fair use of a copyrighted work somehow gets blown out of proportion in this case because the game didn't contain much text. If the game contained only three words, would it therefore be not fair use to repeat the three words since they compromise 100% of the words in the game? Of the entire copyrightable mass in the game, the text likely compromises a tiny percentage of the entire work.
By the way, the comparison of this text to a song lyric is invalid. Lyrics are an integral part of the song. Without the lyric, the song's character changes fundamentally. This text does not bear the same kind of relationship to the whole copyrighted work as a lyric does to a song.
Nova SS 05:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm again troubled by your characterization of this as "petty". There is absolutely nothing personal about an attempt to make Wikipedia better, whether it's for compliance with copyright laws or its own policies. No one should take personal offense when "their" article is nominated for deletion. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you can satisfactorily answer the points mentioned above, I will withdraw my "petty" comment with apologies. By the way, I am not an editor of that article. Nova SS 03:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio (video games are no less under copyright just because they're video games) and original research. -- Grev 05:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Copyvio. And I don't bandy that term about; this is an unambiguous case. Fishal 03:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Almost certainly a copyvio. Note that the quotes that have caused this thing to be a pop culture item are available at Wikiquote, and thus we don't need them here, regardless of their copyright status.--Sean Black (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep; Apparently not a copyright violation; on all of the Internet, there are sites that contain this text. I'm talking about Flash movies, HTML pages, Quicktime movies, the lot. All of these movies show both the text and also the images from this game. The publishers, Naxat Soft and SEGA, have never, not once, attempted to enforce their copyright (if it is indeed their copyright; it could have been Toaplan's, and they are no longer in existence; there is no certainty about this at all). It would appear that there is no need to consider this for deletion, as it seems that the copyright holders of this material don't seem to mind fair use of their material. On a sidenote, certain important prerequisites for mentioning that this a copyright violation haven't been adhered to; like Nova SS mentioned, people don't seem to realize the extreme widespread use of this text, and its important in understanding the All Your Base Are Belong To Us phenomenon. --Michiel Sikma 06:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm, all those other websites using it are probably infringing on Sega and Naxat Soft's copyright too. And as I said, a few select quotes in the main article are indeed covered by fair use. Additionally, q:Zero_Wing contains the specific quotes, so it's a dpiulicated effort to have them here.--Sean Black (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "They aren't pursuing their copyright, so let's infringe upon it" seems to me to be a pretty scary line of reasoning. Nowhere in WP:Copyrights does it say that we should only protect those copyrights which are already being actively protected. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a valid argument. Look up the concept of copyright dilution. Nova SS 14:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point here isn't the fact that "those other websites are also infringing copyright", the matter is that the copyright of this phenomenon has been ignored for so long, along with it gaining such widespread recognition, that it's become almost unenforcable and absolutely imperative to know the full text in order to understand the magnitude of its following. Although I do think that the Zero Wing translations article should be merged with All your base are belong to us, it's to be understood that there is no way that this text is not fair use. It's important enough and without it, the whole thing no longer makes sense. Or are we going to have to start linking to external sources in order to give people the information about the text that they really want to read? That's wholly illogical. --Michiel Sikma 20:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. This text is copyrighted. We cannot use it under the terms of the GFDL, nor under the fair use provision of US law. Full stop. There are quotes at q:Zero_Wing that we can link to, but that's the most we can do.--Sean Black (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please explain how fair use doesn't apply here. Having taught Internet law and fair use in workshops for many years, I'd truly like to hear your take on this. The lines are but a small fraction of thousands and thousands of lines of code from the game. Further, no one here has thus far been able to establish that there even is an enforceable copyright in place on the snippets of text or the game as a whole. Unless you can demonstrate a valid, current copyright and explain how a few lines taken from countless thousands doesn't meet fair use guidelines, I really don't think you have a case. ⇒ BRossow T/C 20:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • They are fair use within the main article. They can not qualify for fair use, by definition, when they are in a stand alone article such as this. When the original research is removed, then this article is nothing but a copyrighted source text, which should be deleted on sight.--Sean Black (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Then you shouldn't petition for it to be deleted, you should petition for it to be merged. --Michiel Sikma 21:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Huh? It's fair use if it's in the middle of the article, but not fair use if it in what is essentially (1) a subsection of the article (2) that just happens to be on a separate page but (3) which is still clearly connected to the parent article? I do not follow your logic. Nova SS 22:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • What I'm not seeing is anyone providing even the slightest bit of evidence that the copyright once held by a long-defunct company is valid. Suggested reading: m:Avoid Copyright Paranoia. ⇒ BRossow T/C 22:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (unindenting) Of course it's valid. But no matter the copyright status, this is an unencyclopediac collection of original research and quotes, the latter of which already exists at q:Zero_Wing, as I've said several times. Basically, there's no reason for this page to exist.--Sean Black (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Huh? Unencyclopedic? It's terribly important to be able to read this text in order to understand the phenomenon. It is in no way unencyclopedic because of how noteworthy it is. This is one of the most famous Internet legends, afterall. You can't tell a visitor to go look up the appropriate information on Wikiquote; it's supposed to be right here on Wikipedia. --Michiel Sikma 06:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why? Wikipedia is not for collections of quotations. Have some of them in the main article, accompanied by examination and discussion, but blocks of quotations go in Wikiquote, where they already are- I will add the {{wikiquote}} template, which I neglected to do earlier, if that addresses any of your concerns.--Sean Black (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The full quote is necessary to understand the background of the AYB meme. Look, all your base are belong to us. OK? Main screen turn on, and it say that for great justice, this is not clearly a copyright infringement. So please move zig. You have no chance to survive make your time. Nova SS 15:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm an anonymous user so feel free to disregard my opinion, but isn't the point not the fact that the sites that have the Zero Wing text are infringing copyright as well, but that whoever the copyright holder is doesn't seem to mind or enforce their copyright? I'd be in favor of a keep. --213.84.233.132 10:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until and unless the copyright holder (whoever it may be) asks us to take it down. The text is necessary to understand the phenomenon, it's not long, the copyright holder doesn't seem to care, and replacing it with links to other sites is an unnecessary hoop for readers to jump through. Tualha (Talk) 13:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. EamonnPKeane 21:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly merge back into the AYB article. --Sparky Lurkdragon 21:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Almost certainly fair use. Opening sequence is a very small part of the video game, but is important to understand "All your base" phenom and its origins.  The Steve  22:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As TheSteve said above, the value of the entry in understanding the "AYB" phenom is the most important consideration. The text quoted is but a tiny part of the overall work. I think it would be nice to re-incorporate it into the AYBABU page.Mikereichold 05:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back in to All your base are belong to us, where it originally was. A standalone article makes no sense, there is no context. The Zero Wing article already links to the All your base page, so there's no particular need for breaking it out as a standalone article. The 73 words of dialog quoted are a small fraction of the overall content of the original video game, well within fair use guidelines for quoting textual material. As others have pointed out, in all these years no copyright complaints were ever undertaken by the copyright holder even against the makers of the Flash animation or websites distributing it, and the Flash animation made extensive use of images as well as dialog. We have a strong presumption of fair use; if the copyright holder should one day change its mind about fair use, then there is always Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation. -- Curps 01:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Curps A Clown in the Dark 02:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikisource and delete. WP can't use piles of fair use text, but I'm not sure that a copyright assertion will stand up. However, this is not encyclopaedic. If anything was originally in All your base are belong to us, merge it back there. Stifle 09:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, copyright violations are simply not endorsed at wikipedia. Absoluely not. When one is discovered, it is deleted or promptly rewritten. We simply don't endorse breachment of personal accomplishment and the muggery of work by others. Full stop. -ZeroTalk 20:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge back into All your base are belong to us, where it originally was. That way, you could delete this page, but we could still have the information that some of us want on the main page of the related article. - Brittany

Keep and/or Merge This is still very valuable to the article and all those copyvio pushers need to just chill. We might not want to merge back, as I think some of those additional english translations shed light on how the game translation is different, and all that text might be too large to merge into the original article. -Ridge Racer 17:02, 5 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 16:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver yippie[edit]

Unverifiable: no relevant google hits for "vancouver yippie"; only relevant Google hit for "Northern Lunatic Fringe" is a Geocities webpage. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-25 21:36Z

  • Now has “Cannabis Culture: Grasstown”

http://www.cannabisculture.com/backissues/mayjune96/grasstown.html LG

  • Delete per nom. I prod-ed this page, as did Quarl, they were removed without a real explanation. Grandmasterka 00:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination unless someone shows up with new information. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --KimvdLinde 05:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Ardenn 21:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. pm_shef 16:55, 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 Speedy deleted as test, per comment at end. Just zis Guy you know? 23:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari Royals[edit]

NN club (youth football) that doesn't even try to claim notability. I tagged it {{db-club}}, it was deleted by Vegaswikian, and then restored by Commander Keane. JLaTondre 21:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Provided a response on user's talk page. -- JLaTondre 22:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In the nomination: "doesn't even try to claim notability". I don't think this discussion is about the quality of the article, it's about determining if the article is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.--Commander Keane 21:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you. I put that in there to indicate why I asked for a speedy in the first place vs. PROD or AfD. I did not intent to imply anything else or to make a suggestion regarding your restoration of the article. I think that was the right thing to do since Jackbergin contested. -- JLaTondre 22:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, go ahead
Delete it, i was simply experimenting. the sandbox seems very pointless. Sorry to waste time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackbergin (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 SPEEDY DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Tabiner[edit]

Page about a non notable person. Unwikified, poor style etc etc. Maniacgeorge 21:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a db-bio on it. BillC 22:10, 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, per consensus. -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nottie[edit]

This article, while scraping along at just above patent nonsense, is definitely a neologism. From the article, the term was "created" in January 2006. Further, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Isopropyl 22:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete in the absensce of (a) evidence of currency, (b) the name of the magazine and (c) any likelihood of me caring anyway, since it's clearly a bit of cruft. Just zis Guy you know? 23:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Chairman S. | Talk 23:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn and rather lame neologism. Fan1967 23:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Stupid, hurtful madeup article, possibly to generate traffic to the external links. Plus its a definition, thus dosen't belong on wikipedia. IF you improve the article then transwiki perhaps. Mike (T C) 00:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable neologism that's really not even worth the few bytes of space it's taking up.  RasputinAXP  c 18:44, 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 SORT OF COMPLICATED. This isn't the place to delete redirects (we have WP:RFD for that), but this redirect has some marginally important history behind it. As such, I'm going to dump the history in Chosen Warrior (Mortal Kombat) and leave a redlink here in case someone wants to fill it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chosen warrior[edit]

Article is a redirect to Minor Mortal Kombat characters, a page which no longer contains an entry on Chosen warriors. Also, the term may be used in multiple fictional universes and isn't appropriate only for a single series. Virogtheconq 22:39, 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 —Xezbeth 20:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Beukelaer[edit]

I wasn't watching Idol back then, but it sounds like this guy was a William Hung with no follow-up fame. I don't think making an ass of yourself in one Idol episode inherently qualifies you for an article, even if you get interviewed about it afterwards. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mary Roach for precedent. I'm voting delete rather than redirect; he currently is mentioned in the main American Idol article, but I don't think he even merits a mention there, and it's certainly a bad editorial decision to give him equal treatment to Hung. Postdlf 22:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can barely remember the guy, mention in the appropriate season AI article is probably enough. -- MisterHand 23:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable, does not meet WP:BIO. Also, per Postdlf on Mary Roach precedent. —ERcheck @ 00:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, infamously bad. Wiwaxia 11:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect to the relevant season of American Idol. This should not be considered a keep vote. Stifle 09:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Get rid of it. Keith Beukelaer probably put this enyry in himself. Delete!


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, by popular demand it appears. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 06:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caturday[edit]

Non-notable internet fad / messageboard in-joke / neologism. PROD tag removed by anonymous users. Sandstein 22:49, 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 02:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New_Animorphs[edit]

I'm requesting that this article be deleted, because this is a hoax. I am also nominating the following related page because it appears to be a copy of this one:

Felinephoenix 14:43, February 25, 2006

  • Google says there are 58 unique websites for "New Animorphs" Disney from 154 hits. The vast majority of these are fanfics, eBay (and similar) auctions for mint-condition (i.e. new or as new) Animorphs books, or relate to either the release of the old Animorphs TV series, or the video game. Toon Disney's website says nothing in relation to the impending release of an Animorphs televison series. I can't find anywhere that has K.A. Applegate saying that there will be a new Animorphs series in 2006. Therefore, I say delete as hoax and/or crystal ball. -- Saberwyn 10:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Likely a hoax. Animorphs is pretty much dead. Making Jake adopted simply doesn't make sense. --Optichan 19:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definitely a hoax. Both pages appear to be pretty much fan-wishes for a revitilization of the series. The actors that are listed also make no sense, as if this were to be produced by Disney. They would not use actors from series on a Viacom (Noggin [Degrassi and Radio Free Roscoe]) or a Warner Bros (The WB [Smallville]) network.
  • Delete Sorry, but after searching IMDB, Animorphs, Toon Disney, and other sites that would have mentioned the series, I believe that it should be deleted since the author(s) have not shown us any evidence of credible sources for the Toon Disney series. Kattwoman2 04:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax. Tom welling is busy filming smallville,lauren collins is working on the degrassi movie,john tui is contractualy exclusive to power rangers.


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep following excellent expansion by Finlay McWalter. Just zis Guy you know? 18:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosenbaum House, Florence, Alabama[edit]

Tagged for speedy as non-notable people; article is actually about the house not the people (moved accordingly). It is, however, a single house by Frank Lloyd Wright and therefore possibly not actually independently notable. No vote. Just zis Guy you know? 22:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, noted work by noted architect. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If this article is kept, can the closing admin move it to Rosenbaum House please. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, definitely notable. Not only a house, but a museum, and one of the very few FLW structures in that part of the country. Kestenbaum 00:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Finlay. We should be so lucky as to have a substantial article about every Frank Lloyd Wright construction. Postdlf 05:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Finlay, Kestenbaum and Postdlf. I see no reason not to have articles on buildings by notable architects, or other historic or noteworthy buildings, provided there is something to say about the individual history of the building. u p p l a n d 05:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Logophile 14:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thanks to Finlay, who has provided valuable context and made this the decent article it clearly deserves to be. I will early close. Just zis Guy you know? 18:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; this means I can list it on WP:DYK. I've also found a friendly Flickr user who'll hopefully send us some nice photos of the house. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:52, 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 REDIRECT to code sprint. -Splashtalk 00:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plone Sprints[edit]

Delete. The article claims to be about "Plone Sprints", but really discusses "code sprints" in general -- the fact that one particular open source project (Plone) happens to use sprints is not worthy of an entire WP article by itself. I think it would be better to delete the article on Plone Sprints, and merge any information it contains into the existing article on code sprints. I can't see anything much in Plone Sprints that is not already in code sprint, however. Neilc 22:57, 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 ALREADY REDIRECTED. -Splashtalk 00:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor who untelevised Season 27[edit]

Crystalballish, I guess. An article about something that never existed? And no references. Not to mention bad capitalization in the title and the use of the word "season" instead of "series". User:Zoe|(talk) 23:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Even though treatments for stories (not episodes) were written by erstwhile script editor Andrew Cartmel, et al, this is non-canonical. The article would require a major cleanup and edit to improve the content in order to be mentioned in the offical history of Doctor Who, as it falls below the standards set down for articles in the WP manual of style.  (aeropagitica)  23:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified. Stifle 09:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article actually has some historical merit to it as an idea, but the implementation, sad to say, is amateurish. I actually do have references and sources to produce a proper article, just that I need to find the time and the anti-inertial energy to do it. Please feel free to Delete it if nothing happens within the requisite period, but just note that it may be recreated at some point after that in a hopefully improved form. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:49, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 02:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashcombe House[edit]

It's OK to have an article about a museum and the like, but an article about Madonna and Guy Ritchie's House? Is it really worth the time? It's never going to become anything more than a stub. And the next edit it will receive will probably be when the sell it. KILO-LIMA 23:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete The very definition of nn. Fan1967 23:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC) After the rewrite, I'll say Weak Keep. Fan1967 01:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Madonna. Unless the house is notable by being associated with Cecil Beaton, I can't see any reason for it to have its own article stub.  (aeropagitica)  23:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep. I love a challenge :) Have a look at the article now. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Medium Keep (due credit to Grutness). Notable house. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep after Gruntness' work. Any reference for the text? Pavel Vozenilek 01:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well done to Grutness for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 02:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added an external link. 62.31.55.223 04:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Old manor house, linked to several notable people. Good rewrite. u p p l a n d 05:32, 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 REDIRECT to Association of College Honor Societies. -Splashtalk 00:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assocation of College Honor Societies[edit]

It's a mispelling of the actual article, Association of College Honor Societies, which is a better article anyway. The PNM 00:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can do a merge, and leave a redirect, without needing to consult AfD. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd redirect, but how often will this typo come up? — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, no Redirect per above. — RJH 02:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect. Worth merging and redirects are cheap.
  • Merge with redirect. Typo may not come up often, but redirects are cheap. -- JLaTondre 05:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Redirects are cheap, but how much handholding should users really expect? On a long enough timeline, users will just be dashing off "xwqyfdbnbdsfjd" and being redirected automagically to "Rise and Fall of the United States of America", secure in the knowledge that they never have to spell anything right ... yes, that was a tiny bit sarcastic .... — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing three things: 1) There's a difference between common misspellings and infrequent ones. Assocation is listed on Wikipedia:Lists_of_common_misspellings/A and, at 63 hits with the last count, is one of more frequent ones; 2) It's not just about helping people find articles, but to reduce the chances of another duplicate article being created; and 3) You should read Wikipedia talk:Merge and delete to understand the issues with merging & deleting history. While you voted for a delete, the rest of us said merge. There are a couple statements in the Assocation version that are not in the Association version. If they are merged, then the history of who contributed needs to be kept. -- JLaTondre 14:08, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_25&oldid=1116878841"