Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 3 February 5 >

Purge server cache

February 4[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 merge and redirect; merging and deleting is not valid because of the GFDL. Johnleemk | Talk 14:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chisholm Hall[edit]

Again, a stub about a housing complex in a university. WhisperToMe 17:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: it is a real place. Somebody might want be looking through Wikipedia for info on it. Where (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into UTSA#Housing and delete. --Aaron 18:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete per Aaron. Colleges/houses at places with a residential system (Yale/Harvard/Oxford/Cambridge) are one thing; this is another. Anyone who wants to find out information about housing at UTSA would be better off looking at UTSA#Housing. --Kinu 18:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Aaron - leave a redirect per GFDL. Please note that merge and delete cannot both be done. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Aaron -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, There is more than one "Chisholm Hall": California State University, Northridge [1] has one, as does Monash University [2]. Some sort of Merge and disambiguate may be in order. (Disambiguation lonks should lead to the schools, not the buildings). Dsmdgold 15:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The disambig would not be appropriate. Peyna 02:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above --† Ðy§ep§ion † 20:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect; merging and deleting is not valid because of the GFDL. Johnleemk | Talk 14:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaparral Village[edit]

Some stub on an apartment complex on a University campus. WhisperToMe 17:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it is a real place. Somebody might want be looking through Wikipedia for info on it. Where (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into UTSA#Housing and delete. --Aaron 18:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and delete per Aaron. Colleges/houses at places with a residential system (Yale/Harvard/Oxford/Cambridge) are one thing; this is another. Anyone who wants to find out information about housing at UTSA would be better off looking at UTSA#Housing. --Kinu 18:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems like vanity to me. Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 20:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per my comments on the above. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Aaron -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This is not an encyclopedic issue, it's an advert/guide for a university residence. --kingboyk 01:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. No merge. —Sesel 23:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, default action is keep. Babajobu 04:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Marlborough[edit]

A micronaiton that existed for a week? You have to be kidding. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 00:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ppoi307
  • Delete this is just silly. Vanity really. --Ardenn 00:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of minor micronations if consensus is behind creating this page. Otherwise, Abstain. --Billpg 00:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficiently notable to have been mentioned in real-world media coverage, even if it was short lived. Does not qualify as vanity as none of the principals are involved in wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert 00:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Rockhampton, Queensland, or delete. youngamerican (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If a nation disappeared after one week it would be bigger news, don't you think? Ruby 01:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 01:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination FCYTravis 01:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just nonsense. A guy had a dispute with the police. Decides he must be an independent country. Police cart him away. --kingboyk 01:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Important piece of Australian social history, and received wide national media coverage at the time. Being the subject of a paper about political history by a student at a major university certainly underscores this notability. --Centauri 02:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Conflict with .gov, attempt to secede, .gov intervention to quell secession and sedition. Short-lived, but worth documenting. This is a level of real-world involvement that most micronations don't achieve; if it was just some guy seceding until he got tired of it, it'd be another story. Adrian Lamo · 03:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that every single individual council tax and poll tax refusenik in Britain should have an article? Or should it only be those who have been prosecuted for failing to pay? That's still a lot of people! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jonathunder 03:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 03:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AdrianLamo. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC) OK, vote withdrawn per Capitalroadster's corrections. I'm not convinced of non-notability, it might still be a notable incident if not a notable micronation if you see my point, but not being Australian I don't really have any way to evaluate how notable it was as an incident. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. It wasn't a conflict with Government. It was a court case against the Commonwealth Bank which he left. 265 Google hits many from Wikipedia mirrors. No mention in books on Google books database see [3]

One Google scholar reference outlined above. A search of Australian New Zealand newspaper database came up empty. Not notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Empty? What database are you looking at? There's no less than 5 articles in the Sydney Morning Herald for starters. --Centauri 04:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Less than a week after the proclamation of independence, officers of the Queensland Police entered the Principality and forcibly evicted the Muirheads" is what I cite as the conflict -- technically, an armed incursion to a seceding state, albeit a very minor one. Adrian Lamo ·· 05:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, not technically an armed incursion into a seceding state, because the secession had no legal basis. It was just one guy protesting. They are, as my American friends say, a dime a dozen. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster. Kusma (討論) 04:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC) +[reply]
  • Keep - Centauri got it right --HasNoClue 04:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - There's enough worthy information here to be worth keeping but probably not as an article in its own right. Either merge to main Micronations article or to Queensland perhaps? ++Lar: t/c 05:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Great idea. I've added 5 media references to the article. --Centauri 07:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It occurs to me, by the way, that this listing might have been appropriate for the new Wikipedia:Proposed deletion experiment. Rather than go into a longwinded and acrimonious debate, those wishing to keep the article on the grounds of extensive media coverage would simply have added the references (as User:Centauri has done in this instance) and then removed the tag. --Tony Sidaway 14:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where can we see articles that have been proposed for deletion? Capitalistroadster 23:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be notable. --Billpg 17:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: notable Where (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this was a major news story at the time. Lankiveil 22:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: another instance of the afd nominator not personally caring about a given topic and therefore concluding that surely no one else could be.--Hraefen 23:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: notable, and just the type of obscure thing that WP should have articles on - it cant be deleted just because some don't find it interesting. SFC9394 23:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A week-long publicity stunt/legal ploy/delusion of grandeur, even one that made the papers at the time, is too ridiculously trivial for an article. --Calton | Talk 00:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A very short lived attempt to keep the baliffs out.--Porturology 03:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Just zis  Guy, you know? I think is on some sort of witch-hunt without a good enough reason, these micronations do in fact exist and are notable. Just because it does not coincide with our personal views does not mean it should be defined. Piecraft 18:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's unadulterated, 100% pure rubbish. The nomination is in perfectly good faith, and while you may disagree with him about whether to delete or not, the fact is that there are certainly grounds to declare this unnotable and unsuitable for encyclopedic treatment. To wit: Delete. Eusebeus 19:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I went through a lot of the micronations and left most of them alone. This is not a "micronation", it's a short-lived and highly unsuccessful protest, combined with a minor publicity stunt. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough as a news event, somewhat interesting.--ragesoss 22:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable and notable. Agnte 00:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable and notable. Brokenfrog 01:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That assumes there's a valid challenge :-) --Gene_poole 21:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • RTFA:
   * "DIY Sovereignty and the Popular Right in Australia", by Judy Lattas, Macquarie University, March 2005.
   * "Defiant Graziers Under Arrest", Sydney Morning Herald, 14 June, 1993.
   * "Rebel graziers' bid to keep land ends in contempt charge", Sydney Morning Herald, 14 June, 1993.
   * "Defiant graziers stay in jail", Sydney Morning Herald, 15 June, 1993.
   * "A Principality without walls near Jericho", Sydney Morning Herald, 15 June, 1993.
   * "The great conspiracy to enslave Australia", Sydney Morning Herald, 21 June, 1993.

Brokenfrog 05:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, notable protest gaining media coverage and entering the public conciousness. Kappa 04:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too many nn micronations are turning wP into a forum for people who don't want to pay tax.Blnguyen 07:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important piece of history. Not vanity as Ardenn has written. Wiwaxia 07:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable "micronation," really nothing more than a short-lived protest with nothing going for it. —Cleared as filed. 00:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Students' Society - University of Alberta[edit]

Every university has one of these, it's not particularly notable. Vanity. Delete --Ardenn 00:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is the oldest such entity in Alberta Ruby 01:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - copied from [4] (No longer available, but got in Google cache). Also see Engineering Week - University of AlbertaCamillus (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 01:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 03:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, too much good work to just throw away, but the name needs to be more manageable. ---AlexWCovington (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 06:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the text was original I'd consider keeping it. --djrobgordon 07:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article establishes the organization's notablity. I don't quite see which passages are in violation of copyright with the provided URL, but perhaps this can be clarified. However, the article needs to be renamed. btm talk 07:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with the side note that I'm rather mystified by the neverending profusion of engineering student society articles. These things just are not inherently notable — even being the oldest one in its province doesn't particularly matter, because when you're talking about something that doesn't ordinarily belong in an encyclopedia in the first place, being the oldest example of that unencyclopedic thing is still pretty damn unencyclopedic. Bearcat 08:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Bearcat. Universities are notable. National clubs are notable. But local clubs or branches of clubs, particularly this sort that are only for students, are not notable. A few sentences can be added to the main university page.Obina 11:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and a copyvio. -- Kjkolb 17:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Kjkolb Where (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All knowledge is notable. If every university has one of these, they should all have articles. -- Marvin147 19:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Not all knowledge is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. —Cleared as filed. 22:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Obina --kingboyk 01:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete UofAcruft. Eusebeus 19:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as irrelevant to an encyclopedia. Possible slight merge to the university. Stifle 02:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable TigerShark 00:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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


The page under discussion was deleted by Neutrality. This AFD is closed. ENCEPHALON 07:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The chronicles of the future[edit]

"The chronicles of the future is a yet-to-be-released book". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball This is alomst too obvious to bother with. Delete DES (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 01:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brocktoon[edit]

A name used once in one sketch on a popular comedy show. This article attempts to stretch "encyclopedic" to near breaking point. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bleeding star clothing[edit]

Advertising, article even says it's newly founded Obli (Talk) 16:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the first two sentences of the article. Stifle 16:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Ruby 01:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising, non-notable Camillus (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not very good ghits on first page, blatant advertising, non-notable, etc. Royboycrashfan 01:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vanity! AdSpam! AdCruft! Delete! ++Deiz 02:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 02:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folz Vending[edit]

This article is nothing more than an advertisement. Much larger companies that do more business are not included beccause they are not big enough.

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This isn't an ad, this is a real article. The bot that makes ads doesn't know how to make it look all wiki-ed and everything Ruby 00:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, the bot only finished the AFD process that someone else didn't finish. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be a well-established company. Camillus (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If it's been around that long, it could very well be expanded. Royboycrashfan 01:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 06:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flank two position[edit]

24 fancruft. I like the show too, but there is no indication this particular term is used in the real world, nor does the article give any. Nor do I think it could. Daniel Case 21:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki: except now it is, as an inside joke for 24 fans on the Internet. Google for "flank 2 position" and "flank two position" and you will find many references, including several uses by famous columnist Dave Barry. Transwiki to wiktionary. Calwatch 22:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wiktionary is not UrbanDictionary. Has no relevance beyond small fan community. So, make it go away. FCYTravis 01:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 01:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Belongs on either a) a 24 guide for that particular episode, or on Urban Dictionary... not here. --Kinu 02:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Joe 05:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. —Cleared as filed. 01:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese intelligence activity in other countries[edit]

An article which can only contain speculations. The subject of Chinese foreign intelligence is covered in Ministry of State Security – Ezeu 00:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Because the article itself says, "These claims are provided by defecting Chinese officials and they may not be reliable." Ruby 00:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that is the standard then the bulk of articles like Human rights in North Korea would have to go as well. A body of reports from defectors is notable, especially when there is evidence to back them up, such as pending criminal cases against accused spies.--ThreeAnswers 01:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • An analogy: some people get their information about Catholicism from ex-Catholics, and you end up with what is possibly bad information from people with an axe to grind. If the only source of information about Catholicism was from ex-Catholics (as it would also be in this article and the case you mentioned), then it would be better for Wikipedia not to accept the information rather than accept tainted information. Ruby 04:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete keep. Could be better written. Royboycrashfan 01:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -article as it currently stands contains nothing worth reading but that doesn't mean it 'can only' contain speculation. There's plenty of evidence for CIA activity outside the US, for example. It wouldn't be hard for an inclined editor to turn some mainstream news coverage of Chinese spying into a proper article. -- Aim Here 01:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article contains nothing but speculation and is totally non-encyclopedic. Just because a topic has potential to have an encyclopedic article written about it, that in itself is crystal balling. In the meantime, this fails all the wiki tests and has to go. ++Deiz 02:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Strong keep, as expandable, and per ThreeAnswers' rewrite. Adrian Lamo ·· 07:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's growth potential here. --AlexWCovington (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I've re-written the article and provided a number of sources, and internal links to Katrina Leung and the falsely accused Wen Ho Lee. I just can't see Wikipedia not having an article about this topic, considering the alleged scope of activity.--ThreeAnswers 07:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is hard to see how a page such as this can rise above the level of rumour, speculation or misinformation. Since no verification from interested parties is possible, how can it be useful for purposes of research?  (aeropagitica)  08:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I´m with Aeropagita, serious NPOV and speculation issues here. Info on Leung and Lee is useful but already exists on their bio pages. Apart from that it´s just a list of weblinks which WP:NOT. It is better than it was but not quite there yet... ++Deiz 10:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The policy is that Wikipedia is not a mere collection of weblinks. They're all directly relevant to the content of the article and published by reputable sources. I'm not sure what the NPOV issue is considering that China's objections are noted as well as the accusation of "China threat" racism.--ThreeAnswers 16:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Espionage (by any nation) receives extensive real-world press coverage and is written about extensively. That the nations doing it won't admit to it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen and isn't cataloged. See press coverage of current US-Venezuela accusations of spying for current coverage. Georgewilliamherbert 19:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Georgewilliamherbert 19:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: media hysterism itself is quite notable encyclopedic topic, poorly assembled articles "documenting" individual cases from newspapers isn't. Such topics requires time to be researched correctly, until then they are mere speculations and do not belong here. Pavel Vozenilek 22:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, notable subject; article clearly states what is not definate fact and cites sources. Where (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is well referenced thanks to ThreeAnswers's rewrite -- Astrokey44|talk 04:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Communist China, articles keep YOU! --Agamemnon2 11:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Preaky 17:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Author hasn't edited since, but if they want it userfied they can drop a note on my talkpage (or indeed that of any admin). -Splashtalk 02:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cake Prophecy[edit]

tagged as speedy, but does not seem to fit a speedy cat. This is, however, a description of some patently non-notable fiction,and also appears to fail WP:NOR (and quite possibly WP:NFT) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The books sound interesting, but Wikipedia can only dedicate articles to novels that are published and well-circulated. There are better places on the web to promote your work, anyway. ×Meegs 01:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn nonsense. incog 00:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have seen the first novel published, although only in Western Australia. Maybe it is going mainstream soon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.205.7 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete as junk. Stifle 16:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not junk, but if it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, say so. The author probably took an hour to write it, you hopefully took a minute to read it, and I suggest it's worth 15 seconds to give a real reason for deletion instead of just insulting the author, who contributed in good faith. ×Meegs 18:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete above comment is far too kind. 15 seconds is all it takes to see that this falls into WP:NOT. Definitely doesn't belong on WP - tells of books which only exist in author's mind. Camillus (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you may know, I am broadly in favour of userfying well-intentioned but naive articles (assuming good faith, obv.) like this and autobiographies, per WP:BITE. If a consensus emerges to delete and I end up closing the AfD I will probably do that. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and userfy, because of notability issues. --kingboyk 00:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 01:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, straddles the line between fiction and patent nonsense. People can spend 6 years writing fiction if they want. This still won't be where to put it and no amount of unsigned desperate rescue attempts will change that. ++Deiz 02:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 06:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mesh Computers[edit]

Article is about an English computer maker which appears to fail WP:CORP. The only incoming link to the article is a line in Mesh (disambiguation) added by the article's author. - squibix(talk) 18:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • week keep one of the better known UK computer makers. --Salix alba (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Royboycrashfan 01:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per User:Pfafrich --kingboyk 01:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone has a better reason for keeping this than that's its virtually adcruft for "one of the better known UK computer makers" who nevertheless fail WP:CORP. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like another one that will test the "it's not a vote" aspect of AfD. Google news says nothing, and the links from the vanilla Google search are mostly just product reviews and thus do not indicate notability. This link indicates that there may be something in it, but for right now, delete as not notable and failing WP:CORP. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Brenneman. Too small to be notable. Dr Debug (Talk) 04:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication why the company would meet WP:CORP. (As an aside, I've lived in Britain for ten years now and never saw one single box manufactured by those people anywhere.) Pilatus 05:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 01:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Week - University of Alberta[edit]

Vanity, non-notable. Delete --Ardenn 01:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 01:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can articles be deleted because they're just plain boring? Does anybody outside the Uni of Alberta give a shit? Camillus (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You're right. Nobody outside UA would give. Royboycrashfan 01:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I am somewhat hesitant to vote on the AfD discussion for the group itself, I do have an opinion on this one. While there are many college events that are notable, this is not one of them. --Kinu 03:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 03:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have no opinion to offer on the group's AFD, but the event itself is no different than hundreds of others held across North America. 23skidoo 04:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete university event no more notable than the hundreds of similar events at other North American universities. I also note that we've previously deleted the exact same content at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engineering Week (although this article was already around and didn't get dealt with at the same time despite my suggesting that it should be, so this doesn't constitute recreation of deleted material.) Bearcat 08:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dime-a-dozen University event - no significance asserted -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 article was speedily deleted as an attack page after taking into account pictures uploaded by the creator of the article Eybear to accompany the article. --HappyCamper 01:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willie barton[edit]

Some sort of hoax or nonsense article, maybe even a fictional character but even so, not notable -- Aim Here 01:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - you're too kind, this is something made up in school. WP:NFT Delete forthwith! Camillus (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 01:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Fleet[edit]

nn gaming clan for a minor game on a Mac. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 01:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DSquared[edit]

Delete or complete rewrite as advertisement. I was going to help wikify this article, but as I read through it, it became obvious that it is an advertisement. It may even be copyvio, but I cannot access the DSquared website to look into it (Shockwave update won't load) Bugwit grunt 01:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 35. Johnleemk | Talk 14:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern Mutual - Louisville and related articles[edit]

Delete per Chains and Franchises of WP:CORP. This page does not provide any useful corporate information, and is more of an advertisement for a specific NML office. If this were acceptable, then there would be pages on every single branch office that is a part of NML (or of any company for that matter), which is wholly unnecessary. Kinu 01:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lot per WP:CORP. --Andy Saunders 17:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WOTTA! Do you mean "companies and corporations?" :-)
  • I think it's probably handier to Merge into one article, in this case. OTOH, I'm lazy, I'm not going to do it ;-) Kim Bruning 13:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Lee Burton[edit]

Tagged by User:Opes for speedy deletion, but it does assert some notability. He has given the following reason: not-notable and not encyclopedic. Now relisting, no vote. King of Hearts | (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - 0 Google hits. Camillus (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably a hoax Ruby 02:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having 26 cosmetic surgeries does not warrant notability. Royboycrashfan 02:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sounds more like a Ripley's Believe It or Not! entry than a person who warrants their own page on Wikipedia. If this were acceptable, then anyone who's ever been a guest on Maury Povich's show could be on here. --Kinu 02:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Funnily enough, though, I recently happened upon an episode of Maury whilst flipping through channels and saw this very woman; she described, as the article does, her having pursued sundry surgeries in order to resemble certain celebrities. Thus, not a hoax, but surely non-notable. Joe 05:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ms Burton's surgical addiction doesn't make her a notable person.  (aeropagitica)  08:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clownze[edit]

Probably nonsense. Almost no google and nothing relevent, but always happy to hear new information. brenneman(t)(c) 02:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - makey-uppy. Camillus (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bollocks Ruby 02:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep i actually know a few people like this. didnt know they were called clownze. RubenSteve 02:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC-8)
Comment - above comment ("didn't know they were called clownze") - kinda confirms non-notability Camillus (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice one Steve, really fascinating. Tell us more... or just Delete this SpamCruft nonsense before people actually start doing this ++Deiz 02:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not notable or well written. Royboycrashfan 02:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No verifiable information, Google yields no relevant results. Besides, it sounds more like a middle school rebel-rousing clique than a notable group worthy of a page. --Kinu 02:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Royboycrashfan. --Ardenn 03:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-verifiable, probably neologism. Dr Debug (Talk) 03:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Agreeing with Kinu, even if true, not notable. --Lockley 17:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as either complete bollocks or unverifiable vanity trivia cruft (i.e. bollocks, just not complete bollocks) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faithpay[edit]

Promotion of Wikipedia user's webpage and service. A google search of "faithpay" gives 101 hits, which includes Wiki and related pages. Nothing notable. Wikipedia is not a ad space. Would have speedied this, but wasn't sure if it matches criteria. Created by wiki user Adam Woeger (also up for AfD) and Faithpay "creator." Arbustoo 02:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Arbustoo 02:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't even userfy this Ruby 02:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - try http://www.faithpay.com (cited in article) - for a laugh! Camillus (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. Royboycrashfan 02:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad. --Ardenn 03:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with anything else Woeger-related. Adrian Lamo · 03:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --kingboyk 03:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without apology. Daniel Case 05:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Shameless self-promotion. Not even worth a userfy, IMHO. --Kinu 06:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would have considered this one for the new WP:PROD process as it looks likely to sail through without a single keep. ++Lar: t/c 08:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even when the source http://www.faithpay.com redirects to the very Wiki article it is sourced as? Arbustoo 11:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 06:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breakingviews[edit]

Alexa rank 363,554, it is basically a very specialized news ticker which "publishes" via email newsletters Ruby 02:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable advertising company, fails WP:CORP, this article is nothing but self-promotion. Camillus (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 02:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Royboycrashfan. --Ardenn 03:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --djrobgordon 07:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The following page on breakingviews.com establishes notability: [6]. The site publishes (or at least it claims to) a print column in the weekend edition of The Wall Street Journal (U.S. edition). It has also been mentioned by Bloomberg and Forbes articles: [7] [8]. btm talk 07:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite Btm's claims, I still think this fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. ComputerJoe 12:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ComputerJoe. --Andy Saunders 17:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. —Cleared as filed. 22:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Naturally I'd advocate keeping this as I wrote it, but I do have some logical reasons i'd like to share: 1) This most certainly isn't an advert as I don't have any connection with the group whatsoever other than having taken advantage of their trial. 2) The group is a significant news provider to the financial world in the London and NY markets, as and such merits mention as a journalistic group. 3) It's of interest as a wholly web-based news group, as an example of the move of such niche journals towards the net and away from classic hard-copy publishing. 4) Its syndication in notable traditional news sources (eg WSJ, Sunday Telegraph) vouches for its quality above "specialised news ticker" status. 5) Verifiable information is available to support the statements made in the article, and nothing vague or unsupportable has been written. 6) Finally, any such article about any news journal might be considered promotional if this one is to be deleted. How can the articles on The Week, Arena (magazine), The Face, or Heat (magazine) be justified? None of these articles provide a comparable level of impartiality (The Week: "witty, smart, and nonpartisan"), represent journals with significant links to other fields (finance), or relate to an unusual or atypical publication (Heat, the Face and all other glossies and lads mags are essentially identical and trivial and perhaps do not merit seperate description). Upon re-reading the article, I can see how it might seem like an advert, becuase I stuck only to facts I could find, and included no commentary of my own. But that's an argument for edits and revisions, not deletion. Those were my reasons for starting the article, and they are my reasons for voting to Keep it. --Corinthian 02:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 19:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 02:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean it up so it doesn't look like advertising so much. They appear to be plenty notable. Peyna 02:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 06:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John_Alan_Glennon[edit]

Not encyclopedic / nn. Ucsbalan 02:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - perfectly encyclopedic, of interest to cavers (which I'm not). Well-sourced, notability on web, published author. Camillus (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per above. Royboycrashfan 02:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing to suggest this doesn't belong ++Deiz 02:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From the article alone, Glennon has achieved enough of note to warrant a page. --Kinu 02:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although none of the work got much attention from general public like the nominator, some has been significant to cavers and geologists. Sufficiently notable within a non-trivial field to warrant inclusion, including some feature coverage in magazines and the AP feed. Barno 03:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as strong as they come ppoi307
  • Keep This appears to be a perfectly legitimate article.  (aeropagitica)  09:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. I only find 146 Google hits, lots of those are Wikipedia mirror sites. It looks like a nice article (vanity?), but there's no meat. This person, as most students, are involved with a lot of different research projects. But it's the leaders of the projects who are notable, not the tagalons. Ifnord 15:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have worked with Alan, so I don't think I'm supposed to vote. However, with respect to the previous comment, Alan Glennon did lead the cave and geyser projects (not just a tagalong). try google "Alan Glennon" Geocal 04:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, notable and encyclopedic per coverage and notable acts. Adrian Lamo ·· 19:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 21:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with lfnord. A web search turns up little that supports notability. Eusebeus 19:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is too suggestive of a vanity page. Any valuable information can be shifted to other entries. --Varenius 20:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was split. Johnleemk | Talk 14:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable Veterans of other conflicts[edit]

Originally proposed for rapid deletion, but moved to AfD for a wider audience -- RoySmith (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Split and merge the veterans listed into their respective war articles. --Bugwit grunt 02:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and merge per Bugwit. A sparse list, while easily expanded, would be more redundant than listing these individuals on the respective war pages, or even categorizing them. --Kinu 02:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 3 parent articles if any of this itsy-bitsy content isn't covered there; otherwise delete. Barno 03:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Barno. Royboycrashfan 03:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article title is nonsense --djrobgordon 07:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split/merge as appropriate. "Other" is always a bad criteria for a list. --Carnildo 07:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or merge. The name is nonsense when not given in proper context. The "other" seems to refer to anything that is not explicitly listed otherwise at List of military veterans. btm talk 07:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spitty McMergeMerge as per BugWit. Categories would be nice, but I know I'm not going to get a delete on those grounds so I'm grabbing the lesser of two evils. Lord Bob 17:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Other than what? Articels must stand on their own, not be defiend be exclusion from another artilce not even linked from this one (except via what-links-here). And even if the def were made explicit, this could potentially include most of the 'notable" figureas in history, because a great many of them, probably the majority, have been involved in a war at soemtime or other, and the crestor explained this as including people famopus for other things who were once soldiers. DES (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back in to List of military veterans or split. Kappa 04:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Whitlock[edit]

The person might be the subject of a notable court case, but I can't find any evidence that that's the case. Search isn't helped by the article not mentioning which company is being sued.--Aim Here 03:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It sounds more like a local news kind of case than an Enron. Unless the SCOTUS sets some sort of landmark precedent from this case, which I doubt will happen, it's not encyclopedic. --Kinu 03:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 03:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel Sorry For The Guy But Delete ppoi307
  • Delete unless someone can demonstrate that this case is groundbreaking --djrobgordon 07:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sad case but doesn't appear to be notable. WP:NOT a memorial to the dead.  (aeropagitica)  09:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While sad, there is no evidence in this article (or elsewhere on the internet, that I could find) to suggest that this figure, or his incidental death, are notable. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very tragic but as of the current time it has to be a delete per above. --kingboyk 01:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Baptist College[edit]

This is an ad for Baptist schools and is unencyclopedic. Any relevant data should be merged with Independent Baptist, otherwise it is not neccessary to promote Baptist schools and explain that Baptist schools deal with Baptist beliefs. Of course, if you get a strictly Baptist education at a Baptist college, your career oppotunities are going to be limited to the Baptist ministry; no need to have an article listing schools to explain that. Unless more information is added to make this article informative, it should be deleted. Arbustoo 03:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Arbustoo 01:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Ardenn 03:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. At the least, it's NPOV, as per the tag. --Kinu 03:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge the nomination states, "Of course, if you get a strictly Baptist education at a Baptist college, your career oppotunities are going to be limited to the Baptist ministry," however a reader might not know that this is the education offered at these schools without this article. Plenty of "affiliated" institutions are accredited and offer comprehensive educations. It's not a good article, but it could be useful if edited. --djrobgordon 07:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is the Bible college article, the List of Bible colleges, and the Independent Baptist article that mentions all the schools/groups affilated, which already cover that. Arbustoo 09:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not describe "post-secondary education related to a denomination." In fact, if you read it carefully "independent Baptist" simply means "independent" of main Bapitist ministry. Therefore, this article encompasses any broad Christian/fundamentalist/Baptist, as the article notes with "Bob Jones University"-- which is not Baptist. The Jesuit education article is a good one that describes a particular denomination. This article does not describe a denomination. My assertation is that the article is so broad it is worthlessly undescriptive since "independent" Baptist is NOT a denomination. The Jesuit article is perfect criteria to follow and this article falls far short of that. Arbustoo 04:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't the article is in very good shape right now, and it needs cleanup, but I think the subject has possibilities and this article isn't a bad starting point. —Cleared as filed. 22:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about a merge with Independent Baptist? Arbustoo 02:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but a merge decision has nothing to do with deletion, because you can't merge an article without keeping it. A redirect has to remain so the history of the article is available per the GFDL license. —Cleared as filed. 05:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of Independent Baptist Colleges as an explanation of what distinguishes this group of colleges from other Baptist colleges. H2O 20:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 02:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If I can't nominate a Catholic or Jewish high school without getting grief I sure as heck ain't going to let them delete a system of Protestant colleges Ruby 03:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no evidence that these college actually refer to themselves as "Independent Baptist Colleges", let alone other sources; or that any association links them at all. Melchoir 08:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and clean up. I see nothing POV in the article, although I see bad writing and editing. Logophile 10:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see POV either, and it wouldn't be a reason for deletion. However, this article appears to concern a completely non-existent concept. Melchoir 20:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on clean up edits: Logophile, your edits are exactly why this is nominated. You reinserted the Bob Jones University claim. BJU is not Baptist. BJU is fundamentalist Christian, which can encompass Baptists, but the school doesn't strictly profess to be Baptist, let alone "independent Baptist." Once again, this article is a non-existent topic. Arbustoo 07:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sure does. Arbustoo 04:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and JzG, more Gastroturfing. --Malthusian (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It's poorly written and of rather dubious origins, but as of the lastest edit, I don't really see anything warrenting deletion. I'd rename the article Independent Baptist Colleges though. At least it isn't another article about a private elementary school.--Isotope23 18:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Bible college which is, I believe, the more common term. Fishal 21:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • A Bible college is different than the Independent Baptist Colleges. A Bible college generally would have a much narrower curriculum, with more specific training for ministerial careers. The colleges described in this article, while preparing most for ministerial careers, may offer a broader education, providing a independent Baptist setting and also providing other areas of study - for example Tennessee Temple University offers a majors in biology and in mathematics. —ERcheck @ 22:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where are you getting this information? Melchoir 23:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment not meant to be controversial. I did a review of some of Bible colleges offerings of majors and then offerings of of independent Baptist colleges (IBC). Some of the IBCs are "Bible" colleges, while some have more general offerings. Point was that there is a difference. Some IBC are Bible colleges, while some are not. The "Bible colleges" terminology that I am referencing is that being used in the Wikipedia article Bible college. —ERcheck @ 00:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I find no evidence on Google that such a thing as an "Independent Baptist College" even exists. You seem to have information I'm not aware of, and I'm genuinely curious. How do you determine what is an IBC and what isn't? Is it your personal judgement or what? Melchoir 01:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I did a Google search on <Independent Baptist College>. The third entry was http://bn66.com/churches/schools.html. Google search on <Independent Baptist> provides a number of sites with links. —ERcheck @ 01:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • See, my problem is, I've clicked on a bunch of those links, and most of the schools do not identify themselves as "independent" anything. West Coast and Crown do call themselves "Independent Baptist College", but how do we know what that means to them? With the AJCU there's a verifiable thread connecting the schools; here, I see no such tool. Without some kind of secondary literature specifically addressing Independent Baptist Colleges, I don't see how we can write an article here. Melchoir 01:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Exactly. Arbustoo 04:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have no problem with each school having and article, but this one is not needed. 03:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Does this not come under the wikipedia schools policy? Jcuk 08:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The school thing is not a walled garden from WP:V (although admittedly AfD discussions like the first one for Genius home collegiate school suggest precedent for otherwise). --Malthusian (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really the same thing, since a lot of these are unaccredited "schools" offering degress which have no formal status, taught by people who graduated from the same (or in some cases were simply given the degrees in recognition of their mission work). A lot of this is Gastroturfing. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful topic. Nothing to do with schools, this is a type of tertiary education institution, not as religiously-focused as a "bible college" (mentioned above) but not secular like an ordinary university. --bainer (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Chuck_Hastings (talk · contribs)
Meatpuppet sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich. [9] Also second edit ever on Wikipedia is this vote.Arbustoo 20:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is helpful and important too Yuckfoo 19:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to bet Jason Gastrich sent you here like on the other AfDs. Please explain what is "helpful" about it, that is, what criteria is it describing? How many schools mentioned in the article actually define themselves as "Independent Baptist" (I know the answer)? The how many call themself an "Independent Baptist College"(different from the previous question)? Explain how/why this is "important"? What is the criteria (other than the name) for an "Independent Baptist College," no one has said this and its absent from the article. Arbustoo 20:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jollywood[edit]

  • Delete: Non-notable term which also doesn't appear to mean what the article says. Search on Google brings up more woodworking stores than Philippine film industry articles. Author is adding large numbers of sketchy articles in need of massive cleanup at minimum. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator. --Kinu 03:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not many good ghits, let alone on the first page. Royboycrashfan 03:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nomination. ENCEPHALON 05:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 03:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 17:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator. Adrian Lamo ·· 07:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperspace[edit]

Article consists of misleading or nonsensical claims; I can find nothing here which is not treated better in other WP articles CH 03:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC) I have agreed with WMC's suggestion to turn this article into a humble disambiguation page, and am withdrawing my nomination for deletion accordingly. This solution seems most likely to satisfy (almost?) everyone. Thanks to all for your thoughts! ---CH 01:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It seems fine to me Tobyk777 03:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tobyk777, did you overlook the fact that the article claims to discuss science, not science fiction? Please see the talk page and reconsider your vote.---CH 22:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: to nom, are you stating, per your personal expertise in this field, which by your userpage you could plausibly do, that this article is not factually sound? Adrian Lamo · 03:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Adrian, it's even worse than that, this article is mostly not even wrong. I just added a critique of the first half of the article to the talk page. Every single sentence is nonsensical or in a few cases makes an identifiably incorrect claim. Please see the list--- it is really amazing. This is without question one of the absolute worst articles I have seen in the WP since I got here in late May 2005. It is entirely pointless and should be deleted as nonsensical prattle by someone who had absolutely no idea what they were talking about, or even what they were trying to say.---CH 21:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a real 4-dimensional construct called space-time but hyperspace as it is depicted here is more or less original research Ruby 04:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's no reason to delete an article for repeating other concepts, and if it's really that bad, it can be cut to summaries and Main page: links --AlexWCovington (talk)
Hi, Alex, it really is that bad; please see the talk page and consider changing your vote! You said there's no reason to delete an article [simply] for repeating other concepts and of course I agree, but that's not the point. If an article offers nothing but nonsense and munged restatements of stuff from other (and better) articles, then it serves no useful purpose in an encyclopedia. We want WP to be useful to our readers, don't we? I should hope so! ---CH 21:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your sentiments but all I'm seeing is bad editing. There is a term "hyperspace" in common parlance and Wikipedia needs a factual article on it; if what's there isn't right at all, then it needs fixing, not deletion. --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless the references are all not true or say something different. It seems this hyperspace may have been original research by the authors quoted, but that makes it not OR by this author. This is fine to condense for an article here. If this theory is not true, and dramatically not supported by mainstream physics, then this article can be modified to present a more balanced view. (I admit I can't get the New scientist link to open today so I have't read that source yet.)Obina 12:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Obina, I wish more readers appreciated what is a theory; see also scientific method. This article is a list of incomprehensble nonsense with some completely munged misstatements of genuine concepts from real physics. Please see the talk page for a discussion of the first half of the article, line by line. Every line is either nonsense or incorrect! Please reconsider your vote.---CH 21:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems I was taken in by good presentation without looking too closely at it. --DV8 2XL 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, DV8 2XL! ---CH 22:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain I've heard of space-time and hyperspace through the work of The Shamen and Terence McKenna. However, I have absolutely no idea whether this article is original research, gobbledegook, or a brilliant Wikipedia article. --kingboyk 01:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's some of the worst gobbledygook I've ever seen. ---CH 22:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Obina's comments. If the nominator (or anyone else) can provide proof the article is a hoax, then it should be fixed or the appropriate tags added to the article. Agreed the presence of references makes this not original research, but rather the same type of condensing that has been done on other wiki-articles about science.23skidoo 04:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't prove it's a hoax, of course. I can prove it's gobbledygook. But that's not really my task; if you doubt my word you should read other articles in the WP, or better yet the widely used book by Taylor & Wheeler, Spacetime physics, to familiarize yourself with how real physicists discuss the concepts the author of this article claims to describe. Please reconsider your vote.---CH 22:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's not enough to justify deletion since there is no proof of bad faith. Correction, maybe, but not deletion. I don't have time to go hunting through books. If you believe this is gobbledygook then replace the offending content with something that is not gobbledygook -- you seem familiar with the above book, so I would start with that. I do agree with Agateller, below, that perhaps a renaming of the article is in order and change Hyperspace itself to a disambiguation page that leads to this article and to the science fiction concept. The fact that there may allegedly be factual errors in this article is not grounds for deletion. That's the same as saying the article on Angelina Jolie should be deleted because someone erroneously stated that she was the first woman to walk on the moon. If it's wrong, be bold and correct it -- but be prepared to defend your corrections with sources, is all. 23skidoo 01:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because the disambiguation page is a notable improvement too many people say that they don't understand the article. Not understanding it isn't the same as proving it's a hoax. Unless someone can examine it point by point and demonstrate provable inconsistencies that show it to be entirely made-up, it should stay. However, I don't think it should be the article that comes up by default when someone looks for "hyperspace," as most people are probably looking for the science-fiction concept, and not an essay on physics. Agateller 18:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which, I might add, is presumably exactly what we want. I just wish I could understand it. --kingboyk 08:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a decently well-written article explaining a valid theory. -- Crevaner 12:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crevaner, I am incredulous. Please see my comments in the talk page and reconsider your vote. ---CH 22:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hillman. It'd be nice if we could get someone with a handle on the topic to rewrite this *cough* but in the meantime, inaccurate articles are worse than no article. Adrian Lamo ·· 22:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to wormhole. All but the first sentence (i.e. all these formulas) are irrelevant / nonsense. Kusma (討論) 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain - The references are legit (I've met Cliff Pickover) but may not apply. What's needed is explication of why "this miserable production" (a pejorative term for someone's work, let's WP:AGF please) is so miserable. Or, alternatively, an expert opinion (from a physicist) on whether there is merit to the article. What I find concerning is that CH gives the appearance of being on a personal vendetta against this article. The comments on the talk page are not very friendly and the followup to every comment here is disconcerting. (the equations seem legit as far as they go but don't seem to explain much about how one would do anything useful with hyperspace). If this article is kept, I suggest that the disambig be reversed to make the article currently at hyperspace (science fiction) the proimary one, and have it point here. ++Lar: t/c 23:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, the references are to popular works. I mentioned in my allegedly "unfriendly" (I'd say frustrated and apalled) comments that the term hyperspace is applied in popular writings by some authors who also write legit scientific papers. If you're not willing to take my word for it, why not ask Pickover? I'd be astonished if he did not agree with my critiques in the talk page. As for "personal vendetta", I don't know who (plural) wrote that article, so it can't be personal. In fact, my motivations are concern for reader who come here seeking an encyclopedia. See for example Forum for Encyclopedic Standards.---CH 23:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After the redo of the article into a disambig, and the cutting of the equations lifted out of context from Special Relativity I change my vote comment to Keep. The article now no longer needs expert review (which would have been redundant effort since Special Relativity is a much better article). ++Lar: t/c 02:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep now its been re-written Current article is rubbish, but concept is common enough (see comments above). Cut it down to a stub, or disambig. See my comments on the talk page. William M. Connolley 23:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC). William M. Connolley 09:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change Vote to Delete After being urged to reconsider, I researched hyperspace. I had always belived that since so many pieces of fiction used it, I must have something to do with real life. Now however, after looking, there is in no way enough information on this topic for all those equations. Tobyk777 00:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and completly remodel. Hyperspace is a common ennough concept to need a page. However current revision is mostly a cut and past job from Special relativity. I've now cut out the copied content and linked to the relavant section. Also has meaning in mathematics, so I've added a few relavant links. --Salix alba (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although it's a big improvement over what was nominated, I'd say if it's going to keep trying to be about science then delete as nonsense and move hyperspace (science fiction) back here. — Laura Scudder ☎ 01:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain. I'm okay with the disambig page as it is now. — Laura Scudder ☎ 05:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of no value. --Ste. Anne 01:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to hyperspace (science fiction). The disambiguation page is much better at being encyclopedic, but the term doesn't really seem to be _used_ outside of science fiction. If that ever changes, it can be turned back into a disambiguation page.--Christopher Thomas 04:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (sic) I am one of the few scientists actually interested in hyperspace, and this article is little more than rubbish.
Most basic concepts are not really mentioned, there are key errors, and the article doesn’t even contain the extremely useful “hyperspace” refutation of general relativity.
Hyper dimensionality and hyperspace are generally opposites, dimensional collapse (into 3 dimensions) is not mentioned, curved verses flat hyperspaces are not mentioned, “sub-space” theories are not mentioned.
And of course there are none of the big arguments in favour of HS either, like the unification of the macro and quantum worlds, or the solution to the various problems with gravity.
Wikipedia would have to be very brave to have a real article on the subject anyway, and not only because it would upset a lot of scientists. This stuff was all once part of everyday science in the 1950’s, but men with short haircuts in black suits came along and it all disappeared.
Incidentally the correct category for an article on hyperspace is surely “speculative science” - the same category as gravity engines, cold fusion, time travel, over unity machines, “intelligent” design, and (the other theory I have been working on for 15 years) - Strong AI.
- Robert Lucien Howe [[email protected]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.47.213 (talk • contribs) on 09:21, 6 February 2006
Comment - Contribututions to this AfD are 86.133.47.213's only edits. Searching on "Robert Lucien Howe" indicates that this person is not employed as a scientist by academic or government-funded research institutions; instead, he seems to be an enthusiast who writes online about a "transiator" device, which allegedly is a device used by the US government to examine possible futures, and which also is alleged to exist naturally in humans. --Christopher Thomas 18:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. CH just re-wrote this into a nice, readable disambiguation page that is now encyclopaedic, (unlike the earlier drek). linas 14:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Looks like a solid disambiguation page now. — RJH 17:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Ashi 129.105.14.216 00:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. The list could be replaced by a category for those listed articles of value, I think, which should satisfy those few wanting the article kept. I have discounted the opinions of User:Royboycrashfan (because the list doesn't have to be a list of external links, it could be replaced with redlinks as one user suggested), User:Jcuk (because he made no argument) and User:Yuckfoo (because he made no argument). Anyone wishing to hurl rotten tomatoes presumably knows how. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of independent Baptist colleges[edit]

Small list of schools linked to external sources, which are already available at List of Bible colleges and Category:Seminaries and theological colleges, which makes this redundant. Plus there is a separate article for Bible college. There is no need to have these articles, which have the same material. Arbustoo 03:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Arbustoo 03:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretty redundant given the category and list mentioned by the nominator, and hardly expandable to something worth keeping. --Kinu 03:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the caveat that we replace the external links with red links. Nine of the school have Wikipedia articles. The content of this list isn't covered by List of Bible colleges because that list doesn't not the denomination a particular school is affiliated with. The same holds true with Category:Seminaries and theological colleges. I could be convinced to delete if a category was created, in the vein of Category:Roman Catholic universities and colleges in the United States.
They are already listed by religious criteria twice over and in other ways too. Also it is "independent" Baptist, which is different than "Baptist." Should all different Baptists get separate lists too? Arbustoo 09:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 08:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even though there is a category for Jesuit colleges and universities in the US, there is also a List of Jesuit universities in the United States, which lists by state. Independent Baptist is different that Baptist as Jesuit is different that Roman Catholic. —ERcheck @ 22:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ERCheck registered February 3rd. Arbustoo 02:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arbustoo - I don't know what your point is in the above comment. But, in fact, I registered in October 2005. It is "ERcheck", not ERCheck (which is not a registered user name). You registered in January 2006. How is that relevant to this AfD? —ERcheck @ 02:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I read the wrong article entry. As for your claim; a "Jesuit school" entails a easily defined group. Indepedent Baptists are not a particular sect, but simply have no affliation. The analogy you put forth does not hold water. As for "Independent Baptist is different that Baptist as Jesuit is different that Roman Catholic," you might want to re-read what an independent Baptist is. A Jesuit is a denomination. Catholic is a denomination. Baptist is a denomination. An indepedent Baptist is still a Baptist, just one that does not have ties to the main organization. That is why this list is AfD. Arbustoo 04:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I understand from Independent Baptist that independent baptists do not belong to a denomination but are 'self declared'. This makes such a list inherently NPOV. The Jesuits are a religious order and easily definable.--Porturology 03:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the Independent Baptists claim not to belong to a denomination, they do in fact have characteristics in common and behave much like a denomination. This group of colleges is part of what holds them together. Having a separate list like this is useful information. See also Church of God (Anderson) for another group that claims not to be a denomination. H2O 20:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments about accreditation. I don't think it is relevant one way or another that many of these schools are not accredited. They are religious schools. Many religious schools choose not to go through the accreditation process, because they wish to remain independent, not necessarily because they are diploma mills. This group of Baptists is VERY independent, so it is not surprising that these schools are not accredited. Even for them to join the Southern Baptist Convention would be for them a form of compromise. H2O 00:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See World Baptist Fellowship. (by the way, their Arlington Baptist College, IS accredited) The articles do need improvement, but not deletion. H2O 00:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That article doesn't exist. We're calling it list of... for a reason. Please see the Wikipedia naming conventions. - Mgm|(talk) 10:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Typo on my part. Fixed, above. -- Karnesky 21:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reason as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Baptist College. Melchoir 08:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This looks a lot like an attempt at Gastroturfing - the first one I checked with a Wikilink (rather than an external link, whihc I'd say is questionable, since why would we list places not notable enough for articles?) was Providence Baptist College. I checked on its accreditation status, and can't find any evidence of accreditation (which may be defective searchign skills or not). I suspect that this mix of redlinks, weblinks and wikilinks is part of the Southern Baptist walled garden. I see no evidence that these colleges self-identify as a separate sect, as the title implies. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 11:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Gastroturfing. Lists should be aids to navigation or page creation, this is neither. --Malthusian (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up if need be. Jcuk 08:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Better suited to a cat.Gateman1997 06:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Colby Nolan? Arbustoo 20:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'keep please this is a important and helpful list Yuckfoo 19:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jason Gastrich sent you to AfDs in the past and I think this might be the same situation (the reason is his sock puppet has been floating around-- see Independent Baptist College). You copy and pasted your post from Independent Baptist College AfD vote... as you can tell without punctuation, the exact wording is the same, and no capitalization. But anyway, explain how this list fits Wikipedia criteria. Why is it "important"? What makes it helpful (considering it links mostly to schools that do not have accreditation or wikipedia articles)? Arbustoo 20:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was copyvios. Johnleemk | Talk 14:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Donald Kring, PHD, Herman Melville's Religious Journey[edit]

This person is listed as the author of several books, but of the two where the publisher isn't listed as unknown, one is a church, and one is "Pentland Press". If that's Pentland Press, Inc. of North Carolina (there was apparently a UK publisher named Pentland Press that went into liquidation) the only information I can find about the publisher is its imprint Ivy House, which describes its "mission" as "to offer an investment-based program, whereby an author has every chance of financial recuperation. You would fully invest in the first edition of the publication."[10] I'm sure this was written by someone who thought Dr. Kring was a wonderful person, and you know what? I'm sure they were right, I'm sure he was a great guy. But being a great guy, and being notable enough to merit an entry in an encyclopedic, are different things. If the greatest claim to the subject's encyclopedic notability is having some books privately printed, which it currently appears to be, that's not really enough. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the author's book, Herman Melville's Religious Journey. It is indeed published by the known vanity publisher Pentland Press, NC, there is no indication that its theses were ever recognized anywhere, and for what it's worth, its Amazon sales rank is 1,504,475. Pilatus 14:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]



  • Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Strong Delete; the only source of information we have for most of this is the article's author, who has demonstrated that at the very least, he has severe difficulty accurately interpreting what he reads and reporting it again factually. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with nom, this individual does not merit a page. I know plenty of people who have their own books "published," but hardly would I want to see them on Wikipedia. --Kinu 03:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Extending my vote to all related articles included herein by the nominator. --Kinu 20:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --HasNoClue 05:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • His claim to fame is also in his pottery which was shown at the World's fair, and for the 'Kring Red' Glaze he invented as well as his work on Hermen Melville. He was a Minister for most his life and was in the Navy during 2 major battles as a Chaplain. I will edit the wiki when I can get more information. I also have alot of his books he published here, that I will need to dig out to get the ISBN and publisher, the information on the wiki now is just what I could find on web. Thank you for the book information, I will update his complete works ASAP and I agree that his published works should be at the bottom of the page. This is my first page I have done, so some help would be appreciated. He was also involved with the 'Timothy Leary Acid Tests'. I will need to get information about this, but he also had some influence in the NYC area regarding 'Malcom X' and the 'Black Panther' movement of the 60's. I also have the audio version of his funeral service on MP3. Zothip
  • Comment. The above post is by Zothip, the author of the page in question. Please sign your comments (four tildes). Also, there is nothing rude about the nominator's comments, IMHO. He simply pointed out that, while the subject may be a decent human being who had an impact on the lives of some, the information is not worthy of encyclopedic entry here at Wikipedia. (As per my vote above, I agree. I must also point out that the additional information you provided above does not make it more so, either.) --Kinu 07:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Temporary Keep in the spirit of WP:BITE. I doubt this is ever going to be an acceptable article, but it's possible, and someone can always renominate it in a month. If the guy really worked with Malcom X and the Panthers he may be notable. --djrobgordon 08:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this article is removed, then you may want to remove Herman Melville's page as well. - Zothip
    • Why? Herman Melville is encyclopedically notable; there is little question about that. But notability is not transitive; one does not automatically become notable just by writing about Melville. Also, in regards to your now-removed statement that you would like to tell me "where to go shove it!" I will say two things: first of all, how in your mind would it be possible for anyone to raise any question about whether this person is encyclopedically notable, without you assuming that the question is so "rude" that it fully justifies you being so very rude in return? secondly, please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks; if you intend to stay and contribute to Wikipedia, you will have to do so in a manner befitting a mature adult. No, merely saying "I would like to attack you with rude anatomical insults" is not a way around this rule. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Boy howdy, if that doesn't take the cake. Here's the full passage. "I'm sure this was written by someone who thought Dr. Kring was a wonderful person, and you know what? I'm sure they were right, I'm sure he was a great guy." So, yes! Black is white, up is down, freedom is slavery, and calling someone a wonderful person is attacking them! That makes perfect sense and perfectly justifies you telling me to stick it up my rectum. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • WHAT?! What on God's green Earth are you talking about? The only false claims here are the ones you've just made, pretending that I ever said anything about your grandfather not writing the book or not doing the research, and those are false claims I'll thank you not to make! That sort of lying will not be stood for! -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your quote, "I'm sure this was written by someone who thought Dr. Kring was a wonderful person, and you know what? I'm sure they were right, I'm sure he was a great guy." <<-- that is you saying he did not write the book. That is slander. Maybe you should read the entry about slander.
              • You know something? I didn't have any doubts before that your grandfather did the research and wrote the book. Now I have serious doubts about it, now that you've shown you're utterly delusional. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the laws involving Computer Libel and Slander. You libeled me and slandered my Grandfather. Both of which are punishable by federal law. The Libel is only punishable by jail time, the slander is monetary because you accused him of Plagiarism. http://www.efl-law.com/int_lib.html Zothip 00:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I worked for DISA as a Computer Security Investigator. I am contacting my lawyer. This is not only libel, but it is defamation as well. Zothip 01:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC

  • I would like it known that I am not pressing charges in order to try to get this article kept, I could care less. But what was said in this OPEN FORUM by this one person is illegal, my lawyer will be contacting wikipedia on Monday. Zothip 16:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:NLT. Stifle 02:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no indication that the author's work has found any wider recognition either in academia or outside. Pilatus 14:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Zothip 00:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the ISBM numbers and publishers for his other 'works'. I am waiting on some FAX'ed information from the Church of All Souls about his Black Panther Party involvment. Zothip 12:27, 4 February 2006
  • In order to keep the wiki 'Polically Correct', I used the term 'Black Empowerment', but the information is up. Zothip 12:49, 4 February 2006
  • Weak keep, but Merge Herman Melville's Religious Journey into Walter Donald Kring. Because of the amount of books published and it includes Beacon Press which is a small publishing house, it probably meets the 5,000 books threshold. The article itself is complete and professional, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. However two articles would be a bit much and the book can be discussed on the author's page. Dr Debug (Talk) 23:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am awaiting a call as to his involvement with Timothy Leary. I know he was in the Timothy Leary Acid Tests, But I do not know when nor to what extent. I remember his words to me were, "It did nothing to me". So he probably got the placebo... Zothip 00:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non notable person.Obina 00:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable bio and novel. --Madchester 00:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the 'Kring Copper Red Cone' glazing and firing technique to the Pottery Section. To include the recipe. Zothip 02:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as non-notable bio/novel. Stifle 02:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable bio. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect liberty[edit]

Obviously NPOV, poorly written. Perhaps a redirect to liberty? Last Avenue 03:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 03:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. POV essay. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete essay. Kusma (討論) 04:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Kusma. Extremely POV. Wikipedia is not a sounding board, nor is it a place to publish the term paper topic that you've chosen. --Kinu 04:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Joe 05:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's pretty foolish to publish an essay on Wikipedia; if they then published it elsewhere, it would seem like blatant plagarism. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 10:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Information exchange, as well as new ideas/opinions, is perfect for encyclopedia enthusiast(s). When articles, such as this one, lack requisite structures, formats, etc. marking them as such is ample policing; at least until a more credible article is submitted. ledge
  • Delete. Preaky 17:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Dexosyn[edit]

Poor quality article, and the actual drug name is Desoxyn, for which there's a decent-quality page. Sole contribution from this IP, no further edits beyond tagging. Csari 04:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete without prejudice of course, should verification emerge at some point for this topic. W.marsh 02:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Playstation life[edit]

Totally overlinked crystal ball substub. It seems to be about rumors for the name of the online service for Sony's PS3. Delete. Kusma (討論) 04:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete provides no useful information. —ERcheck @ 04:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep confirmed by trustworthy source and can be expanded. (This unsigned entry is by User:Pure_inuyasha, creator of the page in question.)

  • Speedy Delete. Meets criteria as per patent nonsense. --Kinu 04:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless vastly expanded, wikified, and sourced more specifically. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 04:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete strange little stub, every word is linked Ruby 04:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Incomprehensible black hole of content. --Fuhghettaboutit 06:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd say that this article sufficiently fulfills the "patent nonsense" criterion. Additionally, as near as I can tell, it is only a repository of intra-Wikipedia links, making it a double-candidate for deletion. Hrkool 06:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • comment if a source can be cited to verify this is not crystal ball territory, it can stay, otherwise delete. --TimPope 10:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment I made this to just start the article. there really isn't much information right now, so i put what there is. trust me, in a few months this article will expand like a balloon. Pure inuyasha 22:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whidden Hall[edit]

Vanity, nn. Delete Ardenn 04:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Expand Whidden Hall is a real place with real characteristics with a real reason to be in Wikipedia. There are many more frivilous entries than this genuine residence hall. Please remove the delete tag, it has every reason to be included in this site.Steelium 16:57, 7 February 2006(UTC)
  • Keep That is the most ridiculous reason ever. Whidden Hall is a genuine residence at McMaster University. I can see nothing wrong with it. The information is factual and accurate. I don't see why I even have to dignify the removal of AFD tag. 24.57.131.18 04:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. I'm not sure how the residence system is set up at McMaster, but if they are set up in a manner such as the colleges/houses systems of Yale, Harvard, Cambridge, or Oxford, I would support keeping and adding more information on the page. --Kinu 05:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Delete. After further review, an article on Whidden does not really meet the criterion for keeping. It's not particularly notable in the sense that it is a "house" or "college" in the Yale/Harvard/Cambridge/Oxford model... it is essentially just a dorm. Most colleges have them, and they are not noteworthy in and of themselves. (After all, why keep this and not Chaparral Village and Chisholm Hall?) Further, the information provided is trivia at best. --Kinu 02:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Non notable hall of residence. Ok to add the factual info to the university page but much of this is unsourced opinion so full merge not indicated.Obina 00:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- nn residence hall. Haikupoet 05:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- nn my ass — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.226.6 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Trivia is not encyclopedic. Mere existence is not enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Peyna 02:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears some of the other people here have been changing others' comments, etc. I'm going to try to clean this up to what the parties themselves stated. Peyna 02:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That should take care of it; all is back to normal as of this edit. Peyna 03:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Keep some more The User Ardenn is a vandal, they have posted the exact same simple "vanity" message, with no explanation, on many AfD pages. Their comments should not be considered here. I have also cleaned up the article a little and added references. The fact that this residence is cited as the inspiration to a major motion picture, AND home to at least two persons of note, is enough to warrant inclusion here. Steelium 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Above vote should not be double-counted; User:Steelium previously voted above at 16:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC). --Metropolitan90 05:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I don't understand how some other people can judge the article without knowing what it is. These random AFD tags are ridiculous. 24.57.131.18 05:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a discussion and an attempt to reach consensus, not a vote. There is no ballot to stuff, so please don't try. Peyna 13:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OH PLEASE..you don't have to be that anal. The consensus is TO KEEP IT since nobody knows anything about it you have no right to delete it either. My question to you is how is it considered as unencyclopedic? It has accurate facts which all encyclopedias should. Now all points are supported by evidence. How can you judge it as "trivia"? are you familiar with the topic at hand? If it is trivia, its only because it is written in that way, if so re-write the article, EXPAND not delete. 24.57.131.18
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Keep comments are literally all from repeat vandals or users with less than 50 contribs. I'd like some more opinions on this one. W.marsh 02:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and ExpandI don't think vandals or users less than 50 contributions have anything to do with this discussion. My point still stands. See above. 24.57.131.18
Please review the AfD guidelines. Comments from sockpuppets and newbies are generally discounted. Peyna 02:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into whatever it happens to be a part of. Adrian Lamo ·· 02:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good article on this dorm. Famous residents and interesting tie-in with Animal House. -- JJay 02:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment1 All the opposition is coming from power hungry wikipedian editors who have no outside life, but somehow yeild ultimate influence on trivial matters such as this and need to make decisions here to make up for the lack of say they have in thier own lives. Steelium
  • Comment2 The above warning, that suggests people are being "puppeted" into supporting this page is an unfair advantage to the delete side of the debate, I suggest it be removed. Or the non-deletionists present be allowed to post a similar banner supporting their side. Steelium
  • Comment3 I have posted valid reasons for keeping the article, I have referenced the details in question and made attempts to have the page fit the standard. At no point have the deletionists listed more than one-word reasons to delete. Support Summarized: 1) Real place at top three University in Canada 2) 1000s of people have lived there 3) at least 2 famous people are associated with the building 4) Building has 45 year history 5) major movie satirizing contemporary North American college life was inspired by events at this Hall 6) There are FAR more articles that should be recieving more attention for deletion than this one, this article is pretty innocuous. The Hall is not obscure, nor "non-noteable" and passes multiple so-called Wikipedian tests of relevancy. Steelium
  • Comment4 I contend that the users suggesting deletion, either have nothing better to do or are alumni or current students at competing universities. Steelium
  • I've left a brief, 450 word reply on your talk page. I hope it helps. Adrian Lamo ·· 04:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to leave a comment here, but I'll follow User:Adrian's lead and move it more appropriately to your talk page. Peyna 04:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most dormitories are non-notable. The claim in this article that life at this dormitory inspired the movie National Lampoon's Animal House is questionable, given that none of the three writers of the movie attended this university -- only one of the producers did, and he didn't even live in this dormitory according to this article. The only source for the dormitory having inspired the movie is that an article in the college newspaper says it was "rumored" to have done so. --Metropolitan90 04:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Also, as to Steelium's earlier points: Comments 1 and 4 are irrelevant and seem like violations of the Wikipedia rules about not engaging in ad hominem attakcs. As for Comment 2, are you advocating the censorship of comments regarding possible meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry/stuffing? Let people look at the evidence and decide for themselves. Now as to Comment 3: "Real place at top three University in Canada" - so? by this standard we would have literally hundreds of building and dorms that would need to be added. "1000s of people have lived there" - same problem as before. "at least 2 famous people are associated with the building" - again, hardly a big deal, and while John Candy may be the famous, the other individual is not at all. "major movie satirizing contemporary North American college life was inspired by events at this Hall" - This has already been dealt with by Metropolitan90, so let me just add that many colleges and dorms at colleges claim to be inspiration for animal house. " Building has 45 year history" - 45 years is hardly a long enough time to contribute to noteworthiness. "There are FAR more articles that should be recieving more attention for deletion than this one, this article is pretty innocuous" - this is simply irrelevant. If there are articles you feel should be deleted then nominate them (please however refrain from engaging in revenge AfD, they are seriously frowned upon). JoshuaZ 05:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as there is no solid evidence that it is the inspiration for Animal House, and even if that were the case, it would only be worth a mention in the Animal House and/or McMaster University article. That a famous person, John Candy, lived there is not exceptional. Medium and large universities that have been around for a while are bound to have famous almuni who stayed in the dorms, but that does not confer notability them, or even much to the university. -- Kjkolb 05:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - articles such as this would be so much less troublesome if they were just redirected to the university to which they belong. I've rarely had my redirect of non-notable topic to related notable topic reverted. And AfD is always an option if it is. -- Jonel | Speak 05:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is in reasonable shape with some sources. Would clog up main article. Capitalistroadster 05:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I might've said redirect per Jonel, user behavior has convinced me that such wouldn't be sufficient, so I say Delete -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge with whatever Uni its a hall of residence of. Jcuk 08:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Damn ballot stuffers. — ciphergoth 10:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Halls of Residence, University Colleges are important places and there are many articles on WP about them. To those people who want to delete them, I ask you to be consistent. There are about 11 articles on Halls from this university alone. They have links from the main university page. This is just one. If it is worse than the others and it is indeed a poor article, it can be improved. If you want to delete all of them, then give reasons why Halls are not notable. I finally suggest that WP will be the poorer without good NPOV articles on Halls and Colleges so prospective students can look at them as an alternative to the POV articles from the university concerned. --Bduke 11:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I'd also vote to ban Steelium. It should be noted that on the IMDB site it clearly states that the insipration for Animal House came from "co-writer Chris Miller's experiences at Dartmouth College." Furthermore, the other co-writer, Harold Ramis brought his inspiration from his days at Washington University in St. Louis. Nice try guys, but this is a clearly non-notable dormitory at a less than notable university. It is not at all encyclopedic. 4.224.192.35 11:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, McMaster University is fairly long so probably shouldnt be merged -- Astrokey44|talk 12:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Individual dorms are not notable in and of themselves. Furthermore, the assertion that this dorm is notable has not been verified and remains a rumour. (On a side note I will also nominate Smuts Hall for deletion on the same basis, even though I went to UCT.) Zunaid 13:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antisphere[edit]

Metaphysical concept that I couldn't verify. (The maths incoming link probably means pseudosphere, if Mathworld got this one right). Delete. Kusma (討論) 04:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Obviously, this needs more sources and a more encyclopedic treatment. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 04:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If this actually is something, which seems doubtful from the article contents, it needs a massive rewrite and more documentation. --Kinu 04:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another name for the namless Tao Ruby 07:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as gibberish --DV8 2XL 01:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- looks like part of a "theory of everything", which science journal editors generally trash by the bucket load. Haikupoet 05:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryerson Faculty Association[edit]

Vanity, nn. Ardenn 04:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryerson International Living Learning Centre[edit]

Vanity, nn. Ardenn 04:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pitman Hall Residence[edit]

Vanity, nn. Ardenn 04:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was every ounce of deletionism in my soul is crying out against it, but it's a keeper. The nomination rests on the article being a) trash, and b) unverifiable, and the article has been both cleaned up and verified. Verifiability wipes out a swathe of the good arguments for deletion straight away (for all the three people who argued for deletion). I would discount User:Jcuk's views because he hasn't bothered to provide an argument, but it doesn't really matter. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montfort Realschule Zell[edit]

I haven't taken part in the "school wars" for a while, so excuse me if I have broken some sort of truce or understanding. Google gives me nothing. The article makes no claim to notability. I almost speedied this trash (actually I almost Template:proded it.) BrokenSegue 04:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unreferenced and unverifiable. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 04:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see anything noteworthy about this school based on the article or Google. It's no Exeter or Andover, I'm sure. --Kinu 04:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Abstaining from this and all other school articles until school articles are no longer treated as geographical articles with automatic notability assumed Ruby 07:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it does have a homepage. No vote. u p p l a n d 10:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course Jcuk 11:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 08:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Max the Mutt Animation School[edit]

Advertisement, vanity, nn. Delete Ardenn 04:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like nonsense to me. --Kinu 04:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a real school, and is listed on Canadian school search sites. --AlexWCovington (talk) 06:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is the basis of the vanity charge? --AlexWCovington (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's entirely POV and biased. Ardenn 06:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on potential. Of the three sentences, two are POV and uncited. --djrobgordon 08:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It remains POV (as I haven't found a source of criticism to quote, though I'll seek to add some), but now is at least partly sourced/cited independently (though that needs improvement). It will obviously need much expansion. I think the name of the school makes it seem like nonsense, but apparently it's real. --Rob 03:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rob. Kappa
  • Keep per Rob. Silensor 22:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Jcuk 11:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs rewrite tho. --Dogbreathcanada 02:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is not nonsense now Yuckfoo 19:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep Marskell 09:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LS Studio[edit]

Article on Ukranian "photography studio that created hundreds of thousands of photographic images (and hundreds of videos) of young teen and prepubescent girls, and sold them via the Internet from 2000 to 2004 in the form of approximately 80 issues or collections.While early collections often featured nude girls in natural poses, later collections also contained many images of girls in sexually suggestive poses." Prior to my edit, it contained a full explanation of each collection and links to the wayback Machine of the images." It was advertising with no explanation of why it was notable. Delete.Capitalistroadster 04:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with LS Magazine (after which merge we should consider whether to delete the entire thing, about the proper disposition of which question I will reserve judgment). Joe 05:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with LS Magazine as per Joe. At the least, these articles should be one entity, the merit of which can be discussed in a future AfD, I'm sure. (However, if someone else were to broach the topic and add an AfD for LS Magazine in a similar vein, I might jump in on the ensuing discussion.) --Kinu 05:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalistroadster: Thank you for your attention to this article. Can you please answer two questions:

1. Why is it being considered for deletion?
2. Why do you consider the following sample of the previous content (that you removed) to "contain a full explanation of each collection" ...
During its operation, LS Studio maintained a talk forum, LS-Forum. The following sites were linked from that forum, as well as from their LS-Models index site:
Name File prefix Sets Additional information
LS-Magazine see below 16 issues
   1 Sweet Things lsm- 8 + videos
   2 Enjoy the Show lsm- 8 + videos
Zebruh 20:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've restored the non-contested content, added many external sources, and Merged the content of LS Magazine into LS Studio, as agreed upon by the original authors. Zebruh 23:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable operation, and definitely not an "advertisement" since it doesn't even exist anymore. A few weeks ago I heard "ls magazine" mentioned on 4chan and then a pedophilia forum, and wanted to know what it was and whether it was legal without accessing it, so I came to Wikipedia and was enlightened. Useful. // paroxysm (n) 23:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the content for two reasons. Firstly, we had complaints on the links giving access to child pornography. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a catalogue for child porn which the previous content was. Capitalistroadster 23:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the catalogue from the article as discussed on the talk page. Wikipedia is not a catalogue for child porn. Capitalistroadster 23:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    News to me. // paroxysm (n) 00:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    More broadly WP:NOT a collection of external links or a web directory. But while WP is not censored for the protection of minors, we cannot be in the business of child pornography, period, from a legal standpoint even if you deny the ethical one. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? We define the operation, who made it, and how they got arrested, and then we list their productions. No different then having a list of movies produced by a defunct film company.
    I wasn't talking about the external links to alleged child pornography, which I would agree should be removed. // paroxysm (n) 00:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree that such links are not a good idea here. I had originally included the LS Forum and LS Models links to provide verifiability to the listed productions. Perhaps simply mentioning them without links in the intro paragraph (as has been the case) is sufficient.Zebruh 00:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My objections are that outlining the productions would allow people to track down the material through mechanisms such as the Wayback Machine. It is particularly troublesome if links are provided so that people can track it down from the article. Unlike productions from a defunct moviehouse, this material is illegal and Wikipedia should not be seen to be promoting it in any way at all. Capitalistroadster 02:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How would naming names allow people to track it down through the Wayback Machine? We document information -- that's not promoting it -- and that's that. Morals concerns are irrelevant to whether or not we should censor Wikipedia.
    By the way, if we list the productions of a movie house, people could potentially use that information to find the movies. Maybe I have moral concerns about that. Should I use that as justification to delete information from the article? // paroxysm (n) 02:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was in the news, it's notable, it's difficult to find the information anywhere else. A fine subject for an article. Ashibaka tock 05:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. per Paroxysm and Ashibaka. Informative article about a well-known CP organization. --timecop 23:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Ashibaka Jmax- 23:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I cannot morally support the inclusion of filth of this nature in Wikipedia. Freedom of speech is not a carte blanche. --Agamemnon2 12:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Information is information. Wikipedia has a page on Nazi Germany, doesn't it? jax0m 12:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since when is "filth" a reason for deletion? Promotion and links to the wayback machine are not tolerable, but the article itself should stay. Sam Hocevar 12:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. We have more keep votes so I'm going to remove the "This article is being considered for deletion" notice unless someone objects. Zebruh 18:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how deletion process works. Just wait - in a few days a closing admin will count votes on this afd and remove the notice. for more information, see WP:AFD. --timecop 00:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok. Thanks timecop :) Zebruh 01:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo M. Lucero[edit]

Non-notable person; "Ricardo M. Lucero" found on only four different websites Google EdGl 04:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. --Kinu 04:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. --Ardenn 05:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article subject is published, but by a vanity publishing house. Here's an excerpt from the publisher's website: "The Hispanic Institute of Social Issues invites writers to publish their literary works by using our professional, quality, and affordable services...." --Fuhghettaboutit 06:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per fuhghettaboutit Ruby 07:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above comments. Non-notable self-published author, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  09:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Hopkins[edit]

This is a very long memorial, but having read it, the claim with the most significance is "He was particularly renowned for his annual Free House Box Social that would take place each year on the couple’s wedding anniversary (30th March)" which doesn't cut it in my book. Ruby 04:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. --Kinu 04:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article appears to be about a human who lived for a number of years and did various things during that time which no one but his family and friends need know about. --Fuhghettaboutit 06:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. --Walter Görlitz 07:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His one claim to fame apparently was that he was a semi-professional cricketer for Shropshire in the 1960's. Cricinfo had nothing on him however and it has information on every professional cricketer that ever lived. The impression that this is a hoax is heightened by the fact that a Google search showed Mikael Hopkins as a student at the Oswestry School but in the class of 2003 not in the 1950s as claimed. [11]

Capitalistroadster 08:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I feel it only reasonable to defend the work that I have submitted. I can appreciate that it may be difficult to understand the significance of Mikael's life from the article whilst not being a resident of Oswestry. I can perhaps also see now that not enough emphasis was placed on his actual charity work, such as the organisations he set up and the events that he hosted. Given time, this article can be reworked and further research can be carried out to correct this. As for a Google search showing Mikael to be a graduate of Oswestry School in 2003 may simply be sheer coincidence. As for the lack of a listing on Cricinfo, it may be that Mikael was merely an amature as oppposed to a "semi-professional" as he claimed, again in that case more research is required. It seems as though the complaints you have with the entry can be fixed easily by the inclusion of some of the more significant achievements in Mikael's life and a correction of a few minor details. It can therefore be turned into a useful article for those even outside of the Shropshire area to benefit from. --Kesnel 12:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn-bio. Reads like a memorial to a very nice guy. Not encyclopedic. —ERcheck @ 23:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamebeach[edit]

Article asserts a copyright not compatible with Wikipedia Ruby 04:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well the tricky thing is, the author of the article is also the holder of the copyright, but an editor can't override the GFDL with their own exclusive rights. The article has a host of other problems as well. Ruby 05:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't the editor's claim that s/he still owns the copyright of that article a violation of some WP policy? Hbackman 05:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spam. Hbackman 04:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for sundry reasons enumerated supra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahiegel (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Copyright claims are moot for now as the page is strictly promotional and fails WP:WEB with no Alexa ranking. Daniel Case 05:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Claiming copyright ownership is fine, in this case (as long as it's licensed under GFDL or compatible licenses). Article is still spam though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aim Here (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Spam. -- ConDem 15:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Carmichael[edit]

Non-notable. Google search for "Colin Carmichael" results in several Colin Carmichaels, none of whom seems to be the one referenced in this article. Google search for "'Colin Carmichael' Japan" still gives nothing that seems to be related to this Colin Carmichael. Hbackman 04:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. He is notable in Kitakyushu which is where I happen to live. A local character and an important one in the foreign community I would say. By the way I started the article. The fact that there are other Colin Carmichaels in the world would suggest the need for a disambiguation page at some point in the future rather than outright deletion. --Historian 05:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC) withdrawn, deleted by --Historian 15:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fail to see the notability of a bar owner. Dr Debug (Talk) 05:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Dr. Debug, I have tried to explain in the article that he is not just any old bar owner, but anyway let's see what other people say. Kind regards,--Historian 05:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Information presented does not seem to make him Wiki-worthy. --Kinu 06:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am sure his bar is a good place in Kitakyushu but the article doesn't seem verifiable and I don't think he meets WP:BIO, our biographical guidelines. Capitalistroadster 09:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable bar owner.Obina 12:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now added a photo of Colin and changed the emphasis of the article to state that he is first and foremost the founder of a soccer team, and by the way runs a bar. I hope this may be more acceptable to wikipedians. --Historian 07:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See, that action actually convinces me that he's NOT qualified for an article: if he's qualified for an article, the reasons are apparent: starting from the conclusion (he gets an article) and working to come up with a rationale for it is backwards. --Calton | Talk 05:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Above two comments deleted by User:Historian and restored User:Calton[reply]
  • I thought he deserved an article so I started one. Are you saying there is something wrong with that? How do most articles get started on wikipedia? And is it somehow improper to modify the emphasis of an article after it has been started? --Historian 23:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought he deserved an article so I started one. Right. That was your goal, and by your comments you've been searching for a rationalization for that conclusion. As I said precisely, backwards. Also, deleting the above comments leads me to question your sincerity. --Calton | Talk 01:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, the reason I deleted my comment was that I wished to withdraw it. Then your comment would have been meaningless on its own, so I deleted that as well. You then reinstated the comments, which I really don't mind about. And if you are going to talk about a lack of sincerity, why do you persist in calling me Colin when I have already told you I am not he? --Historian 02:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it's rare to see this level of ego-tripping on behalf of others. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, so it must be...
  • 'ego' means I (Latin) or "the self". It is therefore impossible to ego-trip on behalf of others. --Historian 11:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case, if you're withdrawing comments, you strike them through, not hide them.
  • And speaking of comments you're running away from, you still haven't explained the meaning of your comment on the CfD page, So far there is indeed only entry, but many more will follow in good time, and we all know where you live. Tokyo!! Take care and Best Wishes. Care to enlighten me? --Calton | Talk 07:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was meant as a joke. Sorry you didn't take it that way. And thanks for showing me how to strike out comments, that will be useful to me in future. --Historian 07:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I still can't see any notability. It doesn't help that the team he created doesn't seem to have warranted a page of its own yet. If there was one, I'd suggest redirecting this article there. —Whouk (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your suggestion. I am a member of the Xelha football team. Sorry we haven't got round to that yet - and who is to say that such a page would not also get hit with a VfD before it gets anywhere? And for that matter Xelha which I believe is a place in Mexico still hasn't got a page. So much to do, so little time! --Historian 10:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • who is to say that such a page would not also get hit with a VfD before it gets anywhere? Probably for very good reason. --Calton | Talk 05:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC) The above two comments deleted by Historian and restored by User:Calton[reply]
  • Delete. Elaborate but textbook case of WP:VANITY in action. An expat bar-owner in the provinces isn't particularly notable a priori. --Calton | Talk 02:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the provinces?" Hmmmm...Only one quarter of Japan's population lives in the Tokyo area, the rest live in the provinces, so you as a self-proclaimed Tokyo resident are in the minority. Life here in the boondocks is pretty good, actually. Are you saying that you might vote to keep the article if the subject was residing in Tokyo and therefore within your (rather limited) world-view? --Historian 07:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only one quarter of Japan's population lives in the Tokyo area... That "only" is misplaced: a quarter of the entire country's population lives in one metropolitan area, which is, oh yeah, the nation's political and financial capital.
  • Oh my dear chap (Calton I presume, though you didn't sign this comment). Nobody disputes that Tokyo is important, but only a quarter of Japan's population live there, as opposed to three quarters who don't. --Historian 23:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading apparently isn't your strong suit. Let's try again, with boldface for easier reading: That "only" is misplaced: a quarter of the entire country's population lives in one metropolitan area. Blithely repeating your misuse doesn't change that, Colin.
  • For the second time, my name is not Colin. And I simply disagree about the use of the word "only". --Historian 02:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your "disagreement" is not only fatuous, it's not even relevant. See the section below, which you apparently skipped. --Calton | Talk 07:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Calton, my old mate, you are wrong there. I ignored it as being not worth the time or energy in a busy day.--Historian 07:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some numbers: about 8% of Americans live in the New York City area, about 12% of Britons in Greater London, and about 18% of Canadians and French live in the Toronto and Paris metro regions. In Japan, the comparable figure is about 27%. So yes, "only a quarter" is a misuse.
  • Hmmmm...let me see...did I make any reference to NYC, London, Toronto or Paris in my original statement? If not then I think you were reading rather too much between the lines. What kind of a copywriter are you? Obviously quite a creative one... --Historian 08:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, since these are for the countries as a whole, it's a phony comparison: where you actually are, the actual place I referred to as "the provinces", not the country as whole as you (misleadingly) implied, Kitakyushu is about 0.8% of the population and Fukuoka about 4%. --Calton | Talk
  • OK, Calton, since you are so keen for my comment on this, here's one. When you first used the term "the provinces" it was pretty clear that it referred to all of Japan outside Tokyo. Now you want it to mean only (if I'm still allowed to use this word!) Kitakyushu. If I may be permitted a soccer metaphor here (ha ha, how appropriate) I would say that is moving the goalposts, or making the goal much smaller if you prefer (that reminds me, our team could do with some bigger ones!). Oh, and I think you should clarify whether you mean Fukuoka prefecture or Fukuoka city in your last comment above. Presumably you mean that Fukuoka prefecture has 4% do you, because there is not such a great difference between the population of Fukuoka city (about 1.4 million) and Kitakyushu (just under one million in the recent national census.) --Historian 07:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that you might vote to keep the article if the subject was residing in Tokyo. I wouldn't vote to keep articles on, say, small-time barmen, no matter where they lived. --Calton | Talk 20:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. How about small-time copy-writers? And by the way the entry is not autobiographical, though I admit I do know the person who is described.--Historian 22:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me check...hmm, no, I don't see any vanity articles about any small-time copywriters based in Tokyo. Mind pointing me to one? Because I'd put in on AfD in a hot second. --Calton | Talk 01:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean VfD, Colin, sorry Calton? --Historian 02:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me look at the top of this page...hmmm...it seems to say "Articles for Deletion". Do you mean, perhaps, Volunteer Fire Department? Variable Frequency Drive? ? Why would I be adding vanity articles about small-time copywriters based in Tokyo (which you imply are lying thick upon the ground, though you've still not told me where) into, say, Vacuum fluorescent display? --Calton | Talk 07:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, Calton, you are absolutely right on this one old boy. Humble apologies. --Historian 07:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Advertising too ? Angus McLellan 20:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Angus, I admit it is shameless advertising. We need all the football players we can get in our team! Would you like a trial? --Historian 23:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bar owner proclaiming he is shocked -- shocked! -- to be thought of as promoting his business is, to put it mildly, a bit rich. --Calton | Talk 01:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colin doesn't even know this article exists. I have written it without his knowledge. --Historian 02:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've changed my vote. I thought it was a good idea at the time I started the entry, but it seems that it is vanity and inappropriate to wikipedia, or perceived as such by the majority, so that's fair enough. I can probably use this material elsewhere on the web anyway. Thank you everyone. I have learned from this rather bruising experience.--Historian 22:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a nice article, I hope you find a good home for it. WP:Alternatives may be of use. Kappa 04:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Kappa. That's the nicest thing anybody has said about it so far.I shall certainly be more careful about starting articles on wikipedia in future, because I haven't encountered this level of testosterone-fuelled aggression before. Life must be even more stressful in Tokyo than I imagined. Glad I don't live there, though I do enjoy the occasional visit.--Historian 07:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To whoever has the power to delete articles - administrators I presume. Please note that I have deleted my initial Keep vote and replaced it with a Delete vote, which makes it unanimous now in favour of deletion. I do hope it will not be too long before that happens and we can all forget about this mistake on my part. Regards and Apologies, --Historian 15:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. That makes it 11-0 in favour of deletion if my arithmetic is correct. If that were a soccer score it would probably qualify as a "hyper-rout" (if the word exists) or a massacre, thrashing etc. So surely it is time to put this article out of its misery? --Historian 15:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it is still here, and if it is not going to be deleted yet I may as well keep editing it. (Is this a Catch 22?!) Though I say it myself, it is getting better and better. I might even change my vote back to Keep! --Historian 23:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete (seems the first two now redirect to the band; I see no reason to overturn this). Johnleemk | Talk 14:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Demo, 2000 Demo and 2nd Demo[edit]

Unverifiable collection of songs, it isn't even an album. -- Perfecto 05:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. --Perfecto 05:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While Avenged Sevenfold is in itself a relatively popular band, I don't see any reason to keep information about their demo tapes. Every artist has had one at some point early in their career, I'd assume... why post these ones in particular? --Kinu 05:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. I've seen plenty of other band's with demos listed. It's simply to show fans more then just their more popular albums. Sort of like band history. Is there any harm in keeping them? Also, this band is verifiable. Their most recent album was certified gold recently.--Boadrummer 4 February 2006
    • Could you point out some of these demos that have individual articles? (And I'm not trying to be snide... I'm just genuinely curious, since I haven't come up on any in my searches.) --Kinu 05:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blink-182 has two I belive listed. Flyswatter (album), although listed as an album, isn't. Same with their "2nd Demo". Boadrummer 2/4/06
      • I've added 2nd Demo to this nom -- I hope Kinu, Ardenn and others don't mind. --Perfecto 05:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't understand why they can't be useful on the website. They're band history. Also, Avenged Sevenfold has 3 releases, one of which is on a major label, and the other two are on a fairly big major label, Hopeless Records. And, they have been on a major tour recently, infact, it is in the 2nd half of it. They will also be touring in Europe soon. http://www.avengedsevenfold.com -- Boadrummer
        • I support your decision, Perfecto. Looking at Category:Demo albums, the dearth of actual articles about demo albums doesn't lend credibility, in my opinion, to keep. Also, I would actually make an exception for Flyswatter (album) or Buddha (album) by blink-182, since they were actually released or at the least "leaked" to the public. A true demo, like the original two mentioned in this AfD, are in my opinion never released to the public. These true demo albums are better mentioned on a band's or artist's History sections. --Kinu 05:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Allmusic says it has 874,000 albums. As I see it, we're on the way to have articles for all of them. A line could be drawn somewhere. --Perfecto 06:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Ardenn 05:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverting mass edit(s) by Boadrummer. DO NOT DELETE the contents of the AfD page!
    • Allow me to clarify: we appreciate you being bold and taking your own stance on the information and merging it, but there is a protocol for closing AfDs that must be followed. Please allow that to happen. This page is always kept as a historic record, in case this or a similar issue comes up again, so don't delete it for future's sake. Thanks! --Kinu 06:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If these songs/albums/whatever stayed as demos, they weren't released to the public, therefore how can they be verifiable? Everything is here is supposed to be verifiable. --kingboyk 08:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kelmanson[edit]

It's difficult to tell what this page is about exactly. A famous family clan? Well, a google search of Ukraine and Kelmanson come back with 42 distinct hits, and scanning the hit summaries does not illuminate. This type of article is problematic. It's possible the subject is worthy of encyclopedia treatment, but we cannot know without our own specialized knowledge of the subject because the author has written it without the clarity to make any notability apparent. Fuhghettaboutit 05:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The purpose of this page is unclear from the content of the article. It seems less like a worthy entry and more like a "I can put make a page about my last name on Wikipedia!" deal (note: this is speculation on my part, since the author is an anonymous IP). Searching for "famous" Kelmansons on Google has revealed very little of relevance that would otherwise be noted here. --Kinu 05:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity, I suspect. --djrobgordon 08:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of genealogical entries -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • del. --Irpen 01:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. My personal sympathies lie towards deletion here, but I just don't see where we've got anything approaching agreement to do that. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign State of Aeterna Lucina[edit]

I'm afraid I just don't see anything noteworthy. Slightly eccentric Sydney pensioner declares his farm to be sovereign territory. Gets into a few scrapes with the law. Is mentioned in Sydney Morning Herald 3 times. Had no sovereignty, not recognised by any government, totally unnotable. Delete kingboyk 05:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nobody cares now, let alone 100 years from now (Khan 05:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep (see below) Seems to satisfy all three suggested criteria here: Category_talk:Micronations, at least weakly. ++Lar: t/c 06:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would gently point out that those criteria have been edited by one user only. They're not policy, is what I'm trying to say. --kingboyk 06:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I agree they're not policy. Never said they were. However they're reasonable, IMHO, and I support their use as an evaluation mechanism, and am basing my comments in the various article AfDs in the great Micronations deletion/improvement drive of 2006 on them. If you think they're not good criteria you could always work to improve them, right? ++Lar: t/c 06:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say they are or are not good criteria, I'm just pointing out we don't have a policy. --kingboyk 07:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. But it sure read like you were casting aspersions in your first comment, especially since I used the term "suggested criteria" rather than "policy". Perhaps you'll want to be more careful in your wording going forward to avoid even the appearance of not assuming good faith. But more to the point, I'll repeat my implied question: do you think they're useful criteria or not? If not, you should comment on them, in the appropriate place, I think. If so, then don't you agree they suggest keep for this article, and several others you nominated? ++Lar: t/c 07:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how gently pointing out they are not policy can be taken as not assuming good faith. I have absolutely no doubt about your good faith whatsoever; I trust you have no doubt in mine. To answer your question, I don't accept those recommendations as policy, hence my nomination. We've both had our say and I shall keep quiet on the issue now. --kingboyk 07:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm interested to know how your 2 mutually exclusive positions on this matter can be reconciled with an assumption of good faith. --Centauri 07:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fear you've chosen to answer a question I did not ask. I didn't ask whether you accept them as policy, I asked if you think they're useful criteria. Not everything useful has to be policy. Mixing the two concepts up as you appear to have done, is what is, to my view anyway, giving the appearance of a lack of good faith, by appearing to cast aspersions on my use of them for invalid reasons (remember, I declaimed them as merely suggested criteria). I hope that clears up why I have concerns about the way you worded it, and apologise if not. ++Lar: t/c 07:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologise then. I've been up all night so failed to grasp your point. As for the criteria, no I don't agree with them in their entirety but I think they could be a useful starting point. I think debate on that issue ought to continue elsewhere. Again apologies for any misunderstanding, I don't want to fight over this, I really see no point in that. We are all here to improve Wikipedia, after all. --kingboyk 07:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to meet relevant standards. --AlexWCovington (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A state in the mind of its creator only. The criteria need work. 440 Google hits [12].

No Google book references [13]. and unknown to Google Scholar [14]. The Sydney Morning Herald articles verify it but it fails my notability test. Capitalistroadster 09:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Lar and Alexwcovington. --Billpg 12:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - At this point, I agree with the proposed standards, and this article seems to meet them sufficiently at this time. Georgewilliamherbert 19:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does it meet numbers 1 and 2? All we have are references from the Sydney Morning Herald, a fine newspaper certainly, but a regional one and one with a seeming penchant for micronation stories. This falls way below the bar proposed in points 1 and 2, unless there are other sources which haven't been listed in the article. (If there are, please insert them. I'm not trying to delete for the sake of it). Point 3 I feel is too vague with it's either/or, and this 'micronation' only meets it by virtue of having been involved in court cases. I'll make my point about that on the talk page. --kingboyk 19:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am pretty sure that I've seen the Syndey Morning Herald at some international oriented newsstands in California in the US and an Australian oriented shop in Vancouver in Canada, though I can't say as I bought it or have photos of it there. That's three countries, if my memory is correct. If it gets that much coverage it's likely also in England and perhaps other places. I can't disagree that the SMH seems to have a penchant for covering micronations, but it also seems like Australia has a penchant for creating them, as a national quirk. It might be interesting to study whether the press coverage is disproportionate for the amount of activity actually going on, but for now it seems sufficient to me. Your mileage may vary, this posting should not be used as a control mechanism for air traffic control or nuclear facilities. Georgewilliamherbert 19:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that's 3 countries. That's a very fine and respected newspaper from one country being sold overseas for expats, as happens with all of the famous papers (London Times, Wall St Journal etc). Lol about ATC and nuclear facilities and a very good point. We're probably all taking this a tad too seriously :) Genuine smile from me! --kingboyk 20:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - satisfied them too weakly I think.... changed my thinking from the above after doing a fair bit of digging (it's amazing how many copies of Wikipedia text are out there now!!!).. I found evidence this state grants medals, honors, and possibly degrees, and added that stuff to the article. But I could not find more than that... I'm coming around to thinking that this one should be in a Minor Micronations article along with a few others. Of all the micronations out there, maybe only 10 or so deserve articles of their own. Does this one make the top ten? Now I'm thinking maybe not... so I changed my thinking. Wow that was longwinded! Deal! However I could still be convinced to change BACK. Meanwhile, people might want to consider participating in this discussion: Category talk:Micronations where some more concrete guidelines may be formed. So far only user:kingboyk and I have been talking... we have some reasonable stuff I think but need more thoughts from others. ++Lar: t/c 01:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a micronation is what it is, and these are all notable. Piecraft 18:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, this is a notable micronation. Brokenfrog 01:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all micronations. Nominator says it all. Stifle 02:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some micronations deserve to be documented on Wikipedia for their noteworthiness (such as Hutt River). Others, such as this one, are not, due to their complete lack of noteworthiness. --Roisterer 07:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only a few micronations are notable - this one is not - else we will become advertising space to people who refuse to pay taxes.Blnguyen 07:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As this page indicates, it has issued real money and flags and been interviewed and featured in the media. Wiwaxia 07:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've "issued" money in year 7 too. i've been interviewed by people too. It's just too non-notable. --Sumple (Talk) 22:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Benz[edit]

Originally nominated for deletion by 67.160.9.62; properly tagged by me. His vote per the talk page is: Delete. "vote for deletion: this is vanity" Kinu 05:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. This is somewhat useless. Given his lack of Wiki-worth accomplishments, his only claim to fame, being a descendant of "the" Benz, hardly mandates having a separate article on him. --Kinu 05:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Did you know that lots of famous people have had children? --Fuhghettaboutit 06:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete see above. --djrobgordon 08:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 02:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP He is a U.S. Army soldier that has been reconginzed by the United States Army for his accomplishments. He is in the same category as Pat Tillman, who put aside their monetary aspirations because of their fame of name and money and served in the United States Army to fight against terrorism.

KEEP KEEP TO be recognized as a Poster acoss the nation of the United States to recruit soldiers is worthy of its own by Marco Benz to be chosen. The U.S. Navy has done so with Marta_Tuyet_Dodd and she is there is a notable her own here on wikipedia. Saigon76nyc 18:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Can you provide citations of reliable sources to support that? Stifle 14:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. An argument for "keep" was posted on my user discussion page to which I responded, and I think that debate more properly belongs here, so it is reproduced below --Fuhghettaboutit 16:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Marco Benz[edit]

Marco Benz was recognized as a Poster acoss the nation of the United States to recruit soldiers is worthy of its own by Marco Benz to be chosen. The U.S. Navy has done so with Marta_Tuyet_Dodd and she is there is a notable her own here on wikipedia.Saigon76nyc 14:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Marta Tuyet Dodd was:
1) The first Vietnamese-American to be was selected as a Recruiting Poster for the United States Armed Forces out of a selection process of 17 Sailors throughout the world for the campaign, which was featured in The Navy Times;
2) Is the webmaster of "Navy Girl" which describes her personal experiences and her desire to serve her country;
3) Navy Girl has had nearly 904,250 hits since she started it a year and a half ago;
4) She also established a e-newsletter called called "One Military Parent" for members of all branches of the military.
In Contradistinction, Marco Benz
1) Has also ben claimed by you (I think) to have been given poster status by the military, still unsubstantiated;
2) Happens to be a descendant of someone notable which is irrelevant to his own notability; and
3) Nothing else.
I invite you to make your case more convincingly. --Fuhghettaboutit 16:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate[edit]

Was tagged for Proposed deletion, but Netoholic swapped it for {{disambig}} instead. It's still a dictdef (which is Wiktionary, in a much better state) and some vaguely related articles, none of which would be at this title. Cleaning up the disambig per WP:MOSDAB would leave "'''Alternate''' may refer to: {{wiktionary}} {{disambig}}". —Cryptic (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The purpose of {{disambig}} is exactly as it sounds, and not to provide dictionary definitions; that's why Wiktionary exists. I don't see anyway to turn this into a useful page, as there's really no point in redirecting "alternate" to things like alternator and alternative music (we already have alternative (disambiguation) for that). --Kinu 06:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 10:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A transwiki would be pointless; there's already an entry there that wouldn't need massive cleanup and rewriting, as this would. —Cryptic (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef —Wahoofive (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a poor dictdef, not realy a dab page, and a better dictdef is already on wiktionary. DES (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; further attempts to reopen will be viewed as vandalism and dealt with as such. --Nlu (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler[edit]

This is a bad man he is agens wikipedia!!.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 05:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep, he's bad, but he's definitely someone who an encyclopedia has to cover. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete this nomination for deletion --Fuhghettaboutit 05:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This is a perfectly reasonable article. This is not even a properly conducted AfD, so this will be deleted after my posting this comment. --Kinu 05:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I see someone has made this a proper AfD. Well, it'll still be closed anyway, I'm sure. --Kinu 05:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Investing in Real Estate[edit]

The page appears to be a commercial advertisement and I don't think that there is an encyclopedic value to a page like this. Delete Dr Debug (Talk) 05:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Blatant advertising. Even if it wasn't, Wikipedia is not a "how-to" guide on making money. --Kinu 05:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: this verbiage also sounds like it was lifted directly from an unscrupulous investment website. Of course, there's no way to know for sure, but it probably violates WP:Copyvio in some way. --Kinu 06:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Agreed. How about this way: [15]? Found it with a quick Google search [16] using some of the boilerplate from the article. The page found asserts copyright 2002, so... copyvio it is. ++Lar: t/c 08:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Joe 05:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Commercial crap. Fuhghettaboutit 05:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia has lots of gaming guides, why not a guide for investing in real estate. The only part of it that I can see that is "blatant advertising" is the external link probably to the author's website. Remove that and the rest of the information is probably useful even though the original intent may have been to advertise. -- Randomgenius 05:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have removed the external links section from the article. Now it should be fine. -- Randomgenius 05:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apples and oranges. If you're investing in real estate... you really should be seeking professional advice and not looking on Wikipedia for it. :) --Kinu 06:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --kingboyk 06:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copyvio, see above. Someone could possibly create a wellsourced article from scratch about real estate investing principles, but this isn't it. (A much better article on the economics is Real estate economics) ++Lar: t/c 08:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advert and copyvio. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, and any gaming guides (as opposed to articles about gaming guides, although I have no love for those either) should be deleted as well. —Cleared as filed. 22:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a how to guide. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 02:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sent to WP:CP as a copyvio. Stifle 02:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy People Rock[edit]

DeleteWhile some singles are certainly worthy of an entry in Wikipedia, this one is not. Withholding my personal reasons as to why i think this should be deleted due to it's very low "musical" quality, it is perfomed by a forgotten winner of a talent contest and didn't chart (well I thought it didn't, the author of the article seems to think it made it to 39 in the Australian top 40, & he would know seeing as he has done the research) I think it should be deleted because no-one in Australia has any interest in the single or artist, let alone the rest of the world(Khan 05:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Keep. Multiple google hits. Suggest it be merged into Scott Cain --Fuhghettaboutit 05:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Controlled Folly. Dr Debug (Talk) 06:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per one of the above suggestions. I'd like to delete it as fan-gush but alas he seems to be notable. --kingboyk 06:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because Cain is well notable and because of the multiple Google hits as pointed out. M.C. Brown Shoes 00:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because I found it interesting, being a fan of both Scott Cain, and the single's songwriter Gregg Alexander, just because it isn't for your tastes doesn't mean you should play censor and delete it. "No one in Australia has any interest", Gee mate, I'm sure you know everyone in Australia, guess I just proved you wrong. MC Survey
  • Delete Really bad artist, & nobody could care less (other than above two, which are probably the same person).
  • Delete Too many singles already and I am Australian & I have never heard of this song but if you read the lyrics on the net, it seems as if a four year old wrote them, "people did you come here to get nuts tonight? I said people were gonna unite yellow, black, and white" This guy cant be serious? Did he write this song?(Factory1 00:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • MergeThere are more hits for my local restaurants & real estate agents on google than "crazy people rock", should we make an article on them? Sorry MC Survery aka MC Brown Shoes, either you are Scott Cain or probably his only fan, I agree this 'song' is possibly the worst song I have ever heard but that is certainly not why I put it up for deletion, if that was the case I would be putting everything from NSYNC, Backstreet boys, Britney Spears etc up for deletion, the song itself is simply not notable enough to have its own entry in wikipedia. Your article was very well written, but I dont even think there should be an article on all the Beatles singles(which there isnt) let alone this Scott Cain person. Seriously though cant we just have less articles like this on wikipedia, where will it end? Just merge them under one article under his name. And I am not familiar with the term "gee mate"? What does this mean? As it stands im changing my vote from delete to merge.(Khan 02:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I am not MC Brown Shoes mate, I'm a totally different person, you idiot, yeah mate make total assumptions about people because they have similar usernames.MC Survey

I was talking about 'MC Brown shoes', not 'MC Brown shoes mate'(whoever that is) I thought you were the same person because you replied at the same time, not because your names sounded similar. Youre the real idiot & a hypocrite, by making "assumptions about people" Embarrassed? Anyway I believe you so stop crying(Khan 12:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Keep or merge, borderline charting single. Kappa 04:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 03:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Banjo Story[edit]

Unverifiable album.-- Perfecto 05:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Harvard, Illinois Historical Society"[edit]

Page is very promotional, and I'm not really sure a local historical society is notable enough to be here. Daniel Case 05:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Some google hits, but none showing greater than of fairly local interest.
  • Delete. Looks to be more of a local interest page. There's already a link to the City of Harvard page at Harvard, Illinois, making this information somewhat redundant as well. --Kinu 06:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • History of a small town is important. If not here, where else should it be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.178.127 (talk • contribs)
    • In the article about the small town, as suggested above. Daniel Case 14:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three of us were scheduled to meet this morning to collaborate on the entry. I posted the shell (you call stub) last night so the others could read through and prepare their thoughts - and see how the system works. We have cancelled our meeting - let us know how your vote turns out (or I guess the page will just disappear). Does seem kind of strange that promotional is OK as long as it is "notable", and that Google is used as a gauge of worthiness. --Mark 16:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Promotional is beside the point. The criteria is notability. If an article is promotional but the subject is notable, the stumping in the article will be removed but the article will remain. --Fuhghettaboutit 19:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If not delete, then certainly rename. The quotes cause all sorts of problems. 68.39.174.238 19:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the page name is formatted incorrectly and has no useful information on it as yet. As Daniel Case said, the most appropriate place for this information would be in the articles for the communities mentioned. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Adamec III[edit]

Either vanity or hoax ... no Google hits. Daniel Case 05:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Shea[edit]

Delete - Cannot find a single verifiable reference for the information in the article. Possible vanity bio. ++Lar: t/c 06:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No Wiki-worthy information found via Google on this person found. Presumed vanity. --Kinu 06:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails google test. Even if the article is factually correct, Wikipedia is not the place to make the first (whatever) notable. Cart before horse. --Fuhghettaboutit 06:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Asserts notability but other editors have not been able to verify it. --kingboyk 07:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No verifiable information from "Emma Shea" Augusta search. [17]. No sources cited. Capitalistroadster 09:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del as the person who proded it. BrokenSegue 03:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry about taking the tag off, it didn't seem clearcut to me, but then I searched for verification, found none, and probably SHOULD have just put the tag back in but decided to play it safe and go the AfD route instead... ++Lar: t/c 04:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - clearly meets CSD A7, non-notable person. FCYTravis 07:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian_the_camper[edit]

Vanity page/inappropriate bio for someone who plays online games

Fine, I'll take it down. --NegativeCreep 06:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete to remove the ensuing blank page. --Kinu 06:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a thought, if people like HeatoN and other gamers have entrys, why not Christian? He is famous in the Australian DoD community for his "spamming" on servers. --NegativeCreep 06:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete There is nothing on this to indicate notability. Like millions of others throughout the world he plays online games. I will tag this as speedy on db-bio grounds. Capitalistroadster 00:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of n? What?--NegativeCreep 02:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "n" = short for "notabile/notability"; "nn" = "non-notable" --Kinu 02:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It still should stay. There are articles on other gamers and they manage to stay, so why should this be any difference? He is known by other Day Of Defeat players, ala how the CS players with articles are known by other CS players. --NegativeCreep 03:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist Religious Struggle in Arkansas[edit]

Unsourced, unverifiable 1-paragraph POV essay about a matter of religious doctrine of one denomination in one geographic area. Delete as unencyclopedic. MCB 06:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Irrelevant, POV rubbish. Sounds like the closing paragraph of an essay on the topic. --Kinu 06:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is far from scrumtralescent. In fact, it is thoroughly bollocklicious. --Fuhghettaboutit 06:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you remove the POV text, you end up with "The Church of God in Christ’s manual specifically states that women cannot become ordained pastors, elders, or bishops. However, their roles are defined as evangelist and teachers .", but then the article becomes a stub about the manual and not the feminist struggle. Ruby 06:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV, & nn. Avalon 07:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Serves no useful purpose. CloudNine 12:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NPOV violation. Hard to see what a researcher would be able to use this article for, being so subjective.  (aeropagitica)  14:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Resources....? — Indi [ talk ] 17:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grey Out[edit]

Article reads mostly as ad copy. Googling on Grey Out as an industry term 1 returns some hits, but the articles found seem to always mention "Tub-Rite". It seems less of an industry term and more of an advertising term for one company. Vslashg 20:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article could be edited such that it focuses more on grey out, rather than solutions to get rid of it. The polymer chemistry described is patented and is not marketing hype. The frequent reference to "Tub-Rite" is where I see the potential marketing problem, and this could easily be addressed in an edit of the article.

  • Delete, probable copyvio and seems to fall under WP:VSCA. Stifle 16:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 06:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:Copyvio (block quotes from website) and WP:VSCA (advertising). --Kinu 06:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google search ("grey out" tub shower) returns no hits to industry sites not related to the commercial site the article is stumping for. --Fuhghettaboutit 06:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-hydroponic_for_growing_orchids[edit]

Delete this very poorly written commercial spam - just trying to sell things at firsttrays.com BarryNorton 19:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Established yet trademarked growing technique that's easily verified. Needs NPOV removed, that's all. Since trademarked, mentioning firsttrays is unavoidable, IMO. --Perfecto 03:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trademarked but not patented, since this is not novel - what's the value to Wikipedia of listing this separately from hydroponics and including the trademark? --BarryNorton 11:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to hydroponics then. --Perfecto 15:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult not to mention Ray when discribing semi-hydroponics. As to my poor writing - I`m not born in English speaking countries. Why not someone try to improve my writing --jmak 11:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to correct the English, but only as part of a merge with the general hydroponics page, or as a redirection to a new page on passive hydroponics (avoiding being named after / devoted to the trademarked name). In this context I think it would be fine to mention someone who's done a lot to promote, and enable, hydro techniques to a niche audience, i.e. orchid growers. --BarryNorton 06:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All this sounds fair to me.
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 06:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Konut kredisi[edit]

From WP:PNT, been there since January 20. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 07:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is Turkish and possibly spam. howcheng {chat} 18:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply: I read the article. it is Turkish but not a advertisement nor a spam. it's a article about what is "housing credit" or "housing loan".
  • Nominator abstains Segv11 (talk/contribs) 07:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per notenglish, as it'll never be translated, nor is it useful. --Kinu 07:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC); amended Kinu 07:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It can only be speedied if it exists on another Wikimedia project. Otherwise it goes thorugh afd. --TimPope 09:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's been awaiting translation for almost a year, and we already have an article on the subject. Why do we need this? Grutness...wha? 07:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not translated --TimPope 09:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Jimfbleak as junk. - Bobet 11:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deetra[edit]

  • Speedy Removal– Original research. Darwiner111 07:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Speedy delete Ardenn 08:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akindele Akinyemi[edit]

This individual does not appear to be noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion. His name has 13 entries on google, and the organisation he supposedly leads has none. See WP:VAIN. Sandstein 08:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like a NN individual to me. --Kinu 08:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Actually only 5 distinct google hits and a look at them reveals no notability whatsoever. --Fuhghettaboutit 15:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catrocious[edit]

A made-up word; its only Google entry even says so. Sandstein 08:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a dicdef, and one that doesn't appear to be valid at that. --Kinu 08:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non-notable neologism. --Fuhghettaboutit 15:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not in use. Punkmorten 15:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 02:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (keep). Mailer Diablo 07:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mimio[edit]

WP:NOT advertising Amcfreely 08:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination. Week keep now that the article has been cleaned up some. Amcfreely 05:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Adspam. --Kinu 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete advertising, nothing else.  (aeropagitica)  13:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with NPOV rewrite. Google search ("mimio xi") reveals 59,000 hits all apparently to this product. --Fuhghettaboutit 15:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the product overview, removed all of the advertising text, stub tagged, etc.; maybe this will make the decision here easier. --Fuhghettaboutit 16:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this article results in a keep, it should be moved to Mimio Xi. I will not do so now as I imagine this would bollox up the afd linkages. --Fuhghettaboutit 16:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Alexwcovington's cleanup (noted below) clarifies that it is a series of devices; should not be moved as I previously asserted. --Fuhghettaboutit 18:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this device is somewhat common in office environments. There have been a range of these devices dating back at least through the mid-90s of which the Xi is only the latest. I've improved the article. --AlexWCovington (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, but clean-up. Agree with notability. The article itself could still use a bit of work. -- Karnesky 18:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thurston Haddleton[edit]

No Google results for the author or his plays. No Google results for the award he apparently won in 1941. No Google results for "Calgary Playwrights Society". Linked photo is unverifiable (and considering that everyone depicted in it is female or Asian or both, it's a bit difficult to imagine who in the photo could be named "Thurston Haddleton".) Possible hoax — I'm willing to withdraw this delete nomination if somebody can provide verification, but as currently constituted this fails WP:V big time. Bearcat 08:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Marie Kosur[edit]

Non-notable. Name only gets 14 google hits, the first of which is an amateur amazon review written by Heather Marie Kosur. The publishing company mentioned in the article has less than 21 google hits. --DDG 08:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as non-notable and probable vanity. --Lockley 13:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, likely vanity. --Kinu 18:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self-published books. Stifle 01:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Marskell 09:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoth_Ommog_Records[edit]

Band cruft Amcfreely 08:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Kinu 22:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP it's a record label connected to other music and band articles. You wanna delete them all too? SkeezerPumba 01:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (Though perhaps this could be merged somewhere?)
    -,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 12:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Zoth is still in business, but not sure. Instead of a merger I was hoping it would be expanded somehow, however, I really don't have the time to do it myself. SkeezerPumba 22:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable. Mentioned in multiple books / publications. --Craig Stuntz 15:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, label with more than one notable band signed. Kappa 04:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing August[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Advertising Nv8200p talk 08:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete {{db-band}} would be appropriate here. One CD that has shifted 500 units does not make a case for notability. The band need to release at least two charting albums to satisfy the minimum criteria for notability. WP:BAND refers.  (aeropagitica)  13:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above criteria. I wouldn't be surprised if this was vanity. --Kinu 18:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possible speedy, per aeropagitica. Stifle 01:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Geogre with the reason "Goofy stew; in English, but not English". Seems to be CSD:G1. Stifle 01:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recurvity[edit]

Besides being a largely obsolete dictdef (definition), this has nothing to do with physics of mathematics and seems to be a hoax. Karol 09:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The page is unreadable, unwikified and contains nonsense ("P.S. William Gibson Is The Originator Of The Term Cyberspace").SoothingR 09:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems more like test than serious article.--Jan Smolik 13:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is hard to see what the author was trying to achieve with this. The text is neither true nor amusing.  (aeropagitica)  13:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous nonsense. --Lockley 14:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per patent nonsense. My head hurts after trying to make sense of that. --Kinu 22:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as gibberish --DV8 2XL 01:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Note: Looks like it's been deleted already. Karol 18:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago-style hot dog[edit]

Delete. There is already a very fine page on Hot dogs which includes details on the Chicago-style hot dog as well as other hot dogs. Delete under: Indiscriminate Information. SilkTork 09:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, merge appears more in line with my intention. The Chicago hot dog is dealt with very well in the Hot Dog article. My point was not to delete all references to the Chicago hot dog - merely the separate article which mostly repeats what is said in the main article. SilkTork 15:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the Chicago hot dog is more notable than the other hot dogs in that article. It would at least warrant additional coverage in that article, but I believe it warrants a separate article--particularly because of the relation to other Chicago cuisine and culture. --Karnesky 15:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with hot dogs. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 10:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not indiscriminate info! Why delete this over any of the other articles in Category:Chicago_cuisine? The Chicago dog probably ranks along-side Chicago pizza as the most significant (most common, most consumed, most known, and most unique) food to the City. It is claimed there are more hot dog stands in Chicago than McDonalds, Burger Kings, and Wendys combined. --Karnesky 15:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above, and maybe a specific redirect page to hot dogs would be appropriate. --Fuhghettaboutit 16:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Chicago-style hot dog is independently notable (It's come up as a tossup subject in mainstream quiz bowl; ergo, I think it deserves an article. --Andy Saunders 17:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, definitely notable enough to deserve its own article. I'm sure there's a lot more that could be said about it. Zagalejo 21:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Most likely the notable variation of hot dogs. This is a pretty good article, and a merge would just add clutter to the hot dog page as it is. Also is part of the culture of Chicago. youngamerican (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silktork, if you call this indiscriminate information, then check out Category:The Price is Right pricing games. If this was a short stub I'd say merge. As it is, more or less 27 registered users would want this speedily kept. --Perfecto 01:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously its own entity, as distinct from other hot dogs. Longer than a stub already. Logophile 02:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable cuisine. The "indiscriminate information" argument doesn't work in this case. 23skidoo 04:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. famous. Rhobite 05:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is your grand achievement on a culinary scale? How underwhelming. --Agamemnon2 12:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge its a hotdog fer chrissakes.... Jcuk 11:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GameTrash[edit]

  • Delete. Technitai 13:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A non-notable website, the article having been written by it's staff. Purely created to drive traffic to the site in question. Jaywalker911 10:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:VSCA was defined for entries like this! --Kinu 22:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu. Trying to avoid referring to the website as trash. Stifle 01:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the owner of this website (Unregistered to Wikipedia, though I am available via my e-mail available on the site), I can assure the above that none of my authors created this, and as such, this is in no way advertisement. Remove it if you will, but your gratuitous assumption is baseless and insulting.
  • Keep. I reviewed all of the links provided by those who say delete and find that the article doesn't really meet any of these reasons at all.
  • Keep. Keep this because people are idiots for attempting to delete something about a site. Why not delete other sites wikipedia like newgrounds.com? How about vgcats? Just because a site is specified on wikipedia doesn't mean it has to be deleted. Why don't you people who want to delete it think about every other site that is on wikipedia and attack those too. Otherwise it is being prejudice to this site only.
  • Keep. The WP:VSCA states advertising for small companies. Gametrash isn't a small company and as mentioned in it's description, no one at the site is paid and no advertisers pay the website to advertise on the site. The site doesn't sell any product and the article in question is simply a description of the website.
  • Keep. Keep this fucking site you Halo Fanboy shits!


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 nonsense -SCEhardT 03:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Triple squared candles[edit]

Fake, entirely incorrect information GalFisk 10:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Federalism (Autocracy)[edit]

Delete - this is almost complete nonsense, and we have quality articles at Federalism and Autocracy already --Xorkl000 11:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Appears to be in the nature of a book report that got formatted as an article. --Fuhghettaboutit 16:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, concur with nomination. Sandstein 22:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- POV and novel redefinition of existing term. Probably comes under something akin to WP:NOR. Haikupoet 05:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Stars[edit]

Delete - take your pick, unencyclopaedic, advertising, spam, probably vanity as well -- Xorkl000 11:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete LOL. Per nom. ComputerJoe 12:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure. Google gets multiple hits. See this site for background[18], although authorship thereof is not verified objective. --Fuhghettaboutit 16:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most GHits for this search are for astronomy related terms; searching for "generation stars"+gaming yields very few relevant results beyond the first page. Satisfies WP:VSCA per nom. --Kinu 19:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. For self-evident deletion candidates, Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion is now available and may be a better alternative.


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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 18:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zalmism[edit]

Delete. Neologism or hoax apparently. Google shows "Palace of Zalm" only in wikipedia mirrors. Zalmism (besides mirrors) is only used for the policies of a British Columbian politician Bill Vander Zalm (neologism IMO) - nothing to do with a new religion. No user page for creator, and this is their only contribution - back in April 2005. Cje 11:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above -- Aim Here 13:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Lockley 14:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunyazad[edit]

Page is badly worded and isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Hera1187 11:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it might be of interest to note that, at present, Dunyazad is not mentioned in The Book of One Thousand and One Nights. Sliggy 20:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thx - added. Tearlach 20:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There might not be much to write about her, but she plays a vital role. She is not often included in dramatisations, but this makes it even more important that the page is kept.163.1.162.20 01:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. Herostratus 21:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cayce Pollard[edit]

Delete: This is a one-sentence stub about a character who appears, as far as I know, in only one work of fiction (Pattern Recognition (novel)). There's plenty of space in the novel's article to discuss its main character. Nareek 12:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a redirect is really what I mean. Nareek 15:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Utcursch after author blanked the page. - Bobet 23:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anirban Maitra[edit]

Sounds like vanity... ComputerJoe 12:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete until someone else gets the urge to write his article for him. -- Aim Here 13:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Total vanity. If you want a job, Mr. Maitra, post your resume on Monster.com, not Wikipedia. --Kinu 19:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. The author has blanked the article so it qualifies for CSD:G7 author request. Stifle 01:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sasimohan[edit]

The article was tagged for afd by Jishacj. Am doing the next two steps. Reason is non-notability. Raghu 12:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Games Forum[edit]

Unnotable web chat forum, apparently this one: [19]. Article text unsalvageable (read it though!) Weregerbil 12:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Letter Acronym[edit]

Useless non-topic, and the given examples are drivel. Three letter acronyms are fine, but what's encyclopediaworthy about seven letter ones? -- Aim Here 13:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-encyclopedic entry. —ERcheck @ 13:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "TWPIUAB" (This Wiki Page Is Useless And Boring) seals it for me. Punkmorten 16:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. TWPIUAB (grin). --Fuhghettaboutit 16:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete someone's idea of a joke. Camillus (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's NONSENS... e. I'd even move to speedy it. --Kinu 19:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Stedman[edit]

Delete. Unimportant person, the story will never be longer than this. Possibly could be mentioned on the war on terror article (if there is some) as an example of occasional excesivity, but it does not desserve article of its own. Link to this article from Oroonoko is intended for different person with the same name Jan Smolik 13:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete One person's claim doesn't make them notable. What was the impact of the claim, its ramifications for law enforcement and the War on Terror? Has he done anything else to make him a candidate for notability? If so, this should be stated in the article. If not, delete as WP:BIO violation.  (aeropagitica)  13:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per  (aeropagitica) . --Kinu 18:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chisato Amate[edit]

The following is copied from WP:SD: —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

was a page on a japanese actress. i'd saved a first state and was in the middle of getting info for the second when it was deleted by User:Lucky 6.9 with the rationale "So-and-so is an actress. It's also a weblink placeholder. Other than that, it's just groovy." it contained date and place of birth, kanji for the subjects name, and a filmography -- all three things IMDb currently lacks. my personal feeling is that if Luck 6.9 truly felt it should have been deleted it should have been listed in afd. Nateji77 09:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are many actors and actresses on WP. What has this person done to make themselves notable? The article makes no claims, WP:BIO refers for an outline of what is notable.  (aeropagitica)  13:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, legitimate movie actress. Kappa 18:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short articles with little or no content can be deleted. Doesn't take a bureaucracy, after all.  :) I'm not against an article on this actress, but this one should have had a lot more effort put forth. Abstain unless it remains in the state it's in. - Lucky 6.9 19:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "little or no content" is still not a speedy criterion. Kappa 19:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Under WP:CSD a very short article with little or no context is liable for speedy deletion. At the moment, this article is in such a state. We don't know whether whether Ms Amate played a significant role in these films or was an extra. In order to meet WP:BIO, she would need to have played fairly significant roles. Her IMDb shows she has featured in two films in its database including one roll in top billing. That makes her notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 00:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article expanded a bit - needs more work. Capitalistroadster 01:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wordtank C50[edit]

Appears to be an attempt at an instruction manual for some electronic dictionary type gadget. Wikipedia isn't an instruction manual -- Aim Here 13:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I tried reading it. It was painful. --Kinu 19:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I feel nauseous after reading the article. This is not an "an attempt at an instruction manual," it is fancruft for an instruction manual. --Fuhghettaboutit 19:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ok yeah i see your point. I just read the "what wiki is not" page. I think I will move it over to wikibooks. Next time, when you guys are suggesting a deletion, it would be helpfully if you offered constructive remarks, instead of things like "It was painful" and "I feel nauseous". Things like that make people want to leave wiki, not make it better. --Jsblack 11:18, 5 February 2006 (+9GMT)


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passwordmaker[edit]

Someone proposes to encrypt a universal password with the URL of websites to combat phishing and offers a browser plugin on his website. No indication of wide use, Alexa rank near 200000, thus this does not pass WP:WEB. Pilatus 13:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ruby 16:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sounds more like WP:VSCA than an actual accepted anti-phishing technique. --Kinu 19:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VSCA. Stifle 01:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arasp[edit]

Fictional word / protologism. Weregerbil 13:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It says it's a verb that means anything you want. So let's arasp this article. Ruby 14:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Weregerbil. "verb with an infinite meaning, having no boundaries or limits". Sure. --Lockley 14:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless it can be protlogicistized, arropigated, or desalificated - ie. nonsense! Camillus (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not a cromulent word. --Kinu 19:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abroquashidate. --Fuhghettaboutit 19:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unembiggen it forthwith. Amcfreely 06:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Rivera[edit]

This article was nominated as a non-notable biography speedy deletion by User:Makemi, but I think there's enough of an assertion of notability to require an AfD nomination. I'll drop a note on User:Makemi's talk page so that the user has an opportunity to explain further. —Cleared as filed. 13:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He founded a site with alexa rank of 11,623 which makes him varsity rather than junior varsity Ruby 13:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nom. Just because a site might be "notable" (I don't think it is), doesn't mean the creator of the site is. --Karnesky 18:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Look at the references: "dictionary.reference.com" and "blog.memeorandum.com". I doubt the "company" should have an article, let alone him. As for the Google test, there are plenty of other people with the name "Gabe Rivera," and I doubt that a significant chunk of the 14,000 GHits are of this individual. (I happen to know two people named "Gabe Rivera" personally, oddly enough.) When you take that into account, it doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO by my standards. --Kinu 19:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. A google search ("gabe rivera" memoreandum) returns over 12,000 hits, so it appears that this Gabe Rivera is the subject of most of those hits. Very specific search parameters ("founder of memoreandum" "gabe rivera") returns 27 hits. However, this latter search reveals nothing but blog mentions. Thus, he may be more notable than previously thought, but the circle of that notability is very specialized. --Fuhghettaboutit 19:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the author of the page, this vote is naturally going to be percieved as biased. The comments about Gabe vs memeorandum are understandable, however, in this context Gabe is the sole founder and operator of memeorandum. Aspects of the article deserving extension (I have reclassified it to a stub) include the fact that the work undertaken so far on this project has been entirely at Gabe's expense and unfunded, and it is making a big difference to the way the many people who use the service consume their news. This is expected to increase as more people are engaged in Blogging and reading news in this way, and as such is provides an increasingly important community service for the wider internet population. With technical consideration, Gabe has developed a number of aspects of this technology and its algorithms which are highly unique, and from a commercial perspective it is quite likely that he, as a person, will receive significant notoriety in the context of a investment revival in dot com fortunes, as he is engaged in discussions for aquisition at the moment that may make him a pin-up boy for the Web 2.0 movement in a similar light to this Business 2.0 article of this month: [20]. While the decision of noteworthy lies in the hands of the Wikipedia community, I'd suggest this stub is well worth keeping and expanding.
  • Delete Stuff about memeorandum belongs on Wikipedia site about memeorandum, if anywhere. Otherwise, fails WP:BIO. FCYTravis 07:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree w/above - not notable enough. Eusebeus 20:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename and recontextualize to be about memeorandum.com Kappa 04:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gamaliel 04:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne "Marcy-boy" Fischermann, Colin Fischermann, Karl Johann Fischermann[edit]

No Google hits for any of these people. Delete as hoax. Pilatus 13:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Once this is deleted, Image:Colin_Fischermann.jpg should be deleted, too.
  • Delete wayne is a hoax, the other two are nn bios Ruby 13:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The claim that Colin has written some books is at least an assertion of notability. Unfortunately, they can't be found in the Library of Congress. Pilatus 13:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being hoax/unverifiable and non-notable -- Aim Here 13:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Colin is not a hoax (read the discussion page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.173.150 (talk • contribs)
    • Hmm. You met him and he is a "philisophical genius", huh? The way to argue on Wikipedia is to back up you claims with verifiable evidence. 82.26.170.64 16:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - figments of the imagination. Camillus (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probable hoax, verifiability is lacking. Lord Bob 17:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. --Kinu 20:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What do you count as verifiable? I have a friend who was taught by him, he is still in contact with others in his undergrad class, and I have also met them. That sounds like the most solid empirical evidence you can get; moreso than just looking up the guy on google I'd say. Because there's an awful lot of rubbish on there, hence it's a pretty poor criterion of credibility.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyhorsez (talk • contribs)
  • Keep What do you count as notable? There are over 960,000 entries on Wikipedia, some/most on completely innane specialist topics, some not even existent. To say that Mr Fischermann is not notable is to make a subjective value juedgement i.e. you don't find what he has to say interesting. Well, I for one do. And, there is a large group of people (large enough compared to other things on Wiki) who have been affected by this man and find that his ideas are something special that should be shared. It is crime that he isn't more widely known, and that should be used in his favour rather than against him. Please do not delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.60.147 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Article admits that the subject is not notable: Unfortunately Colin's books were not widely printed and little known of and a few are even out of print Bobby1011 18:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the person who raised the questions of verifiability and notability. I'd say being a published author and professor is fairly notable. I mean, I've seen far less notable stuff on this website here. The guy above's criticism is pretty stupid. He doesn't define notable and seems to give a self defeating argument. James Hanson.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.218.164 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as unverifiable, non-notable, and per plenty of sockpuppets. Stifle 01:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWikipedia says "If in doubt don't delete".".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.14.80 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep I have been instructed by my tutor to research Fischermann for our course on St Thomas Aquinas so with all due respect to those who believe he is not real, I think you will find that in the study of philosophy he is, if not well known, of note.".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.14.80 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Read the discussion page. It seems pretty persuasive.".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.14.80 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete all three as a hoaxes; all support here and on the discussion page are from likely sockpuppets of one individual. Edgar181
  • KeepIs it me or are those arguing for the deletion not involved in any modern philisophical debate and just appear to be, with no respect whatsoever, ignorant. Fischermann has made important contributions to the debate on many of the areas of the subject that are currently attracting the most interest and I, as a Philosophy graduate am indebted to Fischermann as he has widened my comprehension of the subject. However I must admit that I have no idea if the part about the footballing son is true and that I suspect may turn out not to be.".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.14.80 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Having met up with Colin at a Westport reunion I find this rather amusing.".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.14.80 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep I can say that yes I have read "Thomism-A well-travelled road". I bought it second, maybe third hand from an Oxfam in Pimlico. Maybe Pilatus would like to break in their and have a rummage through their accounts to verify my claim. I found it interesting as a passing fan of Thomas, and have been looking out for other books by the author. I haven't found any in these new chain-bookshops, however, after (by chance) looking on Wikipedia I've been given a new shaft of hope. Thank god this very intelligent man is still writing. So, Yes he does exist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.218.164 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy delete this hoax and sanction the hoaxing IP. Ifnord 20:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As sysadmin for the originating IP, I have investigated this matter and can confirm that is definitely a hoax. Please delete this and the two related entries. Rycherd 11:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His seminal work on Gadamer? The piece was narcissistic at best, at worst... Still, this having been said, both mine, and the user in question's opinion were just that, and merit no inclusion in the article, unless one can find another Philosopher (preferably of superior renown to Fischermann) who criticise him for this. I seriously doubt that anyone here who claims to know Colin Fischermann is telling the truth, the stuff on "Marcy Boy" is ridiculous, I can find no reference to Karl, or any of his relatives at all (this includes the sleeves and dedications of his book, which don't mention his family at all for some reason.

What is more, is that this information, even if true, is utterly irrelevant to anyone beyond his immediate circle of friends, why was it included on Wikipedia in the first place? Basically, all the information on his family can, and should be cut as irrelevant, if not a hoax. However, Wikipedia should not be so hasty as to delete the entire article, the article, like his work, may have some merit in it. I think one can be reasonably sure it passes the professor test, and in theory is verifiable (Can someone upload the front cover of one of his books, or at least get me a digital camera (or not)? A photograph, like the one in the article, is not nearly enough to go on, I personally don't know what he looks like. I can see someone constructing a case for deletion based upon lack of importance within the philosophical and theological community, but constructing a case based upon the vandalism and hoaxing of one user as if that somehow condemns the entire article to being a hoax, utter rubbish! I am genuinely surprised he is not on Google, the name isn't misspelled, and from his ego-centric ramblings in "'Truth and Meaning' - forcing open Pandora's box?" he seems like the type who would love to get his name somewhere (okay, so it's opinion, it's not in the article, so I suppose he's fair game) I just looked at the deletion page, most of the comments come from one IP address, an address that has been engaged in vandalism before, and it looks like someone has been trying to get this article accepted as a hoax by creating inane additions to it. So basically, don't delete immediately, ignore the vandal, and wait for verifiability. When (if) the verification is provided, then take down the hoax tag, let users expand on the article, and then debate whether he is significant enough to have on Wikipedia. I think he’s important enough to keep on Wikipedia (just), that significant numbers of people know of his books suggests he was widely published, I’ll look into it.

  • Delete I am system administrator for 195.172.14.80 (if you RIPE the IP address, you'll find it belongs to Westminster School, and if you would like confirmation you can email [email protected]). I have thoroughly investigated supportive contributions from this IP address following complaints, and I can confirm that these articles are a hoax which has been deliberately planted by a group of students in order to test the validity of the Wikipedia model. The students involved have been reprimanded. I recommend these articles are deleted immediately.
  • If the message immediately above can be confirmed, speedy delete. Jonathunder 23:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage heartthrob[edit]

A disambiguation page with two entries. If you remove the photo and the POV definition, you end up with a dicdef. Ruby 13:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Interested parties could just look at Chris Jennings' article rather than read this poorly-spelt dictdef.  (aeropagitica)  13:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ruby as quickly as possible. --Lockley 14:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. --Kinu 18:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yingology[edit]

Unverifiable dicdef, possibly hoax. Delete. Kusma (討論) 13:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D2M[edit]

Delete: not notable as per Wikipedia:Notability (music) Rangek 13:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete They have yet to release a recording Ruby 14:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Kinu 19:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vainglorious crystal ball rubbish. --Fuhghettaboutit 19:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yjg[edit]

A word that is "popular at Fudan University". Google makes me doubt that it is really popular. Delete unverified vanity neologism. Kusma (討論) 14:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete local neologism Ruby 14:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN neologism. Wikipedia is not Fudan University's personal Urban Dictionary. --Kinu 18:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice, per all of the above. --Fuhghettaboutit 19:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 15:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus vector[edit]

hoax, attack on religion Ruby 14:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how is it an attack on religion? Jesus Vectors are widely used mathematical objects and have important ramifications in quantum field theory, I vote this page stays. lolnoyuo 14:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of Life[edit]

This article was nominated by Endomion, but was listed incorrectly. Listing now. No vote. lightdarkness 16:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression that Wikipedia allows voting without any requirement of explanation. However, I do not find "philosophical musing" as a criteria for deletion. Did you mean OR? --JimmyT 04:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. The subject "philosophy of life" lends itself well to the original intention of Biology (the study of life) which has become a study of living things. More hard science has been done which has allowed more knowledge to be accumulated about things common to all life. "Philosophy of Life" literally means, "knowledge about life" and this is the obvious place to put that knowledge which is common to all life. This would include how Diatoms changed early Earth's atmosphere, examples of how life is found almost everywhere liquid water exists, how life survives through hostile environments, how life forms more complex life forms, what effects life has on the physical universe, etc.Terryeo 01:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Terryeo (talk · contribs) is the article's author.[reply]
  • *Delete. By its very nature, this article could never be anything but OR, but this particular version reads like it was written by a middle schooler. wikipediatrix 01:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with your opinion. What do you mean by "its very nature"? This article could be an encyclopedic article if it presented views of the many different Philosophies of Life as contained in numerous religions and philosophies. --JimmyT 04:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR --DV8 2XL 01:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as written it is not encyclopedic. --JimmyT 02:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If re-written from an encyclopedic point of view, it possible could be kept. --JimmyT 02:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. --Kinu 03:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article is an article on nothing. Following this logic let's have articles on differing philosphies on how to make an ideal apple pie, and philosphies on how best to hold a baseball bat etc. etc. No encyclopedic merit IMHO. Glen Stollery 22:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a POV essay, not an encyclopedia article. --Modemac 02:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR - pseudoscientific babbling plainly isn't encyclopedic. -- ChrisO 00:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as patent nonsense (yes, definitely). If anyone wants the deleted history for BJAODN they can have it, but I didn't think it was up to that standard, sadly. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of Communism[edit]

Delete. Appears to be a satire, not an encyclopedia article, and is illustrated with photos that are probably copyvios. Heron 14:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - makey-uppy. "Krugrad CCCP" indeed! Camillus (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax Ruby 17:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN but get rid of, or downsize, some of those pics. Daniel Case 20:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The author "The intelectual" (sic) was also responsible for juvenile vandalism on article EADD. --Lockley 23:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just a page full of pictures. Not even worth a BJAODN, since that would imply it's at least somewhat amusing. --Kinu 03:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This is not even funny. Pavel Vozenilek 05:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete pathetic Bobby1011 18:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete S.. 18:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DentalEye[edit]

copyvio/advert Csari 14:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This reeks of advertspam. --Kinu 18:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Fuhghettaboutit 19:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blog Rock[edit]

This is a tricky one. If you search for "blog rock" in google you will find entries like " What is it like to be a "blog rock star?" You know, those mega-bloggers that everyone knows & reads" -- That means a blog "rock star" not a "blog rock" star Ruby 14:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: added AfD tag to article. --Kinu 19:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if it were verified as a used expression, a rationale for deletion can be made out under WP:WINAD (wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fuhghettaboutit (talk • contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Inman[edit]

This was originally nominated as a non-notable biography speedy deletion candidate by User:Dr Debug, but I think that there are assertions of notability in this article that required it to be listed on AfD. That said, a Google search for this person doesn't seem to come up with as many relevant hits as you'd expect from a truly notable executive, but that isn't proof-positive of anything. I'll leave a note on the talk page of User:Dr Debug so he/she can more fully explain the reasons he/she thought it should be deleted. —Cleared as filed. 15:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I marked it for speedy because it appears to be an advertisement written by the author himself with many catch phrases like "Fortune 500" but he has been a Director of General Purchasing which is non-notable. It's definitely a vanity article written by the author himself. Dr Debug (Talk) 15:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough; CEO maybe, but purchasing? --Mgreenbe 16:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, as per Mgreenbe. --Austrian 18:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reserving my judgment initially, I've re-read the article and the changes that User:Mikeyi (who I assume is Mike Inman himself) has made, and I've done some more searching, and I think this is a non-notable article from a guy who'd like to post his résumé. I recommend delete, not userfy, because Wikipedia isn't a place for this detailed a résumé. —Cleared as filed. 18:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cleared as filed.. Mike should try Monster or CareerBuilder if he's trying to get a job, not Wikipedia. --Kinu 18:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was deleted by Mailer diablo. Johnleemk | Talk 14:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pu Pu Hot Pot[edit]

  • Delete: Non-notable chinese restaurant. Article even states it has a "small cult-like following". Nothing to distinguish it from the 10 chinese restaurants within a five-mile radius of my house. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ruby 17:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's oh-so-true assessment of the ubiquity of Chinese restaurants. --Kinu 18:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Chinese cuisine if people prefer that. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per wknight94, except none of the Chinese restaurants within a five-mile radius of my house have a "Home-Depot Showroom" decor, its mostly a Chinese import calendar, some fish and such. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Chinese restaurants are a dime a dozen. When it gets up to the level of PF Chang's or the Kowloon in Saugus, Massachusetts, renominate. Haikupoet 05:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was deleted by Mailer diablo. Johnleemk | Talk 14:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The LXU Network[edit]

NN Super Mario fansites. 2 Google hits under this name, 926 for "Luigishack". Don't see it meeting WP:WEB. Delete. Kusma (討論) 15:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like self-promotion of a non-notable fansite lovefest. There are about 161 hits for "LXU network", but most of them are just cut-n'-paste inclusions in the titles of the relevant sites themselves (Google filtered all but 6 hits by default). Fourohfour 15:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN, WP:VSCA. --Kinu 18:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David_A._Harris[edit]

Copyright violation from [21] Csari 15:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the WP:Copyvio, and because the article gives me the feeling that he is NN by Wikipedia standards. --Kinu 19:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. btm talk 06:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Stifle 01:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Francis Burke[edit]

Obituary for a detective. "One of the best homicide detectives in Chicago's history" is unsourced claim of notability. WP:NOT a memorial. Delete. Kusma (討論) 15:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a decent guy from the article, but I'm afraid I have to say delete for the same reasons. If someone wishes to make a better case for notability, I'm willing to reconsider it. Fourohfour 15:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP not a memorial Ruby 16:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a work in progress. This was not just a decent guy, he is a Chicago Legend and as the research moves along this will become clear. Do not delete, articles such as these need to grow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rschak (talk • contribs) .

You don't understand. If the research has been done proving that he is a Chicago Legend, then by all means cite that research and we may keep the article. But if you are in the middle of ongoing research and are accumilating it on this article, then it has to go. Ruby 17:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't find on cited newspaper's web site or google, so how legendary was he? There was a Chief Martin Burke there in the 1800's though. Being a good cop is not really enough notability. If research shows real verifiable notability (Wyatt Earp notability) then maybe re-submit (though if fame hasn't been uncovered yet I wonder if it will be later). Weregerbil 17:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world makes Google the all knowing authority on anything and being a good cop is worth som ething when people like you exist under their blanket of protection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.79.193.120 (talk • contribs) .

    • Google is simply a means to an end; it happens to be a good way to *find* information on a certain subject. If someone creates an article with a name like "Tom McSchlumberger" and says he's a famous singer, but Google doesn't come up with a single result for the name, it's a fair bet the guy's not really that famous. There is a policy of no original research on Wikipedia, so that although a Wikipedia article could (and should) distill information available (and verifiable) elsewhere, it should not be the original source o finformation. 195.92.168.176 20:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual number combination[edit]

Trivial non-topic, this exact phrase is not in common use, article doesn't say anything that coincidence or mathematical coincidence can't say much better -- Aim Here 15:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Shoob[edit]

Non-notable. A presenter for a home-shopping channel with no other claim to fame. Google hits: 188, only the first one appears to be her and it's this article. Ifnord 15:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite Remove silly trivia section, because the whole article is borderline trivia Ruby 16:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Full name gets 0 google hits. IMDB has no entry. This is an implied crystal ball article. Yes she's on tv, but in a barely notable capacity. She may be famous one day. Let's let that day be the day this article is accepted for reposting. --Fuhghettaboutit 20:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I don't think any article should be deleted because of how famous someone is. As long as someone can be bothered to do a page for someone, then it should remain on the site. I have already heard fellow fans of Kat recommend others to have a look at this page. I would personally like to see a page for every celebrity (no matter how big or small). I have been disappointed numerous times after searching for people I see on TV only to find that no one has created a page for them. At the moment, this is the best place for information on this person and many fans of her will be glad that there is a place to read a bit about her. She is already very popular among the viewers and is mentioned on forums as being a favourite presenter of theirs. If someone isn't on IMDB or Google, it then means that Wikipedia may be the only source of information for certain celebrities. This website will generate hits from people interested in such minor celebrities as it has information exclusive to Wikipedia, who may then go on to contibute on topics (that you deem important) that they may have new information on. I don't think it is fair to single out this article for deletion, this is missing the whole point of Wikipedia, this site is here to list information on as many things as possible (the perfect Wikipedia would be one where everything in the world that exists will have information available). Kat Shoob has many loyal viewers and fans and many people will be glad that this page exists. If you want to go around deleting things on this site, I suggest looking around video game pages and deleting all the articles on unknown characters that don't warrant a page of their own. Plus, someone needs to edit all the useless information on professional wrestler's pages. Many users go around adding what happens each week in the WWE on the pages for individual pro wrestlers without even realizing that these are all storylines that don't apply to the actual performers. If this attack is due to webspace concerns - then the definition for pages up for deletion are Wikipedia user pages - these are full of information on people who only one person in the world has heard of; theirself. A page on Wikipedia is justified even if all the information available is one sentence informing people on who someone is. Wikipedia should be a one-stop-shop for information. If someone wants to find out who Greg Scott is for example, all they need to do is type his name into Wikipedia and they will find out that he is a TV presenter on ITV1. This should apply to every celebrity imaginable. To me, the reason for Wikipedia's existence is to be a superior source of information to everything else, due to the fact that it can be a source of information on subjects or people that would never find themselves in a published encyclopaedia. (Someone like John Cena (the wrestler and music star) is hugely popular but would never make it into an actual encyclopaedia even though people would be interested in reading about him). It is my personal opinion that pages like this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sindel on fictional characters in a videogame, are ridiculous and totally undeserving of their own entry, but it's not about what individual people find worthy. Some people feel it is interesting and worthwhile information. People with nothing more than a single spoken line in a film should have pages. There will always be someone who searches for some obscure celebrity that neither me or you knows in an attempt to find extra information and it's only going to increase Wikipedia's relevance in the grand scheme of the Internet. Wikipedia is about bringing all information togther in one place, not about deciding who's fit to be included. Maybe if Kat left the industry and wasn't employed for a certain length of time, I could see a reason for deleting this article. But while ever she is in the public eye (in any capacity), then there is no real reason to get rid of this page. To summarise then, the contributions people make are to improve Wikipedia, I don't see how deleting information will make Wikipedia a better website. ---Mr.bonus 21:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instantaneous delete after reading through the above rant. WP:BIO is all that matters. Mr. bonus, if you are the article creator, please familiarize yourself with our notability guidelines, and most importantly what Wikipedia is not: "a one-stop shop for information" (while many people regard it as such, it is not Google), "a superior source of information to everything else" (I'm glad people think so, but we're all only human and John Seigenthaler Sr., among others, would differ) and most emphatically not "about bringing all information togther in one place, not about deciding who's fit to be included" (This is absolutely the wrong page to make this argument on). Now go, and sin no more! Daniel Case 22:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:BIO, nuff said. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable biography. —Cleared as filed. 22:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. If the information is not available elsewhere, as per the author's comments above, then it is in essence unverifiable and indicates lack of notability. --Kinu 23:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'DO NOT DELETE* An upcoming TV presenter, a perfectly valid entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.159.111.186 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Go Ahead and Abuse Your Power Like I didn't know this was coming (deleting it without any more discussion). Just because you can't accept that these are valid points and you are nothing mre than people who waste their lives on the Internet by going round looking for something to do to feel important. Where does it end? You can't possibly find, warn and then delete all pages that you don't feel are relevant (I've seen hundreds just like my own) and if you didn't stumble across it, you would be none the wiser and it would still be up there. Bottom line is you want more red links throughout this site than blue ones. If Wiki follows the same rules as regular encyclopaedias then I suggest you lot of fools make it your life-long career to go and remove the piles of trash people have written about fighting game, RPG and Anime characters, unknown companies such as Sit-Up, and some random videogame (almost any one that can be named) that has more text written about it than all the world's politicians combined. These certainly wouldn't justify inclusion in the encyclopaedia Brittanica. Even though the amount of garbage on this site makes a mockery of what you have done to my page and what is written on the WP:BIO if that's what this site is "supposed" to stick to, I'm not contributing anything more (even though I have rewritten sections of "important" articles that you would deem worthy), It's a pointless exercise. I only discovered Wiki recently but it is not what I thought it was. It turns out it's just a terribly sub-standard version of actual encyclopaedias, with no distinct selling-point and a place that Internet amoebas populate and destroy just the same as any forum. So go ahead and delete the page it's not like I'm ever going to return here and while you are at it go and delete your webspace wasting user-profile that nobody with anything resembling a life gives a toss about. And look at this; the only person that says 'Don't Delete' doesn't possess a user profile. That speaks volumes. The only proof you need to see that you singled out my page solely to abuse your 'power' and delete it, is this; you use the WP:BIO against me in order to justify my page's deletion, yet ignore it completely when you want to create a page about Star Wars Kid or any given wrstler from OVW (a non-televised wrestling promotion). If you pretend it doesn't exist in these circumstances, it allows you to make a page about such a worthless non-entities. Which catergorization from the WP:BIO are people abusing to allow random porn 'stars' to be included? Pornstars can't be seen in any mainstream media. My article is about someone who can be seen on British TV every week.. This site is a complete mockery. You can't apply these rules to one page but not to another. Why the HELL I persist with the Internet when it's full of people like you lot I have no idea......—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.40.122 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Please do not respond to the above tirade, as per WP:BITE and WP:TROLL. --Kinu 02:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable vanity --DV8 2XL 01:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: For comparison's sake, note that very few of HSN's presenters have articles, either (and I'm not sure about some that do). If Diana Perkovic remains a redlink, Ms. Shoob should too. Daniel Case 03:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, though if someone wanted to do an omnibus article on the presenters for price-drop tv, I'm sure that would be OK, but Shoob doesn't have enough notability to rate her own article ... yet. 23skidoo 04:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 20:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP'** It may not be doing any good for some, but it is certainly not doing any harm. There seems quite enough pomposity here already. Valid entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.159.111.186 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel Cafe[edit]

  • Delete: Non-notable cafe. Its own website doesn't do a good job of establishing notability. It appears that most internet references are ultra-short reviews (from Fodor's, etc.) alongside tons of other restaurants and cafes which don't have their own articles. If this qualifies as notable, then so do 100 restaurants in my vicinity alone. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Popularity with vegans and lesbians does not equal Wikipedia-ready Ruby 16:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. --Kinu 18:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this article gets kept I will take that as a green light to post an article about my dog because I like him. --Fuhghettaboutit 20:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I love the Diesel, it's probably one of the best cafes in the Boston area and the article really doesn't do justice to it. That said, it's no Club Passim -- it certainly doesn't have the kind of notability in, say, Lunenburg that it does in Somerville or Cambridge. Haikupoet 06:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Keep this but add more to it, like pictures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.202.22 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep Yea there's not much there right now. But give it time ot improve. There's no lack of space on wikipedia and no harm is done in keeping it here Lyo 22:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, do not merge. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GigaBeat[edit]

Only claim to notability is that "other competition is about 70 dollars more" Ruby 16:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteRedirect. Correct article is at Gigabeat, linked from Toshiba. No additional information in this article worth merging. --Kinu 18:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Kinu -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Kinu. Stifle 01:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthea Irwin[edit]

Fails biography notability criteria. Mais oui! 16:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you will find that we had a case a few months ago of a Green candidate of simliar notability, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Sanders, and in this case the article was kept. There is an ongoing general discussion on legislative candidates, I may look at this again. PatGallacher 21:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Candidate for minor party who achieved a wopping 3% of the vote in the electorate. Claims to be active in community events but no evidence to suggest that this amounts to an more than attending meetings. If Jacob Saunders is no more notable than this, I suggest that we reconsider his article. Capitalistroadster 00:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not everyone who can afford a filing fee for an election is notable. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 13:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above. Usually people actually have to do something to get in an encyclopedia, not just try and fail. -R. fiend 18:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very well then, I can see which way this discussion is going, but I hereby give notice that if the decision is to delete then I intend to re-open the AFD discussion on Jacob Sanders. PatGallacher 11:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added that she is a co-ordinator of the Save Our Schools campaign. PatGallacher 17:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamers daily[edit]

Was up for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (nomination), but the author removed the tag. It's still a podcast whose best claim to notability is a mention on two other podcasts. —Cryptic (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, 52 episodes, has a bit of feedback on Yahoo podcasts. --Interiot 16:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Does not seem notable enough. --Andy Saunders 17:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is notable enough in certain circles, however the article needs work. Ben W Bell 20:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just wondering, how come RedBarRadio has been on Wikipedia forever (Alexa 300,000), yet GamersDaily keeps getting deleted (Alexa 170,000)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.35.26.78 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Because even Alexa admits that rankings above 100,000 are meaningless. See Wikipedia:Google test#Alexa test. —Cryptic (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then how did Red Bar Radio prove their notability in the current 'Non-notable until proven otherwise'-system that exists here?
      • I don't see an AFD nomination for them. -- Andy Saunders 23:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thats what I mean. The Red Bar wiki entry just says 'thousands of listeners', without showing proof, and no one bothers them. These GamersDaily guys, on the other hand, have shown concrete proof that they're notable, and have still been targeted TWICE for deletion. I just don't get it.
  • Delete non-notable podcast. —Cleared as filed. 22:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cleared as filed. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why does notability have to be proved, but 'non-notability' does not need proof, but just a Chihuahua saying "per so-and-so"?
  • Keep Do y'all even listen to games podcasts? Ask 10 regular game podcast listeners and 8 of them will know these guys. Chillax... DockMur24 00:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reeks of WP:VSCA. --Kinu 03:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu and others --kingboyk 03:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ask 10 regular game podcast listeners... if you can find that many. Ashibaka tock 06:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like they found about seven thousand or so DockMur24 07:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is more than notable given the number of listeners, visitors to the site and mentions on other notable websites. If this is taken down then you might as well take down the Kotaku and Joystiq blog sites as well for supposedly being 'non-notable' Thefold 07:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For what they do they are noteable enough to be left here.Cyborg771 07:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These guys have plenty of credibility, from the website and podcast feeds, they have put out 52 episodes. 52 episodes don't come without a fan base.Hater2win 08:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fact that Gamers daily specifically thinks ill of me doesn't help change my mind. Perhaps that shows just how non-notable they are when they think it's big news to mention a humble AfD voter on their podcast. See also previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamersdaily. — TheKMantalk 23:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So "hurt feelings" influence your decisions? So much for objectivity and credibility.
      • I'm voting delete because it's non-notable, silly-billy. — TheKMantalk 23:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't flatter yourself, it was 10 seconds in a 45 minute show. You were the equivalent of the guy that walks across the screen in the background of a tv show.
  • Comment Isn't it fascinating that no one has provided a BASIS for their opinions of non-notability? Awesome.
    • Wikipedia is not a web directory. Notability has to be proven, not non-notability. Ashibaka tock 00:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • How has it not been, based on all of the evidence provided in the 'notable achievements' section? Of the 5,000 or so internet game shows in the world, certainly the top 10 (that's the top 0.2%!) would be considered 'notable'. Based on factual evidence, GamersDaily would be in that select group. How is it that you can't see that?
  • Delete per Ashibaka. Stifle 01:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This podcast has provided great content for the gaming community. [FrankDaFixer] 03:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I find it curious that more 'commercial' podcasts such as TWIT and Diggnation are happily seen as notable. Those guys make a living off of what they do and the GamersDaily hosts make nothing whatsoever, they do this for their passion of videogames. I can understand that Wikipedia is not a a web directory, but it is meant to be an encyclopedic record of the world we live in, which includes podcasts, one of the fastest rising methods of people having their say on the world around them. Given that GamersDaily do get the number of listeners they do (and can prove it), as well as lasting as far as 52 episodes to date with no signs of letting up, I do not see the grounds for which they are non-notable whatsoever. They are just as notable as any other podcast of its age and fanbase.
  • KEEP! For all the people who say "Not Notable" why not shut up and listen to Episode 52.
  • Keep Low on production values, but high on content - this podcast is relavent.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 rename. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cocculus indicus[edit]

This article doesn't warrent it's own article. One sentence article, no categories or stubs. — Moe ε 16:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move, redirect to Anamirta cocculus, and improve. Definitely has potential. --Mgreenbe 16:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move (and keep) as per Mgreenbe. Plant species, even as stubs, are inherently encyclopedic, and if this is also the source of an important chemical substance, it certainly deserves an article. Lukas (T.|@) 23:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as one-line substub. No prejudice to recreating a proper article. Stifle 01:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good stub. Kappa 04:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pasig City stampede[edit]

News story not worthy of its own article, IMO. I don't see this ever becoming important enough to warrant having an article seperate from Wowowee. If it does evolve to become that important, it can have a seperate article then; but as of now, it's just another event that can be (and has been) incorporated into another article. Redirecting to Wowowee (see the "Wowowee Tragedy" section) would be a good idea since this story is "in the news" right now. -Frazzydee|✍ 17:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep it's a current event in which 73 people died and 300 more were injured. Merging it into an article about a very popular gameshow is like merging any football (soccer) riot into the article about the football team. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if a disaster on this scale had happened recently in the US or UK I bet you there would be no doubt about it being notable. See e.g. the Ibrox disaster, a rather similar incident in Glasgow in 1971 which left 66 dead, nobody is calling for this article to be deleted. PatGallacher 22:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Clearly an important event meriting its own article, but only if more information becomes available to where it should be independent of the Wowowee page. FWIW, I even heard about it on the local-centric 6 o'clock news, of all places. --Kinu 00:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per above. --Vsion (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep please, article expanded significantly. Nominated for main page "In the news"--Vsion (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would close this, but as I can't find the appropriate templates/procedure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion I'll just remove the AfD template from the article. violet/riga (t) 11:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This can't be closed for the time being. Stifle 01:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Wells[edit]

  • Delete -- per insignificance. Darwiner111 09:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. My ex was a member of IHRA, trust me, that alone is not even close to notable. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You want to delete this page for what? He is a IHRA driver. If not tell me how come if you do a search you pull information about him. And why is WellsMotorsports link at the IHRA website. And KillerChihuahua who is your ex wife? --Herstori 03:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 13:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson home, recreation, friends, charity[edit]

  • Delete. There is no need for this article. Instead of an article, this info needs to be summarised on the main article (which it may allready be) in a relevant section. Street walker 11:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if it is properly summarized in the main article (which is currently not the case), there needs to be some place to put the full content, and future additional content. The main article is already large. The topics home, recreation, friends, charity are strongly related, and do not fit very well in the chronologically arranged sections of the main article.--Patrick 13:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no need for this article. Instead of an article, this info needs to be summarised on the main article (which it may allready be) in a relevant section. nihon 11:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC) —The preceding comment was actually added by 71.103.106.156 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC); User:Nihon has no contributions[reply]
  • Merge with Michael Jackson. Andy Saunders 17:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced cruft; I fail to see the point in merging unsourced poorly written content with an article which already has sourcing issues. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Please don't turn Wikipedia into WikiJackson. Keep all relevant material in the article on Jackson and trim it if it is too long. Logophile 02:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful and verfiied. Agreed with Logophile. 23skidoo 04:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no redirect. Totally uncalled for. --kingboyk 05:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely unnecessary, not even worth a merge. Wikipedia is not MJWiki. Stifle 01:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any useful content: such as information regarding his Neverland Ranch.--Count Chocula 10:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was unanimous delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nalxhal[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: there are many papers out there; should we be listing all of them? If there is a prefessional/media response to it, it would be notable. But none is mentioned in the article. Where (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a medium for publication of scholarly pseudoscience articles. --Kinu 20:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not even a "scholarly" article. External link to "journal" indicates that anyone can submit (=self-publish), the journal even touts that it give the author "the opportunity for public presentation of theories, etc. without prior and arbitrary assessment, criticism or rejection by the recipient", ie. not peer reviewed. This article is clearly original research. —ERcheck @ 23:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pseudoscientific fluff per ERcheck, WP:NOR, and WP:BALLS. Barno 23:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Black[edit]

  • Speedy delete– No sources, references. Seems original research. Darwiner111 09:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, individual is clearly notable based on google hits. Unsourced info might need to be trimmed. Or maybe in minute #2 of the article's existence, sources will be added? That's the trouble with slapping an AFD tag on there 1 second after the page is created. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Chistopher Parham. Where (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously it's not notable to play the oboe or even to be a principal player in an orchestra. However, to be principal oboe in these orchestras means that he is one of the very best oboists in the world. Logophile 01:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable oboist with music available from Amazon. [22]. Capitalistroadster 01:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD A7.--Alhutch 17:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Guffey[edit]

Vanity article for unnotable musician. A google search for "Paul Guffey" brings 331 hits including personal pages and this one. Article created by a user that only adds to wikipedia on pages related to Guffey's band Prays -- also up for deletion.[23]] Same user is the only one to edit this page and the only editor to contribute information on pages related to the band. The pages connected to the band Adam Woeger, In The Garden (Prays), Where He Leads Me, Living For Jesus, Very Christmas, Only Believe, Spontaneous Worship, In Your Presence, and Worship sampler are also up for deletion. Every single edit that adds information is the same person on every page linked here. Even the Category "Prays albums" is created by that person. This is pure vanity and self-promotion. A google search ("Adam Woeger" prays)--that is the singer/main member-- brings up 150 hits. Arbustoo 21:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Arbustoo 21:56,
Add speedy tag. Arbustoo 02:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect; I hunted high and low for sources on the article's allegations re his religion, but got zilch, so I'll only merge back the Bahrain incident. Johnleemk | Talk 13:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious beliefs of Michael Jackson[edit]

  • Delete. There is no need for this article. Most of it's speculation. Instead of an article, this info needs a short sentence on the main article in a relevant section. Street walker 11:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The first paragraph is fine and already more than a short sentence. The second can develop.--Patrick 14:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This little article is the result of recovering this and other content deleted by Street walker because he thought the main article was too long, and various moving around. By itself merging back would make sense, but it is silly to move in circles all the time.--Patrick 00:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Michael Jackson. Andy Saunders 17:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above.
  • Delete Why would a person's choice in a religion warrant a Wikipedia article? Ruby 17:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Michael Jackson, although non-notable content should be removed in the process. Where (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional keep if the creator or someone can develop this in the direction they seem to want to go. This could work as a separate article. Daniel Case 20:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Michael Jackson is notable. His religiosity is irrelevant to his fame. It may be a useful short mention in a background section of his article, but as a distinct article it is utter rubbish. --Fuhghettaboutit 20:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Michael Jackson. The man is notable, his religion is not especially and doesn't warrant its own page. -- Mithent 22:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fuhghettaboutit. Pavel Vozenilek 22:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Where are the sources? Currently, I do not see any. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Michael Jackson. It isn't very hard to find information on his religious beliefs so referencing shouldn't be hard. But I think that religious beliefs are important to be mentioned in Jackson's article since it is something that many questions are asked about. So merge anything useful. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not merit its own article. Any relevant and verifiable information on this topic should at best be merged into Michael Jackson. (Comment: Some of the "information" in the article is irrelevant to the topic.) —ERcheck @ 23:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you think merging is a good choice then vote "merge". --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarifiy: The information in this particular article is not sourced in the article, ie. unverified, so delete. If any worthwhile information is verified, it should be merged = "at best" merged. Vote stands as delete. —ERcheck @ 23:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay. Just trying to say here that merge also means delete. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Understood. Nothing in current article is verified, so nothing mergable. —ERcheck @ 00:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful and verified per above. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per above. No need for the religious beliefs of anyone as a separate article. Logophile 01:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge useful and verified information. I'm unaware of any precedent for this sort of article (and if there are any, I'd be in line to AFD them). 23skidoo 04:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge verified and encyclopedic information. If that doesn't pass, delete. Religious beliefs of someone notable for articles or books about religion may merit a separate article, but this isn't the case here. Jonathunder 23:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was unanimous keep. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Blackehart[edit]

Tagged as nn-bio but notability is asserted. Bringing to AfD instead. No vote (actually I'm betting the subject is notable, but haven't time to verify the facts) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He has involvement in 3 blue-linked films. That's enough for me. --kingboyk 03:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep He has over 40 separate entries in different categories on IMDB [24]. --Fuhghettaboutit 20:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Schwarz[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly vanity, definitely not notable. --djrobgordon 17:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So the kid can play chess and checkers Ruby 17:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the picture should not be included, but 30th in an international tornament sounds notable enough to me. Where (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Likely vanity. Searching for +"(tom|thomas) schwarz" +"International Chess Tournament" yields only this article, so it might even be a hoax. --Kinu 19:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unverifiable. —ERcheck @ 23:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only 175 google hits for the jr. tournament itself, and no verifiability for the international one. I've left a note on the user's talk page asking for references, not that I really expect any. Adrian Lamo ·· 23:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Clearly this kid is super awesome and has great potential and needs a dedication like this rooko — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.128.90 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete without prejudice. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thugs Revenge[edit]

1. Future release, so no way to tell if it crosses the 5,000 sales threshold. 2. Doesn't say who the artist is (which probably doesn't matter to a label that is focused on moving "product"). 3. It's an advertisement disguised as an article about a CD. Ruby 17:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: wikipedia is not a crystal ball Where (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per crystal ball, at the least. --Kinu 19:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. It can always be re-created if this turns out to be a huge hit. -- Mithent 22:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I doubt we'll find ourselves recreating this one ... Adrian Lamo ·· 23:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WTF are you guys talking about, just take off the prediction of product sales thing. I dont get why you got to delete the whole thing --68.8.70.214 05:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That is stupid, leave the page, a lot of other artists have pages for their future releases. --209.242.141.25 19:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MOOT. Article was speedy deleted. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 17:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable stock photographers[edit]

Clearly an attempt to create a vanity article by Neil J Bradford (see the article's edit history). Even if it wasn't, a previous AfD debate voted to delete an article with the same title. Delete CLW 17:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was unanimous delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.X[edit]

Google gets all of 294 hits-- this article is the third from the top, and most of them are podcast directories. Notable podcasts usually get 1000+ hits. Unfortunately, Alexa ratings will not help here because he uses a free web host. Ashibaka tock 17:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ruby 17:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There's already a list of Mister Xs that do meet the criteria to be here. This is not one of them. --Kinu 18:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu. Stifle 01:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was unanimous delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensual ignorance[edit]

Neologism, invented in 2004. Google search on the exact term gets 37 hits, a lot of which refer to a poem called To The Death by Lord Brunton, not to this. Francs2000 18:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a neologism. The sole reference provided looks like advertising for the book mentioned therein. --Kinu 20:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism, and appears to be an advert. Stifle 01:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Amcfreely 06:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. MCB 07:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ad-licious. — Indi [ talk ] 12:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was unanimous delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matriculation fetishism[edit]

Neologism. Google hits? Zilch. Ifnord 18:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --W.marsh 18:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Aaron 18:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable neologism. Not worth merging into fetishism (like I had to say that). --Kinu 18:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy BJAODN. Daniel Case 20:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proceed directly to BJAODN. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 21:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's been done. Daniel Case 22:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No Google matches, and sounds rather implausible. -- Mithent 22:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: At least it's a funny hoax. The really funny thing is, I'm sure it's true of someone, somewhere. I just hope it never becomes notable, or I'm ending my education. Adrian Lamo ·· 23:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as stupid but on the plus side, it made me laugh for a full minute. Bobby1011 19:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one of the better hoaxes Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was unanimous delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Republic[edit]

Was proposed for deletion (nomination), but one of the article's primary authors removed the tag. Nevertheless, it's an online rpg played on a forum that claims 83 total players, and doesn't come close to meeting our our notability guidelines. —Cryptic (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No external verifiability. Sam Vimes 18:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Sandstein 20:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imperial delete " ... unlike many other online games, particularly focuses on the development of the characters by means of constant interaction and roleplaying" what? you mean there are RPG's that don't focus on characters, interaction and roleplaying? show me one.
Adrian Lamo ·· 23:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. --Kinu 03:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Vanity. MLA 14:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Percy Snoodle 15:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as soon as possible, I agree with the above. Mstroeck 00:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Halo 2[edit]

Weaselriffic. This is a review of Halo 2, not an article about a controversy. Currently, it's pure original research, and laden with weasel words. Rather than a description of a groundswell of negative criticism, it's a laundry list of complaints, some of which are vague and purely aesthetic (e.g. "Other fans complained that the plot of Halo 2 was less appealing than that of Halo.")

I would suggest that it be merged into Halo 2, but that article is already a trainwreck, and this useless pile of OR and weasel words would do little to improve it. (Halo 2#Criticism needs to be improved, though.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Jadriaen 04:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Nick Y. 04:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated and as nominated twice before. Delete this piece of garbage. Please, I'm sick of seeing it here. Brian G. Crawford 04:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but let's calm down the language. Mangojuicetalk 04:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, OR, and POV. Kevin 04:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, all previous reasons, and all my recent edits on the article and talk page. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kevin's arguments. Colonel Tom 05:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Shall we see if any valid sources can be provided for any of the statements, in which case some of this material could be merged with Halo 2. Presumably there is something credible in it. Wikiquette requested. Tyrenius 06:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; this article has violated content policies literally from day one. After four months and two AfDs, it has yet to find a single reference. Time's up. Melchoir 07:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pathetic Juvenalia. -- GWO
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 13:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge I'm sure you can cite some criticisms and Halo 2 could use them to be NPOV. Are we going to AFD this every month until it finally gets deleted? (Last one closed April 1st, one before that was 10th of February)Kotepho 14:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not a Halo 2 fan, but I like POV OR even less. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a game review site, and Halo 2 is not notable for its criticisms. — Haeleth Talk 14:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others. Content belongs in a gaming forum, not an encyclopedia. Paddles 14:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. I added the noncompliant tag almost three months ago and the article has not improved since. Not a single source for any of the blatantly POV claims in the article. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 14:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOR, POV article, WP:V. --Terence Ong 16:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, up repeatedley, let's just finish it DannyM 19:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subsection in the Halo 2 article is good enough. Jgamekeeper 08:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete AMIB knows his stuff, and I can't but agree that this is useless from an encyclopaedic standpoint, given that it fails numerous policies (starting with the POV title). Just zis Guy you know? 11:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W00t Function[edit]

There are infinitely many mathematical functions. Article does not explain why this one is notable. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 18:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Marskell 09:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colony5 (2nd nomination)[edit]

Previously deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colony5) and undeleted following a DRV consensus. Reposting now, no vote from me. -R. fiend 18:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the person who originally brought it to Deletion Review, Keep due to the appearances on television and media, as well as eastern European touring. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 19:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Coffee 02:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Data Storage Capacity Table[edit]

page duplicates a section from list of numbers, no additional information or value Csari 18:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is likely a markup code test by a new user that was made into an article. --Fuhghettaboutit 20:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See [25] (University of North Carolina). Quite interesting list of Names of Large Numbers, IMO. Camillus (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article, and I agree that as a list, it's redundant. Superm401 - Talk 23:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, test page. Stifle 01:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, this seems to be a test page. Coffee 02:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - Mike Rosoft 22:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Route 12345[edit]

NN webforum, created Jan 31 2006, less than 20 members. Delete "the best online Forum ever created and don't you forget it" by WP:WEB. Kusma (討論) 19:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like vanity/advertising to me. (AfD tag added to page per nom.) --Kinu 19:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD tag had been removed by page author (warned on his talk page). Kusma (討論) 19:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for AfD-related vandalism. Plus they lost me at the first sentence. Daniel Case 20:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or speedy delete if possible. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above.--Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 20:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • d: per nom per nom Zen611 20:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rory096 22:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By the page author's comments on this discussion's talk page, it might make sense to use {{deletedpage}}. A page with this title has been speedied twice before. Kusma (討論) 00:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as creation of previously deleted material. Tagged as such on the page (I also restored the AfD removed yet again by an anon). Is there an admin in the house? :) Turnstep 19:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Some of the comments are made about me, and its also a pretty uninformative definition, out to paint me as a 'dictator' Bantamboy 20:40 5 February 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 07:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katie's Wager[edit]

Appears to be either a hoax or non-notable Choess 19:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom 1996[edit]

  1. More than 300 KB and I don't see how to split it
  2. A collection of external links with no internal inks except in the introductory sentence and in the "See also" heading
  • Delete this ridiculous list. Georgia guy 19:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Statutory instruments are by definition non-notable - if the issue is important an Act of Parliament is required instead. 20:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too large to be of any use. Essentially nothing but a cleaned up fusker of this government site. --Kinu 20:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This list has only just been created (and is still work in progress) - to split up the former parent page List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom. If it is deemed necessary, this year's page can be reasonably split up - perhaps by breaking it up into
  1. 1. 6 month (or a different interval) segments.
  2. 2. By SI number - so grouping perhaps 1-1000, 1001-2000 etc.

These separate pages could then be linked to from each other as a "page 2", "page 3" link etc.

The idea I had was that (eventually - when someone wants to create the pages) the most important/controversial/interesting etc. pieces of legislation could be linked to internally, as well as providing the links to the full-text versions of the legislation (externally). We cannot host the full-text versions here as they are crown copyright. The other items in the list are useful as a resource.

  • Keep this can be tidied up and perhaps put in a more user friendly format. Richard B 20:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the external links are only there to provide full-text versions of the Instruments (as they are Crown Copyright and cannot be reproduced in full here). The list itself of the instruments is not a "mere collection of external links". As I pointed out above, the proposal was to include internal links to the most notable/controversial/interesting etc. instruments, as clearly not all will be worthy of a separate page. Richard B 00:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some SIs are notable but the vast, vast majority are not. The list is already available on the OPSI website. David | Talk 00:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also remember that ALL Wikipedia content is already available at some source. Should we delete everything because it is all available elsewhere? Richard B 00:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, is basically listcruft, with no encyc. nor useful content. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Way too big and beyond the scope of WP. Articles on really significant and notable SIs, yes. A 300k list of a year's worth? No. --kingboyk 04:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopaedic, just listcruft, sadly. Stifle 00:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep SI's are important, and there is no reason to justify deleting them. The list may need to be split up into smaller chunks, but that is no reason to delete the big list before the people putting hard work into creating them have a chance to think of a strategy to present the information in a better way. Kurando | ^_^ 09:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its current form: my work depends on Statutory Instruments but this list is simply too unwieldy to ever be useful. If the list could be categorised, then it might provide a helpful index into the entirely too-huge list which is all that is officially provided. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and related pages: there is one for 1995, 1992, 1996 etc.
  • Keep. Reasons like "this ridiculous list"; "Statutory instruments are by definition non-notable - if the issue is important an Act of Parliament is required instead."; "The list is already available on the OPSI website"; "is basically listcruft, with no encyc. nor useful content" show that those claiming them are either ignorant of Wikipedia's policies or of what SIs are. There are many lists that I would consider "ridiculous" on Wikipedia and yet I have never nominated them for deletion. Claiming deletion on that basis is not in line with Wikipedia policy. Claiming that SIs are by definition non-notable is extremely ignorant. A great deal of important legislation in the UK is promulgated by SIs. For example much of current copyright law, road sign law, standards for road vehicles, and pretty much all EU legislation is implemented via SIs. The SIs with (Amendment) and the like in the title do tend to be less important, but that is not a reason for excluding them from the list. It is a reason for not writing an article about them yes, but not for excluding them from the list. The list on the OPSI website is reproduced here at the moment, but if you take a look at the list you will see that there are many, many, many gaps in the numbering sequence. As Richard B says, this is those SIs published in 1996, which number about 2,100 Instead of there being 2,100 odd SIs, there are a large number of local SIs not listed on the OPSI website. I know of no easily accessible list of those but having one on Wikipedia would be useful for those who try and track legislation. Wikipedia is indeed not merely a collection of external links, but many of those SIs could easily have articles written about them. Failing that they could be redirected to main articles, say about copyright law for example. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and while this list could perhaps be further sub-divided to make it less unwieldy there is no call for deleting it. David Newton 16:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tidy up as per above Jcuk 12:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was copyvio. Johnleemk | Talk 13:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper Hasher[edit]

Delete: advertisement for non-notable software copied from http://www.hyperhasher.com/features.asp; probably by product creator. JonHarder 19:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Garment District (store)[edit]

  • Delete: Apparently just a single clothing store that teenagers like. There's nothing mentioned to distinguish it from the dozen or so similar stores in every mall in the world. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Right now it is distinguishable from all those other stores; "it has an encyclopedia entry!!!!"—not for long. --Fuhghettaboutit 20:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sorry, I should've listed this in the brand new {{prod}} area so we wouldn't need to take this time - but I didn't realize it was there... —Wknight94 (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep The dollar a pound distinguises it. Where else can you find clothing sold at that price? Also see about the buildings historical signifigance Lyo 21:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't get it. If I'm reading their website correctly, there are 22 landmarks in Cambridge alone - a city of about 100,000 people (and this place isn't currently one of them). Imagine how much that number would grow in a city of a couple million. Each needs an article? And is a dollar a pound of some particular significance? Historical maybe? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not very noteworthy in terms of clothing stores, and really only advertises. More of a local interest article than something that belongs on Wikipedia. If this were acceptable, then every mom-and-pop store would get its own article, effectively turning this into the Yellow Pages. --Kinu 23:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This should be kept because where else can you find great clothes super cheap? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.202.22 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per Kinu. Stifle 00:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rattsburg Records[edit]

Non-notable. Record label is only 1/2 years old and only has one artist on it; "Rattsburg Records" receives only a handfull of Google hits, lots of them being dictionary and/or wikipedia-style websites. EdGl 20:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as record label with no apparent notability. Stifle 00:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 19:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-François Porchez[edit]

Non-encylopedic or non-notable. Opes 20:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. 27,000 google hits with full (distinct) name in quotes and 'type.' The same, with "new york times," appears to show multiple mentions in New York Times articles. --Fuhghettaboutit 20:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: The organization he is president of gets almost a quarter-million hits on Google. I moved his presidency - and the basis of his notability - to the front of the article where it should be. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable typographer. Sandstein 22:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He has custom-designed the typeface used by Le Monde. He is also responsible for the typeface used for the signs of the Paris Métro. In addition, he is president of an international organisation for typography, and has received international awards for his work. I find notability rather obvious in this case. For the record, I removed the speedy tag Opes added to this article yesterday. u p p l a n d 23:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Designer of type and president of typography organization. Obviously notable. Logophile 01:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 20:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Edwards, A.K.A. Alberta Slim[edit]

Vanity, Not notable, Original research, Copyvio from http://www.albertaslim.com/aslifest.htm. Delete? OscarTheCattalk 20:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. as per nom. (Opes 20:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete and stamp out; has already been added to February 2. Great story, though. --Mgreenbe 22:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not for memorials or cut-paste essays. --Kinu 23:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete CSD:A8 blatant copyvio, article recently created. Stifle 00:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was copyvio. Johnleemk | Talk 13:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SP Richards[edit]

Delete because it's advertising, and is a copy of the text at http://www.sprichards.com/about/index.php ArglebargleIV 20:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Last Facts[edit]

Delete: This article is noting more than self-promotion by the writer for his book. Notable Last Facts are in no way a legitimate, reconized study. Cdukes 20:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Vanity, advertising for book provided as only reference. Noteworthy as some of these events might be, it still reeks of listcruft. --Kinu 22:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC); updated 03:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No value. Pavel Vozenilek 22:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting. -- Marvin147 23:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable as a societal trend. With more links it could become more than a promotion for the book. These items are constantly popping up in the media now. Logophile 01:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu. Rather messy. Stifle 00:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, this is not a very good reason. Let me clarify. On WP:WWIN, we see that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The page does not appear to belong in an encyclopedia. In addition, it appears to be original research. WP:NOR is an official policy. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. I wish Mr. Brahms the best with all his work, but would recommend he take a step back and allow someone else to consider writing about the concept in the future. Stifle 11:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No personal attacks, please. Stifle 11:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Gmandwb is the primary contributor to this article, and is also the "Mr. Brahms" who coined the term, despite his third-person references above. Stifle 11:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed Vandalism: Sir, please refrain from editing other's posts, especially during a vote. I have reverted the text "Notable Last Facts are in , reconized study." to the original "Notable Last Facts are in no way a legitimate, reconized study." Cdukes 15:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Great article, great topic, an enjoyable read. Is it supposed to be a 'study'? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Gmandwb (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) blanked all the text and moved the page to No name. I have restored it. It is not eligible for speedy deletion by author request as other people have contributed to it. Stifle 22:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was going to vote delete (I hate self-promoting articles) but I'm seeing this article evolve and it's interesting (and notable to boot). As the self-promotion gets more and more watered down I think we'll have an article worthy of Wikipedia. Ifnord 19:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete; no rationale provided to keep beyond "let's include everything we can!" AfD is a debate, not a vote. Johnleemk | Talk 13:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hootenanny (store)[edit]

  • Delete: Non-notable clothing store that sounds like half the clothing stores in every mall in the world. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In its current form, the article doesn't do anything to distinguish it from any other "alternative" clothing store. Google revealed nothing of value for inclusion to merit a keep. --Kinu 22:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. -Chairman S. 04:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Newbury Comics, the corporate parent, which is quite notable as a major regional record store chain. Haikupoet 06:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'comment Do you have a source for this? I've never heard this before Lyo 04:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The store clearly exists. Kurt Weber 18:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Exists isn't the issue. Is it encyclopedia-worthy? If so, then I'll get in my car and start pumping in dozens of clothing store articles before I get to the county line. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Go right ahead. Everything that exists is indeed worthy of an article. Kurt Weber 23:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Go for it man. If it has any potential of helping anyone what harm does it do in existing? Lyo 22:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: The Inclusionist Mantra. Very well recited. I don't buy it until I start seeing someone including everything they see - which few inclusionists seems to do. I want every grain of sand, every 60MPH street sign, every container of every brand of strawberry jelly — everything. They all exist. If you have two copies of a 1965 Felix Millan baseball card and one has a crease and one doesn't - that's two articles. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Deletionists don't delete everything they see. So why would inclusionists include everything they see. Lyo 03:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: I was referring to Kurt Weber's "everything that exists is indeed worthy of an article". So let's get busy creating. Soon, Wikipedia will the most boring site on the web. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment Maybe I do this diffrentlly from everyone. But when I'm lookiing for an article on wikipedia I run a search. I don't look through all of the articles. So the ones I don't care about don't really affect me. So I doubt more articles would make this the most boring site. Lyo 03:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wknight94's comment. Stifle 00:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It may exist, but it seems totally non-notable. This was the perfect articel for {{prod}}. DES (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I did and it was de-prodded. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kurt Weber Lyo 22:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Newbury Comics per Haikupoet, or keep. Kappa 03:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, no claim to notability. No merge, no redirect. Ifnord 18:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 18:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Qadir Al Rassam[edit]

Doesn't really assert much notability. I tried researching it but I'm not finding much [26] -Doc ask? 20:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails the Google test with a whopping six results. Non-notable. --Kinu 23:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quick look at Google shows a lot more than six results. Non-notableness not proven. Catchpole 00:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Also known as Abdel Kader al Rassam. I've added some info to the article (which had been a copyvio). Can anyone sort out the formatting of the Arabic? Dlyons493 Talk 00:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After Dlyons clean-up this looks a lot better. And that name produces a lot more googles. Still don't know whther he is notable, but since I know I don't know, changing my opinion to abstain.--Doc ask? 00:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks like a good article now, and to have been the first to introduce a new art form into a country is quite a good claim to notability, I'd say. Thanks to Dlyons493. Lukas (T.|@) 16:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP So, it does not have that many google hits, we can not base information on google, anyone with information on Abdul Qadir Al Rassam, should just provide a book reference.Saigon76nyc 14:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was unanimous delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tzveta Dmitrieva Pokrovska[edit]

Non-famous person. I prodded it, but it was removed. Only claim to fame is 4th place at ISEF. BrokenSegue 21:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete They removed an undergrad article from prod? In that event, I'm girlcotting prod. Ruby 21:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. However, the claim to fame is having an asteroid named after her, which in my book is plenty to justify the removal of the {{prod}} tag. I think the process worked quite well here. An article on the asteroid itself would be more appopriate, if (as it says in the history) the asteroid folks want one. bikeable (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable undergraduate who's trying to blow her own trumpet. Masud 23:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's quite amusing coming from Masud Rahman. You seem to be very good at the trumpet.
      • I'd like to point out, at this point, that the article Masud Rahman was not created nor edited by me (this can be corroborated by looking at the article's subsequent AfD debate, since I was not involved in that debate in any way whatsoever), and therefore the implication above that I had vainly promoted myself in Wikipedia is utterly false. Masud 03:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hardly notable. I know plenty of former ISEF competitors, and I don't think they should have their own Wikipedia page. Reeks of vanity. I also doubt the asteroid itself is anything notable and not worthy of a rewritten page; otherwise we'd have tens of thousands of pages on every single discovered asteroid. --Kinu 23:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Pilatus 21:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avi 04:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under WP:CSD A7 and so tagged. If for some reason not speedy deleted, delete as non-notable. DES (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I think Intel International Science and Engineering Fair should contain a list of prize winners, if anyone knows where to find that. I'll remove speedy because it does assert claim of notability. enochlau (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was unanimous delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image treason[edit]

Was marked for Proposed deletion (nomination), but Kmweber removed the tag without comment. The article claims they've released one EP, and doesn't assert anything else that would meet WP:MUSIC. —Cryptic (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Amazon.com is not selling their album and Google returns only 11 distinct hits searching name of band and name of album--Fuhghettaboutit 22:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet notability per WP:MUSIC. --Kinu 22:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu. Stifle 00:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-compulsory support criterion[edit]

See its talk page. -- Dissident (Talk) 21:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as obscure and unreferenced. WP:NOR. Stifle 00:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ifnord 18:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point No Point Treaty[edit]

Was marked for Proposed deletion (nomination), but Kmweber removed the tag without comment. This is source material that's already on Wikisource, with zero encyclopedic content. —Cryptic (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if article already exists on WikiSource per nom. --Kinu 22:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Don't end it, mend it Ruby 00:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, already on Wikisource, no need for it here. Stifle 00:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't on Wikisource because I totally re-wrote it as an encyclopedia article, and I didn't transwiki it to wikisource. Please read the articles before voting for them. Ruby 00:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Kissell[edit]

This page is about a candidate seeking to oust an incumbent in Congress; he hasn't been elected yet. The article was deleted in November, but a quick Google search now does prove that he's running for a seat in the House of Representatives. I'm not sure of the past precedents of political candidates who don't hold any offices right now, but WP:BIO states that generally only "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature" and "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage" should be included. If he's elected, we should definitely include an article, but until then, I'm not too sure. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. With 4 articles on Google News, two of which are the same one, he has not received "significant press coverage." Rory096 22:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His political fame is prospective. WP:Not a crystal ball --Fuhghettaboutit 22:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a soapbox for promoting a political candidacy. —ERcheck @ 23:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2006 U.S. House of Representatives election, N.C. 8th District. -- Mwalcoff 23:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save -- Sorry if I'm commenting out of turn or incorrectly here as a new contributor, but could the "kissell in the news" external link to 10 or more articles not be considered 'significant press coverage for this local political figure'. I would never recommend deleting his primary opponents bio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Dunn, but I'm curious why Kissell's is marked for deletion and Tim Dunn's is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.213.204.98 (talk • contribs)
    • Welcome to Wikipedia! We generally don't include biographies on politicians unless they recieve significant press attention or until they've been elected. Someone running for an office doesn't guarantee that they should recieve an article; once s/he is elected, then things may change. The reason the other one isn't marked for deletion is because no one has noticed it until now; I'm going to nominate it for deletion right now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Come back if/when elected. Eusebeus 19:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of significant notability. If elected, restore/rewite. DES (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DaShadyBoard[edit]

Was marked for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (nomination), but the tag was removed by Tony Sidaway, who noted that the forum claims 10,000 members. However, Google can only find 13 unique hits, and no non-trivial sources independent of the forum itself. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. —Cryptic (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No independent indication of notability. --Fuhghettaboutit 22:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sounds more like advertising. --Kinu 22:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Sandstein 22:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per 10,000 members (800,000 posts). —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-05 09:27Z
  • Weak Delete as unverifiable outside its own site, perhaps. Stifle 00:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence of broader notability. FCYTravis 07:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was uh...what Herostratus said. Johnleemk | Talk 13:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Association[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Hbackman 22:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Shivvers[edit]

Delete: Defunct band. Released one single and disbanded. Broken external link and not notable. Craigy (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. --Kinu 22:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete CSD A7 Ruby 04:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, per Ruby. Stifle 00:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was unanimous delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Davis[edit]

Unnotable/vanity religious musician does not meet wikipedia criteria for inclusion. Arbustoo 22:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 07:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Mclagan[edit]

Was marked for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, but the tag was removed by a user who appeared to suggest that being an Royal Academy member makes one notable. Is that so? Sandstein 22:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a member of the Royal Academy doesn't mean you get too many relevant results in the Google test. Seems non-notable to me. --Kinu 23:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According the the Royal Academy website, "At any one time there are no more than 80 Royal Academicians, all eminent practising artists". This might qualify one for notability. HOWEVER, David McIagan is NOT listed on as a member of the Royal Academy. The rest of the claims in the article are not notable. —ERcheck @ 23:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. And I don't want to know what Inflatable Creative produces - I just hope his namesake, the Rev David McLagan of East Kilbride, would approve. Dlyons493 Talk 00:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, borderline speedy as {{nn-bio}}. Stifle 00:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I think it is {{nn-bio}} James084 01:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Unanimous Keep. Peyna 17:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aside[edit]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Hbackman 23:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it's a dicdef. --Kinu 23:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Keep per Where's expansion. Definitely more than a dicdef now, and a useful article at that. --Kinu 02:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: while before, I would agree that it should be deleted, I just expanded the article to the point where I feel it is more than just a dicdef. Where (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Changed my mind after I saw what Where did for it (good job!). I hadn't thought that something like this could be expanded, but obviously I was wrong. Hbackman 00:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The original article was a keep, but it's now a strong keep with Where's contribution. Ruby 04:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was unanimous delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biromash[edit]

non-notable neologism, 111 (eleventy-one) unique ghits. WP is not dictionary or WP:NFT Delete Makemi 23:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as neologism and advertising. Note that originator of the term has the biro-art.com website that markets "biromash" art. —ERcheck @ 00:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Ruby 00:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 00:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was unanimous delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediacom north[edit]

delete: non notable company JulesH 23:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable, WP:VSCA. Should've been {{prod}}ed because it's just that awful. --Kinu 23:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. EdGl 05:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 00:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 but encourage cleanup. Ifnord 18:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BSD and GPL licensing[edit]

Delete. The article is an original research essay comparing the two licenses. There are already adequate articles on the licenses themselves. Superm401 - Talk 23:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not for original research. Both the BSD and GPL pages already have sufficient and encyclopedic information regarding intercompatibility. --Kinu 23:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If there's something wrong with the article, that isn't grounds for deletion, it's grounds for repair and work. This article can exist in a sourced and referenced way; there is undoubtedly lots of material Out There that can be sourced for such an article. Dysprosia 23:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would usually say to delete this kind of languishing stuff, but I feel like being optimistic about this one and believing the present signs of life are going to lead to improvement, or at least a decision. If it doesn't change in some way (rewritten, decision the topic is better discussed elsewhere) within the next couple of weeks then I'll say delete it, but not right now. NicM 00:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: If Wikipedia has room for articles comparing fighter jets, it has room for articles comparing open source licences. --AlexWCovington (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. as above -- Marvin147 05:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, essay. WP is not replacement for GNU FAQ. Comparison of aircrafts can be based on exact parameters, this is just someone's school work. Pavel Vozenilek 05:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is entirely possible to compare two things in a NPOV manner. The talk page indicates a recognition of the POV problems and active work on resolving it. Turnstep 20:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but cleanup. GPL & BSD license are two of the most popularly debated licenses. The topic is notable, but the article needs to be made NPOV, wfyed, citations added, etc. --Karnesky 20:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The way it reads, I think it should be scrapped and started a new, I dislike it's vibe. 65.94.58.104 03:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think a comparison of open source licenses is worthwhile, but this is terribly written and there's no reason to limit such a comparison to just two licenses (even two of the most popular). --Craig Stuntz 15:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly rename and expand to compare with other licenses. Kappa 03:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Straight to the point without endless implications. Maybe just a little bit shorter. --212.98.173.72 10:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Gear Solid PSP[edit]

Orphaned AfD by Godzilla. Tagging and opening the process for this user. --Kinu 23:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thanks Kinu, but I believe this article should be deleted because there is already another page on the subject that is much more reliable and is updated more frequently. It is also linked on the index table found on all the other Metal Gear-affiliated pages. The alternate article can be found there -> Metal Gear Solid (PSP). --Godzilla 4 February 2006

  • Redirect to proper article. youngamerican (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see that the latter page mentioned is also up for AfD, but is leaning toward being kept. This begs the question: is there any opinion or precedent one way or another either to or not to redirect Metal Gear Solid PSP to Metal Gear Solid (PSP)? --Kinu 00:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the version with the parenthesis seems to fit better into the naming conventions 'round here, IMO. youngamerican (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. However, should one of these be kept the other should be retained as a redirect. --kingboyk 01:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —ERcheck @ 02:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 03:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise, the band[edit]

Fails music group guidelines. Google search for Paradise "Carl Kristiansen" has zero hits. The article is likely vanity as it is almost identical to the user page of its author, User:Paradise, the band. Scott Davis Talk 23:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete one single that no-one has heard does not make notability. Camillus (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Googling for "Paradise" + any of the names yields zero results. Sounds like total vanity. Not even worth a userfy. --Kinu 23:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as defunct band. Stifle 00:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_4&oldid=1116878779"