Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 9 January 11 >

January 10[edit]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE, Babajobu 11:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odalisque (song)[edit]

Non-notable; the information relevant to the topic would be a stub-length article --Fermatprime 00:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as non-notable band. —Cleared as filed. 02:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stands Forever[edit]

delete non-notable band with no commercial albums and no claims outside estonia Drdisque 00:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom; I will add db-band. VT hawkeyetalk to me 00:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whatever. --Modemac 00:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, nn band. LordViD 00:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Non-notable. *drew 01:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE, Babajobu 11:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GWYF[edit]

Delete non-notable group of kids Drdisque 00:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete doesn't quite meet speedy criteria, but nn definately. - FrancisTyers 00:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austin 00:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)SirAus Sorry, but I beleive it entirely depends on what one defines by non-notable. This group is one of the most widely known reenacting groups in Virginia. I'm new here, so I don't really understand the criteria for deletion or non-deletion. Is it because this group isn't known outside of the reenacting arena or what?

  • Delete as non-notable biography. Why doesn't it qualify for speedy? I don't see any assertions of importance in this article about a group of people. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-10 00:48Z
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 01:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination, nn. *\o/* Dustimagic *\o/* 03:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is an article about Historical reenactment I'd vote merge with that rather than lose the page entirely.Jcuk 08:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having just come across Comparison_of_historical_reenactment_groups I vote Keep as there seems to be a precedent already Jcuk 08:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Werdna648T/C\@ 08:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep, according to the article Jcuk mentioned we've got several articles reenactment groups. I'm not sure what would make them notable, so I'll go hunt for mentions in local newspapers, but age alone is a bad indicator for deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 11:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no independent sources on which to base an article. Apart from their own websites, found nothing on Google but directory entries, listing in a local paper (which confirms their existence but nothing else), and the blog of someone who joined them. Notability is comparable to school/college clubs and garage bands, which are almost always deleted. --Malthusian (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment school/college clubs and garage bands are ten a penny - can we say the same about historical re-enactment groups? - FrancisTyers 20:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-significant, Vanity article—LeFlyman 15:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, someone who knows how PLEASE fix the picture. (Yes, I know I could try and go learn how...) --Samuel J. Howard 16:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not exactly sure what you wanted done, but I've cleaned up the page and added a caption to the picture. Turnstep 20:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn per above. Eusebeus 17:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn per nom Mushintalk 19:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it has many entries on Google and is locally notable. -- Eddie 00:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-bio. --Terence Ong Talk 13:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» T | C 17:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as this article is non-notable. SycthosTalk 02:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 11:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick blake[edit]

Person doesn't exist. No Google results, creating user User:Justlovely attempted to add him to Labrador City, Newfoundland and Labrador as close loser of a mayoral race that Newfoundland and Labrador municipal elections, 2005 and this forum post say was won by acclamation. I have rv'd the Lab City edits. VT hawkeyetalk to me 00:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable, possible hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-10 01:02Z
  • Delete unless a good source can be provided to verify these claims... --W.marsh 01:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems very, very, very much like a hoax, or a piece of character-assassination rubbish which some nick blake did not do. It is highly unlikely that a strong NAZI party candidate would not get anything in the news. Blnguyen 03:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination (no Google results), non-existent person. *\o/* Dustimagic *\o/* 03:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Quarl Werdna648T/C\@ 08:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Perhaps Nick blake is Justlovely? --Eddie 11:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Quarl Mushintalk 19:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ...seems to me to be creative fictional writing, could not find any hard evidence that such a person existed in the capacity as described in the article. HJKeats 13:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, unverifiable, probably hoax. Stifle 23:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity, nn-bio. --Terence Ong Talk 13:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely unverifiable. I also can't find a "Labrador National Socialist Party". Grandmasterka 06:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 11:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress; Concerning non-Importation and a General Convention; and Declaration of the causes and necessities of taking up arms[edit]

Delete all. Source text - already in Wikisource or moved there. BD2412 T 01:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination, yep already in Wikisource. *\o/* Dustimagic *\o/* 03:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD:A5 --Pboyd04 04:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete technically we can't speedy A5 until after an AfD, even if text has already been transwiki'ed Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Werdna648T/C\@ 08:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if its deleted, can the link to the wikisource article remain? -- Astrokey44|talk 12:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, here's an option: redirect all of these titles to an article titled Documents of the American Revolution, and have that article contain a brief description of each and a wikisource link. BD2412 T 14:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Mushintalk 19:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong Talk 13:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuriko Yamaguchi (sculptor)[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Johndarrington as nn-bio, but it's an artist. Also the original author was User:Petaholmes, an administrator. Brought to AfD instead. howcheng {chat} 01:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see how being an artist automatically makes a person notable. Neither do I understand why created by an administrator is relevant. jmd 01:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being an artist is not itself notability, but it is a claim to notability, which is all that is required to prevent being a speedy delete. And the fact that it was created by an administrator is relevant because we can assume that user has a grasp of the policies which apply here, although that doesn't trump a consensus we find here. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I refute your statement that being an artist equates to a "claim to notibility" --- at least notable enough for a wp article. There's an artist in all of us --- it's just that some are more artistic than others. Or perhaps you mean that it must be a paid artist, in which case a) you're discriminating against some very talented (and notable) unpaid amatuer artists; and b) why can't this apply to other jobs (doctors, laywers, butchers, dustmen ....) ? If the article said that "YY is a notable sculptor", then that would be different, but the article doesn't say this. jmd
        • I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that Yamaguchi is necessarily notable. However, speedy criterion A7 requires that there be no claim to notability at all. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Exactly. As deletion is supposed to be a serious matter, I'm pretty strict with the application of the speedy criteria. A7 is supposed to be limited to those with no claim of notability whatsoever, "Joe Schmoe lives in New York City and drinks lots of beer," for example. howcheng {chat} 16:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Now that this article has been expanded, I'm withdrawing my deletion vote. But I'd like to point out that when I listed this article, there was indeed no claim of notability whatsoever. The article listed the person's name, occupation and education --- nothing else. What if your hypothetical article said "Joe Schmoe attended New York University, works for as a town planner for the City Council and likes to drink beer," would that have made it notable? jmd
  • Keep and expand. Seems clearly notable, even if the article doesn't show that yet. u p p l a n d 01:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you say notability is "clear"? What makes it clear to you? jmd
      • Based on a Google search and looking through a selection of the hits, showing her being exhibited at major museums. u p p l a n d 08:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This artist is definitely notable -- even a Google search makes that clear. N Shar 02:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Weak delete: doesn't seem quite notable enough after comparison with standards for bands, etc.[reply]
    • But the article doesn't assert that. Therefore it's a valid speedy candidate. If this person is indeed notable, then the article should be expanded, giving reasons for notability. Otherwise it should be deleted. jmd
  • Delete [This] google search result just doesn't scream out notability unless I am missing something, in which case let me know and I am happy to change my vote. Eusebeus 02:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to Keep - this is hardly an artist of much note, and the padded CV posted by Pburka contains a lot of shows of largely indecipherable notbaility, but her inclusion in a few galleries of note means she meets the threshold for inclusion. Eusebeus 18:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • After looking through about 10 pages of Google hits I have decided that her notability is not quite high enough to warrant inclusion, so I have changed my vote. However, I do think that to say immdeiately "nn" is to ignore the full story. Also note that if this Yuriko Yamaguchi is not notable enough for inclusion, the other one probably is not either. N Shar 02:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please note that I didn't say "this person is not notable". I said this "is an article about a real person or persons that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject". There is a difference. jmd
  • Keep and expand. http://www.koplindelrio.com/yamaguchi/yamaguchires.html provides an impressive list of exhibitions. Pburka 03:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on references from Pburka. -- JJay 04:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in light of Pburka's list. Impressive is right. ×Meegs 06:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you basing this impression on quality or quantity? I'm not an artist of any sort, so I can't comment on the prestige of these various awards, or the reputability of the awarding institutions. But my own CV is equally as long, so does that qualify me for a wp bio? jmd
      • I'm not familiar with most of these galleries, no, but 30 solo exhibitions throughout the US (plus a few in Japan) is, to me, exceedingly notable. ×Meegs 07:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. JMD, if your résumé is as impressive as this, you qualify for a biography on Wikipedia in my book. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above Jcuk 08:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is not the run-of-the-mill teenage vanity article, a few seconds of googling indicates some notability, and it is an article created in good faith by an established user. As I have repeatedly pointed out in the discussions on academics, I also think we need to ask: is this person really less notable than the least notable professional baseball or hockey player who would be included according to our current notability criteria? Is an artist who is represented in several public museum collections, has had numerous exhibitions at both museums and private galleries (who presumably expect either some income from sales or to enhance their own prestige by exhibiting a certain artist), and has had a large number of articles or reviews written about her or her work in major newspapers and art publications really less notable than some 22-year old who has just played hockey in the NHL for a year? u p p l a n d 08:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is indeed an interesting topic for discussion. The crux is, that notable is not the same as noteworthy. For example, Martin Bryant is certainly more notable than (say) Frits Zernike, but IMHO less noteworthy. I would certainly agree that the huge majority of sports personalities are totally unworthy of any special notice (what's so clever about kicking a ball around?) but that's just my POV. That fact remains that the world has and does take notice of many of these persons who have not managed to outgrow their teenage infatuations (or have found a way to make money from them), and are therefore by definition notable. I'm not saying that this isn't a very sad inditement on society, but that's just my POV. jmd
  • Keep per above.

Werdna648T/C\@ 09:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep & Expand If you don't let a small article stay how can it ever be added to? -- Cogsy 11:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 12:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep. She's in the Smithsonian people! --Samuel J. Howard 16:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , notable enough Mushintalk 19:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has works in major museums, large number of independent google hits, many substantial. | Klaw ¡digame! 19:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This article has strong potential, including possibility of adding photos of her works. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 20:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant contemporary artists represented in several imporant collections. --nixie 22:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her work is in major galleries. Now let's see some photos! --kingboyk 23:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I was just looking at something of hers in NMWA this afternoon, funnily enough. And she's made it into at least one fairly notable magazine (there was a good profile in Washingtonian a few months back). Definitely notable enough for a keep.--AlbertHerring 02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 02:14Z
  • Keep and expand. Entry on Artcyclopedia.com, exhibits in 2 significant galleries are notability enough for an article Cactus.man ✍ 15:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, notable enough. --Terence Ong Talk 13:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator and moved. — Seven Days » talk 06:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aviara, California[edit]

(Since I nominated this article, I abstain). Consider deleting this article about a neighborhood in Carlsbad, California. Essentially, it contains the exact same information that the Carlsbad article has about the neighborhood, except for two sentences about its latitude and longitude coordinates and what public schools are available. Further, both pieces of information can easily be added to the Carlsbad article, like this: — Seven Days » talk 01:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps move to Aviara, Carlsbad, and redirect that to Carlsbad, California? Seems convoluted I realize, but the former is (as far as I know) the correct naming format for a US neighborhood article, and since this a verifiable neighborhood, I see no need to delete it. If it can't be expanded into a useful article right now though, sure, redirect... but it's a useful redirect and could easilly be expanded someday. --W.marsh 01:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, if this really is a census-designated place, shouldn't it be kept as a seperate article? That's what the overwhelming precedent is for CDPs. From the Louisville article though, I realize census designations can be very confusing! --W.marsh 01:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, it isn't. Go to American Factfinder and submit a quary for Aviara, California on the main page. There are no results. I don't know who came up with the 1.6 km² area, but in any case, it seemed reasonable enough for me to add it to the main Carlsbad article (without the false claim that it was a CDP). Good luck on your law studies/profession. — Seven Days » talk 01:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then I stand by my initial recommendation... delete this but perhaps a properly named redirect would be useful. Thanks. --W.marsh 02:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • For clarity, I have emphasized the words "delete" and "redirect" in your post. — Seven Days » talk 04:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under precedent. Gazpacho 02:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under precedent. CDPs get their own articles, that's established. VT hawkeyetalk to me 04:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that Aviara is not a CDP; see the above conversation with User:W.marsh. I will remove that claim from the article so that it is not as misleading. — Seven Days » talk 04:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to have some independent notability. Move to "Aviara, Carlsbad, California" to indicate its status as a neighborhood of a city. -Will Beback 05:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 01:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible one[edit]

500 results for company name paired with one founder There's not much info on this company, so it probably doesn't have much of a market presence. That alone may not be enough to delete but PAIRED with the advertising tone, this article should be deleted.

Lotsofissues 01:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — Other then the words "well-liked" (which I have removed) I didn't see too much evidence of POV. If you disagree, please specify what aspects of the article seem to be so. — Seven Days » talk 04:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the first paragraph: "Now one of the most respected companies in BMX, Terrible One continues to supply riders worldwide with quality bike parts and inspiration." How is it worthy of the superlative, "most respected", if no one discusses the brand? And then there's the sentimentality, "worldwide with quality bike parts and inspiration"...read on--It's a long advertisement. Lotsofissues 06:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have tried to neutralise the tone a bit, but know nothing about the subject, so no vote Jcuk 08:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads like an ad, no claim to meeting WP:CORP. Werdna648T/C\@ 09:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Werdna648 doesn't meet notability criteria under WP:CORP. Atrian 12:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite casual tone 1st paragraph, rest of article is far too technical Mushintalk 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. See [1] for some indication of market presence. Niche product, but appears prominent in that niche. If any BMXer here gives me an authoritative statement that this is not so I will change to delete. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. --Terence Ong Talk 13:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The owners seem to be notable riders in the BMX scene, particularly Taj Mihelich, with outlets such as ESPN noting that "Taj Mihelich isn't a name many people outside of the BMX world know. But if you ask most serious riders who has most influenced them (and BMX in general) the past few years, Taj's name would be near the top of every list". If they are designing (and riding) their own frames, that's got to be notable too. A recent Terrible One video apparently featured some of "BMX's most influential and legendary riders". The company, and their key product, the Barcode, seem to have a good reputation. I think we need to be careful when looking at notability within niche markets, and I don't think we should be discounting niche products solely on the basis of the amount of web hits they get. The content of some of those hits suggests to me that this subject is notable within that field, and I think it would be a shame to lose one of the few articles we have in this area. The article should, incidentally, be moved to Terrible One if it survives this AfD. - N (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pants pants revolution[edit]

Non-notable bot Ezeu 01:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 02:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was hoping for a good bjaodn candidate here, but alas it isn't meant as a hoax... (ESkog)(Talk) 02:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Great name, though. Pburka 03:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree, great name. If the 'automated humor' actually worked, it might be noteworthy. Wisco 03:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. funny name though *\o/* Dustimagic *\o/* 03:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the "automated humour" program actually worked, we would soon see a BJAODNbot creating lots of patent nonsense for us to delete. Or has that already happened? Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Was hoping for BJAODN fodder as well, but was sadly disappointed. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Werdna648T/C\@ 09:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Mushintalk 19:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable chatbot. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 02:15Z
  • BJAODN seems to be the only beneficiary possible. Stifle 23:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong Talk 13:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was MERGE with afro, Babajobu 12:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewfro[edit]

Fails WP:V and WP:CITE. Relatively low number of Google hits makes this a violation of Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms as well. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, neologism. gren グレン 02:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Transiki (wiktionary) / Neutral, a google books search produced some. Problem is they aren't about what Jewfro is and won't help to write an article. More of a dict-def. gren グレン 12:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hopelessly POV article on a neologism. N Shar 02:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article no longer POV. Where (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above. Blnguyen 03:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not a neologism, I have heard this term many times in real life, it just isn't oft-used online. Certainly the article needs some work, but we aren't discussing the content, we are discussing the topic. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Very well known concept that has been around for years, or at least since the 1970s. Widely used in print as attested by many sources. Examples can be seen here [2]. -- JJay 04:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I question the Amazon search results as the basis to Keep this article. The results show how many times a word was used anywhere in any of the hundreds of thousands (or is it millions?) of quotes from books listed on Amazon. Just because a word is used in a book, or 30 books, does not make it notable. Second, regarding the claim that it has been "very well known" since the 1970s, again I disagree. People can, and often do write about the 1970s using terms from the current era. It's necessary to see the entire context. Crunch 13:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The results are impressive because most books are not full-text searchable through Amazon and the feature is generally only available for the most recent books. Hence, books from the 90s and earlier are not going to produce many hits and, in any case, are frequently out of print. Regarding the dating of the term, I’ve found the concept, i.e. “the Jewish afro” going back to 1970. -- JJay 14:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Amazon search also doesn't differentiate among words used in dialogue and in other ways. All kinds of non-sensical, slang and odd words are used in dialoge. I think it's important to understand the context and not just focus on the raw numbers. Crunch 16:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because a word is used in a book, or 30 books, does not make it notable. Perhaps not, but it does establish quite clearly that it is not a neologism. Turnstep 20:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JJay's Amazon Search link. Cleanup, too.--SarekOfVulcan 04:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. --Carnildo 04:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Afro for now. If sufficient detail (backed up by reputable sources, of course) emerges, consider splitting it off again. This is a legit term and not too much of a neologism. Friday (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Par JJay's resoning. (Signed: J.Smith) 05:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. OK, it's not a new-coined word, but this article basically amounts to "some Jews have curly hair", as astounding as that is. Really, there's just about nothing else that could be said about the "Jewfro".--Pharos 06:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge as per Pharos - thanks to JJay for pointing that out... WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Merge into Afro. Andrew Levine 08:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JJay Werdna648T/C\@ 09:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Transwiki to wiktionary. -- Eddie 11:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I seem to recall the term being used in The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Once. I'm abstaining to see if anyone thinks that's notable enough to keep/transwiki. Confusing Manifestation 11:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Are all comments heard in popular movies, notable? I'm not tried to be snide, just asking. Crunch 13:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as anti-Semitic neologism. Atrian 12:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with afro; a pretty well known term in my social circles. I know some people who have one. Cigarette 12:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with afro. Not enough information for its own article -- Astrokey44|talk 12:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I disagree that it has been around since the 70s in any use other than as a minor slur or slang. It has only come into widespread use in recent years due to its use in popular culture. The problem is there is no easy way to define it -- must someone be Jewish to have one? How do you define who is a Jew, etc. It's not equivalent to Afro, and I'm not convinced that it's derivative in any notable way. Crunch 13:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Afro MitchellStirling 14:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs to be merged with Afro I suppose, unless someone can expand or explain how to expand this beyond a stub with verifiable, useful content. As has been said, it's hard to see this being more than a dicdef. --W.marsh 15:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Afro per above suggestions. Eusebeus 16:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Afro per above. Youngamerican 17:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Afro; the distinction is somewhat arbitrary. Phoenix-forgotten 18:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I agree. I've heard countless similar variations depending on the ethnicity of the curly-haired individual, including Jewfro and Anglo
  • Merge as long as it doesn't open the floodgates for more neologism-haircuts on WP Mushintalk 19:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete as per W. Marsh above. Turnstep 20:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Afro.Keep: This article now has enough content to stand alone Where (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Afro per above. --Revolución (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Afro per JJay's cleanup as a subsection, not a hasty extra sentance it is now. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Afro. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 02:17Z
  • Keep I have heard of this before and came to it curious about the origin of the term and comments about what it was. It could stand to be a bit longer. --Stilanas 15:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with cleanup. Deborah-jl Talk 16:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. Sceptre (Talk) 20:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. -Sean Curtin 03:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. --Terence Ong Talk 14:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ---Why does anyone feel it should be merged with Afro? That is a haircut that is attributed to African-Americans, while JewFro is attributed to Jews. My point being that they are distinctly different styles so if you merge this into Afro, then it stands to logic that EVERY hairstyle should be merged into Afro. 24.187.38.113 22:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)GabeKaplan[reply]
Not really. People are just saying that a Jewfro is a substyle of an Afro and that Jewfro would not make a good stand-alone article since there is not enough material for it. Where (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and put a mention in the article on the Afro. Wikipedia isn't a slang dictionary, and even if the term is well-established (I'm not convinced of this,) there isn't enough subject here for a real article. Isomorphic 02:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pov neologism Dakota ~ ε 08:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This is a well-established term, but I hesitate to keep it as its own article. Grandmasterka 06:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Isomorphic; Please state exxactly how much information or how many words an article must have for YOU to consider it a "real article". Otherwise your comment really has no basis.


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


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DarkZero[edit]

nn site, does not meet WP:WEB; Alexa Rank 500K+. Delete.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 02:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Parks[edit]

Non notable college football player for a Division II school, unless he wins awards or reach the pros which is unlikely, Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 02:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Franklin Parks was ineligble this season he will play in the spring He never ran cross country.his highest ranking was being 66th in the state of FL by rivals.com in the preseason before he got hurt.He played in the Dade Vs Broward Football game.He signed late Thats why he has no number at JSU but he is on campus.I have seen this kid play since my son went to the same high school as him as i am a JSU alum the kid can play anywhere on the field excludin playing on the line.hey look

http://rivals100.rivals.com/viewprospect.asp?pr_key=29753 http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=376&p=8&c=1&nid=1705237 --Ray 10:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 02:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Piccadilly 02:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination, nn. *\o/* Dustimagic *\o/* 03:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete NN-Bios can be speedied under CSD A7 Werdna648T/C\@ 09:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They can. But who decides college all football players are non-notable? The nominator could potentially have overlooked major press coverage on this person which easily turns around a deletion debate. - Mgm|(talk) 11:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Mushintalk 19:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, and tagged as such. Google only shows this player in roster listings and in recruiting databases as a high schooler. His highest recognition as yet appears to be playing in a cross-county game between Dade and Broward high school all-stars, not nearly notable. Nearly every scholarship college football player in America matches these criteria. VT hawkeyetalk to me 21:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Mgm says, this is not a speedy candidate, so I've removed the speedy tag. Delete, however. howcheng {chat} 21:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom --kingboyk 23:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions.
  • Comment: As indicated on Talk:Franklin Parks, it's not clear to me which institution this person is in. Since nobody else brought it up, I suppose its obvious to everybody else. Could somebody make a small fix to the article, to simply point to the correct university. --Rob 01:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable biography. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 02:19Z
  • Comment: It now seems it must be Alabama's JSU, so I changed the article to reflect that. Can people please indicate if they agree, or disagree with this. If I've made some serious mistake, then revert me, and put in the correct info. --Rob 03:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I've not been able to verify any of the information is correct. I'm a JSU fan (class of '03), attended every home game in 2005, and don't remember this guy. It's shame; we needed a good DB. The ESPN reference must be an error. He's not listed on the roster at the official JSU site, or on the one at Florida's Jacksonville University. Jax42 21:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SI has the same mention of him. I notice there's no number assigned to him. Maybe he was selected, at some early stage, but didn't make it to the field. Anyways, at this point, I figure I don't have to be a football expert to know, this person is not famous. In hindsight, instead of trying to add context to the article, I should have tagged it as {{db-empty}}, for lack of context. --Rob 22:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Franklin Parks was ineligble this season he will play in the spring He never ran cross country.his highest ranking was being 66th in the state of FL by rivals.com in the preseason before he got hurt.He played in the Dade Vs Broward Football game.He signed late Thats why he has no number at JSU but he is on campus.I have seen this kid play since my son went to the same high school as him as i am a JSU alum the kid can play anywhere on the field excludin playing on the line.hey look

http://rivals100.rivals.com/viewprospect.asp?pr_key=29753 http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=376&p=8&c=1&nid=1705237 --Ray 10:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Oh. Well, good for Franklin. JSU has had some players in its past who might merit a mention in Wikipedia, including Eric Davis and Dieter Brock. Franklin Parks, however, isn't one of them. Jax42 19:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Oh, and JSU is a Division I-AA team, Jaranda, not Division II. There's a big difference. Jax42 19:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Parks Did broke records at not 1 high school but 3 Miami Edison,Western,and Cypress Bay high taking the rushing record,fumbles recovered record,defensive td's he can flat out play i know he shouldnt be on here now but in the future maybe remember Parks will play corner this comming season at JSU if he doesnt redshirt User:JSU|Ray]] 20:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable... Yet. Grandmasterka 07:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skeeze[edit]

Non-notable publication. The article reads like an advert. Ezeu 02:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 13:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gold gate casino[edit]

I hacked all the advertising out of this article, and was left with one sentence. Then I checked alexa and discovered its rank in the 788,000 range... For an online casino, that's awful low. Delete. bikeable (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

32 independent African states[edit]

I'm a bit conflicted about this one, but I see no way to keep it. A list of states considered "independent" is surely POV; not to mention that the title will change when one nation's status changes. There were originally 32 states that founded the Organization of African Unity, and I haven't gone through to check if these are those, but the successor organization has something like 50 now, and a list of the founding nations of OAU belongs in the OAU article. Delete. bikeable (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Random context free list. Subject matter has to be guessed at and is better covered elsewhere. Piccadilly 02:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination and User:Piccadilly. *\o/* Dustimagic *\o/* 04:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although I do not understand what bikeable means by "states considered independent is surely POV". Independence here refers to self-governance or autonomy, in contrast to being considered a colony or a territory of another nation.--Ezeu 05:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a plausible guess at what "independent" means, but it's not defined in the page, and there are currently a lot more than 32 nations in Africa that meet that particular definition. bikeable (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork of Category:African countries Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article was apparently created to list the original member nations of the Organisation of African Unity, but this article is the wrong way to communicate this information. --Metropolitan90 07:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Werdna648T/C\@ 09:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was BJAODN. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bahá'í humor[edit]

Wikipedia is not a joke book. An article on the place of humor in the Bahá'í faith or on unique qualities of Bahá'í humor would be encyclopedic, but this is just a collection of jokes. -℘yrop (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • BJAODN -- it's not exactly a bad joke or other deleted nonsense, but it's funny. However, it is unencyclopedic and should be deleted. N Shar 02:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modify it -- This could be turned into something more like "Humor in the Faith's History" that could include the occasions in which Abdu'l-Bahá rejoiced in difficult situations or the funny comments he made sometimes, even with deep spiritual meaning. Those accounts would fit better into an encyclopedia I think. danielixto 14:11, January 10, 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN per N Shar. I think it's particularly funny that each joke needs an explanation! Pburka 03:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- it's unencyclopedic, and should be deleted. -- Jeff3000 04:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unencyclopedic. Blnguyen 03:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks (which arguably is a "joke book"). Crypticfirefly 04:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC) BJAODN (didn't know about the joke book being removed from wikibooks). Or cleanup. This is a legitimate topic, it is just the execution that it a bit wacky. Crypticfirefly 06:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wikibooks, I think it should be linked form some of the other relevent articals too. (Signed: J.Smith) 06:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN per N Shar Werdna648T/C\@ 09:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Jokebook has been deleted from Wikibooks, by order of Jimbo 1. Wikibooks will not accept this content, and I will eject it from the transwiki queue if it is placed there. Uncle G 10:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN per N Shar. -- Eddie 11:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN -- Astrokey44|talk 12:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cuñado - Talk 16:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not funny either Mushintalk 19:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modify it per danielixto. I think that a treatment of humour within the writings and history is useful, and there are lots of examples. I do agree this isn't really the appropriate place for a joke book, per-se. (Though I do like the "spell Huquq" one... didn't see it coming.) -- Christian Edward Gruber 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this collection of jokes as unencyclopedic. BJADON is okay. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 02:21Z
  • BJAODN, it's bad, it's a joke, it's nonsense, now delete it! Stifle 23:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic and unfunny. Denni ☯ 01:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meh. It needs to be changed to include history of the faith's humor and blah blah blah. Jewish humor is a respected article that demonstrates blah blah blah. Sure the jokes are utter, total, unbelievable holy roller nerdery, but that doesn't invalidate the concept of the article, and it does shed light on the nature of Bahai humor (in that they are utter, total, unbelievable holy roller nerds). --Tysto 01:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh - you caught us! :) -- Christian Edward Gruber 02:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was shouldn't have been on AfD in the first place. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Miko_Lee.jpg[edit]

Delete.Seems like a pornographic image with no links WingedMonkey 03:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is articles for deletion. You want images for deletion. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeez if you think This is porn you should see some of the images out there! However it is taking up space and is not linked to anything...... Jcuk 08:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment': it also seems to be involved in a mini edit-war between two different images of the same subject. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 23:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An IFD tag has been added. -- Eddie 11:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was WITHDRAWN by nominator; I did not realize that this was listed just two weeks ago. Besides, reorganization is currently being performed. Hopefully, this can be transformed into something encyclopedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crotalus horridus (talk • contribs) 04:34, January 10, 2006.

Fascism (United States)[edit]

Possibly the ugliest article on Wikipedia. There is literally more room taken up by disclaimer templates than by the actual article. The article itself doesn't consist of much more than a note stating that some people have used fascism as a pejorative political epithet, and is redundant with other articles. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete has no real information, basically just says "nobody knows if there's fascism in the US", worthless and unsalvageable. -Drdisque 03:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending merger and redirect - Note It is really bad form to start this vote after the recent previous vote for deletion failed; especially while most of the involved editors are actually in the ongoing process of merging the contents to two other pages for efiting. It just is mean, and shows no notice of ongoing discussions. Really tacky. Please at least attempt to follow the discussion pages and previous votes. A tiny bit of hoemework is an important way of showing good faith. This was just POV warrior bashing. Not constructive at all.-- Cberlet 03:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Worthless and unverfied material with absolutely no potiential. — Seven Days » talk 03:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; With the anti-Republican screed taken out, as it has been, this could be an interesting article on fascism in America, which did exist in the 20s and 30s. Several editors are/were working on making it just that. I agree with Cberlet that bringing this right back to AfD is not constructive. Tom Harrison Talk 04:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments above. Merger discussions are underway. Why is there no link to previous AfD? -- JJay 04:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: Change vote because I didn't realize the other AfD closed less than two weeks ago. There is absolutely no reason to renom in the face of the massive participation in the last AfD and with efforts to improve the article. -- JJay 04:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Park, Michigan Day[edit]

Delete This article is a hoax, if you knew the area you'd get the joke, sort of, possibly worth transwikying to uncyclopedia Drdisque 03:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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


The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles of friendship[edit]

An article about a book that's not finished yet by a non-notable author. It was marked as speedy, but as we don't have a CSD category for non-notable unfinished books, I have nominated it for AFD. —Cleared as filed. 03:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per page, "It is the first work in the young authors up and coming career." Maybe someday, but not yet. Tom Harrison Talk 03:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete [3] CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Tom Harrison. Werdna648T/C\@ 09:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Mushintalk 19:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I say if this young man would like an article about his book on Wikipedia then allow it. What does it hurt when there are no entries under this topic in the first place? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dariusarsenal (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 January 2006.
The previous account is less than 5 days old -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 19:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above user has been changing other people's comments, see [4] -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, above keep vote was a probable sockpuppet attempt by the author of the page. The comment was originally unsigned. Once again I think speedy should apply as we all know what the vote will end up being on something like this without a doubt. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 21:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Because on Wikipedia we only publish articles about notable people and things. Let's hope this young man's book is a roaring success, and then he will get his Wikipedia entry. Until then he won't. --kingboyk 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 21:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Reverted article to older version to remove vote tampering. The following two votes were deleted during the process of reversion, and are now restored here. (Neither vote is mine) ManoaChild 22:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stay All evidence is credible i.e. the website in which he refrences to view the story, although it starts with his last capter. I read a paragraph of the story, it is not particularly well written but it is not hurting database as there are no other entries under this title. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Todaywarrior (talk • contribs) 21:34, 10 January 2006.
The above user has been changing other people's comments, see [5] -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Read the story from begging to end. I thought it was pretty good so far. I encourage you to allow this "young author" to keep his work as I am in favor of young literature being posted and read on wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Obscurestories (talk • contribs) 21:41, 10 January 2006.
The previous account was created in order to "vote" on this discussion, only 3 edits in total -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 19:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Again the 2 votes above appear to be clear evidence of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. Could an Admin run a checkusers on these accounts. All have very few edits either beginning with this article for deletion or the Chronicles of friendship article. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 22:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. ManoaChild 22:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom --kingboyk 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT a crystal ball, we don't cover works-in-progress unless they're the subject of media hype. -- Megamix? 23:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment yeah you guys are pretty good at this stuff. I am the author of the article and the book. I would like to say you found my meat puppets quickly, kudos. Also a kudo to Tom for handling the critisism well. Sorry old chap, all in the fun. Unfortunately I must say I am disapointed with Susan Larson for deleting TodayWarrior's vote. He is not a fake and has never before used Wikipedia. That is why his record shows no other posts. He is the big fan Taylor I mentioned in the "Chronicles of Friendship" post. I would also like to thank ManoaChild for the "good luck" on my book. And for one last puppet of the sock:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.110.28.251 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 11 January 2006.

Keep HAHAHA!!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.110.28.251 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 11 January 2006.
Comment Good thing I don't delete votes. I see the vote you mention up above. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 02:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 02:25Z
  • Delete per nn. This is an advertisement for an unpublished fanfic, not an encyclopedia entry. Dariusarsenal, understand that Wikipedia is not an advertising page. Trust me, this happened to me too, but now I understand that Wikipedia is for information. Try posting a link to your novel on a young writers' message board. krispymann25 14:55 15 Jan. 2006 (EST).


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-Score[edit]

Basically advertising for a non-notable "chain" of two video places. Was originally marked as speedy, but I'm moving it here to AFD instead. —Cleared as filed. 04:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pangender[edit]

Probable neologism [6] coined by a webpage or something like that, see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms... needs evidence to be shown of this word used in print or dictionaries. W.marsh 03:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete neologism; original research Tom Harrison Talk 03:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are examples of this being used in print and the term seems to be gaining traction. Would vote keep if someone makes a case for it. -- JJay 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Comments below and burgeoning use in print [7] convince me the article should be retained. Aren't we all just a little pangender? -- JJay 05:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question, do the results in your link really mean anything? The word pangender doesn't seem to be present in the pages for the books in your search, and a normal search for pangender reveals nothing [8], you have to turn on some additional search option to get your results, with that option I was able to get results for words I made up on the fly like quasimetal, ultrahyper and metagendered. --W.marsh 05:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link is working fine for me. The word is used in those six books. Quasimetal and metagendered as well, so someone beat you to the punch.-- JJay 06:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've looked in all 6 books and found the word? For all 3 examples I gave, and the word "pangender", a normal result yields nothing, and you have to turn on the "additional results" which seems to just look for root words. --W.marsh 06:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The results are automatically displayed with the excerpt and page numbers. -- JJay 06:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I just saw that, I didn't realize Amazon did that. Sorry for the confusion --W.marsh 06:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a bit more with "pangendered". Note this only works with books that have full-text search activated (i.e. a small sub-set of all books). -- JJay 06:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This term has been used in newspaper articles and is widely used in the queer community and in student/university political organisations. Its a term that is more widely known and has been in usage longer than homoflexible for example. Would vote to keep.Mittens.the.kitten, 03:59, 10 January 2006
I am not trying to come off as inconsiderate here, but this word is pretty much a textbook neologism (see my above link). If this word can be found used meaningfully in newspaper articles or books, rather than just alluded to, that's a start. I'm willing to help here... but the sparse Google coverage still makes me think this is a neologism not very widely used at all. --W.marsh 05:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Keep. I myself am pangender, and it is a common enough term to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.6.28 (talk • contribs)
  • Seems notable enough for a neologism. Merge to pansexuality. While the leading sentence of Pangender talks about the difference between the word 'sex' refering to anatomy versus gender identity, the Pansexuality article is clearly talking about gender identity (not someone with all anatomies :) - so they're talking about the same thing. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-10 06:18Z
    • Also, the second paragraph is self-contradictory:
      Pangender is a term for people who feel that they cannot be labeled as female or male in gender. ... The term is meant by the queer community to be one that is inclusive and means "all genders".
    The last sentence would imply pangender includes traditional males and females, while the first does not. So make up your mind and add citations. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-10 06:18Z
  • Looks like Quarl is right and a merge would be a good solution. -- JJay 06:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was impressed with the amazon links at first. Then I noticed that in each of the four books, the word "pangender" appeared only once. So I decided to try the first few obscure words that pooped into my head: cthonic appears in 50 books, gubernatrix in 31, zoanthropy in 28, and phylactery in 2,505. Umm, maybe that one is only obscure to me... regardless, this combined with the low strike rate in the nomination and no news mean neologism to me, so I recomend that we delete this article. - brenneman(t)(c) 10:13, 10 January 2006
  • Keep well known term within the GLBT community -- čĥàñľōŕď 11:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Err, testimony of editors does not count as a reliable source. Could everyone please review the various WP:V pages? I wouldn't expect you to delete something simply because I hadn't heard of it. You would justifiably heap scorn upon me for making a statement like that. I have a scratch and a sniff and provide some testable arguments. So please, please, don't expect something to be kept simply because you have heard of it. Give us nice solid references, ones we can hang out hat on. Make us believe with evidence the scene you are setting. - brenneman(t)(c) 11:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you... and even then, just because a word exists somewhere... I've seen nothing compelling with respect to Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. In academia, particularly in fields like gender studies, it's pretty easy to coin a term... that doesn't mean the term is encyclopedic. I think merging per Quarl is the best idea presented so far. --W.marsh 15:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well put. Merge per Quarl. Even that, however, may confer more legitimacy to a nascent neologistic concept than an encyclopedic project should feel comfortable about providing. Especially in light of how many use WP as a resource. Eusebeus 16:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP as per čĥàñľōŕď above --Prof Jolly 12:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to pansexuality per Quarl -- Astrokey44|talk 13:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism, no recent news hits, only 471 Google hits. Even if it's a real term, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. | Klaw ¡digame! 19:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Quarl. Stifle 23:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DONT MERGE sexuality and gender are seperate issues --Prof Jolly 02:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Move to wikisource Babajobu 10:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese Nationality Law[edit]

Text dump. Maybe worthy of a transwiki to Wikisource. Alr 03:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge to British nationality law and Hong Kong and redirect Babajobu 10:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British National (Overseas) - extra information[edit]

Text dump from various sources. Does not seem worthy of a transwiki. Alr 03:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability Advocates[edit]

No useful content yet. This is a mere placeholder, created December 29, 2005, for an article that hasn't been written. Will Beback 04:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain for the moment. But if someone does a rewrite with some useful context and a good introduction so we know what the heck it's talking about, I will venture a vote. If it stays unaltered, as is, then my vote will default to delete. --DanielCD 04:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. --DanielCD 14:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this ought to be a category, unless the author has something more to say about these people Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Empty pages can be speedy deleted under CSD A1 Werdna648T/C\@ 09:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No longer empty but non-notable and unverifiable. And it's generating a truck-load of nn-bios. Stifle 23:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal music[edit]

  • Delete - This page was created on the assumption that no overarching page existed for metal music as a whole, when one already does: Heavy metal music. Consequently the metal music page is highly redundant, not only repeating information from the Heavy metal music page, but also from the list of metal genres. Also, Metal music is of an inferior quality (for which it has been tagged) and is filled with POV statements. In comparison, the heavy metal music page has been a featured article and properly referenced. Current attempts to edit both pages in accordance with opinions that "heavy metal" is no longer widely used to describe the genre as a whole have not yet been adequately argued with sources and also threaten to dillute the quality of the heavy metal music page. Thus I suggest either a full deletion of the page or a merger with Heavy metal music WesleyDodds 04:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created that page because nowadays there is a distinction about Metal, which is an umbrella term to define all Metal music, and the genre Heavy Metal, that today is referred to that particular type of Metal music played in the late '70 by bands like Black Sabbath and so on. My intentions was not to feature POV statements, but to give the best definition about the Metal style of music and about what makes Metal as we know. The Heavy Metal page feature a lot of information about history of Metal and so on, but lacks of a true definition on what is Metal music, what renders Metal a song. --Olpus 02:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "Characteristics" section on Heavy metal music defines the sound. WesleyDodds 08:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If defines Heavy Metal, not all metal. Symphonic Metal, Nu Metal, Power Metal - these are hardly 'dark'. Nu Metal is hardly guitar driven, nor is symphonic metal. It describes Heavy Metal, that is all. Leyasu 09:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with it, edit it in order to make it of better quality. But heavy metal music is intended to and is constructed in its present form to address all forms of metal as a whole. The problem with the Metal music page is that (as Oplus stated) is he wanted to indictate a difference between the usage of "heavy metal" and "metal" but he did it from the wrong avenue. While some may use "heavy metal" to talk about a particular subgenre of metal, the article itself does not function that way; consequently the articles continue to addresses the same topic because they address the same purpose, regardless of title. I can understand the desire to separate the form as a whole and what some now view as a distinct subgenre (which is still debatable, mind you, but not really the issue here). But the current approach does not address those issues. If anything, an article for heavy metal as a subgenre should have been created, and there should have been a discussion about renaming the main article, not the creation of another overrarching "metal music" page. The entire approach to the issue is backwards. WesleyDodds 09:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not been the best or easiest way to do things, agreed. But waste not want not. Whats done is done, and going even further backwards isnt worth it. What we have, is all the things we need, mixed and matched in different articles. Deleting this, deletes one of the needed parts. What im doing at the minute, is sumerrising in my own head, the best way forward in getting the following objectives done:
  • An article that lists all the metal genres and references, plus history of metal as a whole.
  • An comphrensive and factual article on Heavy Metal and its place as both a genre and originator of the metal basis, something similar to Rock n Roll's article i would presume.
  • Sorting out the articles as to not lose content, and merge the correct parts of each article with each other, keeping the articles seperate, and removing the overlap.
Im sure i was clear in intention there. Leyasu 10:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not the best way to do things, since an article already existed to serve the purpose you are trying to achieve. If anything, edit that article. Doing it this way, creating two articles that cover the same subject (just with different titles) and possibly later altering the older article (given the outline above you provided) -- which has been a Featured Article, has been peer reviewed, and is properly referenced to reduce any POV that might be associated with the subject -- in order to narrow its scope is deconstructing the hard work of others who have been working on the Heavy metal music page long before any of us came anywhere near it.
The Wiki Category for the music form is "heavy metal". The heading on the genre template before it was altered was a link to Heavy metal music. Most references on WIkipedia when referring to the umbrella term link to Heavy metal music. This is an inefficient way of accomplishing these goals, and it's wasting a lot of time that could be used more effectively in regards to these pages.
Seriously, it would still be easier to just rename Heavy metal music or have Metal music redirect to it. WesleyDodds 11:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Featured article or not, it is mostly wrong. A lot of it, is wrong. Sorting out the metal music page, and then merging the two would be good. Merging Heavy Metal into this page, saves the effort of renaming.
An article also designed to fit the bill, doesnt mean it does. Many times something is reviwed as good, when in fact, it is not good. Yes, the article is well written. Yes, it does about explaining 'some' things well. Problem: Its outdated, wrong, and doesnt fullfill its purpose.
Later on today, or tomorrow, when im in a better frame of mind, i shall merge the Heavy Metal article's accurate parts into the Metal Music article. Then, i will set out on the process of making the Heavy Metal article better.
If you want to improve it, then help me do what needs doing, instead of critiszing my methods. If your not going to help, then dont critisize my way of doing things. Leyasu 14:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Mostly wrong" by whose measure? I can look up all the books listed on the heavy metal music page and fact-check anything I need to. And they use Heavy Metal as an overarching term. Even if information is factually incorrect, it is still citable in order to reference conflicting viewpoints (which is what history is all about in the first place). If you are going to debate accuracy, you need to reference sources for a counter-argument! We really can't rely simply on your POV for reference. It may be right, but we need to be able to check that you are right. WesleyDodds 12:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine when i have more time instead of borrowed scraps of time, i will go find a bunch of websites. The problem is, a bunch of books written by people with no affiliation to something, doesnt make it right, it makes it a bunch of books that are complete crap. I will get you the websites, as and when i have the time. Leyasu 12:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The problem is, a bunch of books written by people with no affiliation to something, doesnt make it right, it makes it a bunch of books that are complete crap."
What do you base that on? Do you know anything about these authors? Ian Christe, for one, certainly comes from the metal culture. Additionally, a degree of critical distance is useful when studying subjects. Sure being in the thick of it all can lead one closer to "the truth", but there is always the potential for personal bias. An outsider's viewpoint helps to put an insiders' viewpoint of "the truth" into a greater critical context. You must factor in to you criticism that just because a number of members in a community hold a tenant as truth does not necessarily make it true.
Also: Websites would be helpful for your counter-argument, but books, magazine articles, and video would be even better. WesleyDodds 13:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has since been heavily revised since the AFD

  • Speedy Redirect no need to bring this to AfD. --Pboyd04 04:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect. Pburka 04:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy redirect; this is NOT AfD material Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I to do agree with a merger, I do not care which is merged into one though. But the metal subhenres pagfe is gone, so is true metal, I have merged them into metal msuic a couple of days ago, so that is not repeating previously said statements. - NykylaiHellray

  • Speedy Redirect per above Werdna648T/C\@ 09:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite per consensus reached on talk page (per Layasu). Werdna648T/C\@ 23:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will at this point make clear that a consensus was reached on the issue, that the page should be Heavy Metal Music should be about the genre of Heavy Metal, and Metal Music, which is used to mean all the genres of Metal Music, should be rewritten. As Wikipedia works on consensus, and the article is being revised, isnt deleting it because your argument was over thrown by consesnus a bit, childish? Leyasu 09:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is still being actively debated on both the Heavy metal music and Metal music talk pages, thus no consensus has been reached. WesleyDodds 09:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A consenses WAS reached. One that you didnt agree with mind you, one that was reached before you asked for AFD. The consensus to Merge the Heavy Metal articles contents into the Metal Music page, after revising the Metal Music's content and formatting, to make the merger easier. Asking for AFD when experts on the subject have reached consensus is undermining the consensus, because you dont agree with it.
On that note, i ask for this AFD to be cut or postponed, until the merger outcome is seen, as a consensus was already reached on the issue, and this AFD is a blatant attempt at getting ones own way, through underhand means. Leyasu 10:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I agree this is pointless, as both pages contain good information, whether they merge or stay seperate I do not care though, but it is pointless to even think about deleation until all sides of the argument agree, Ley do you need any help on the rewrite? I have organised some of the stuff yesterday with the true metal, and subgenre metal page merge. Is there anything you would like me to help you on, as I do not want to make any futher changes, unless they are lost during your rewrite. NykylaiHellray 1:19PM 10 Jan 2006

I have the rewrite in a text document. Im doing it as a step by step, as im doing Nu Metal. Its in about 4 different documents actually, as i need to keep juggling things about so they are in subsequent order, and in the right place, as well as rewrite a lot of parts. When i post the revision, copyediting it would be dandy, as what i see as NPOV, not all people agree on. Leyasu 14:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does such a phrase even exist? Maybe it should be 'Metal (music)'? Anyway, I would Merge. There's too much good content to be considering deletion. --kingboyk 23:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This seems to be an edit war brought to AfD. —Ruud 21:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite this article adding information on what makes a song a Metal song, the tecnique of playing Metal and other tecnical information: an expert is needed too. The Metal Page is also useful to list some music that are part of Metal by name, as Nu Metal, Industrial Metal and others, but aren't considered legitimate sons of Heavy Metal by many. --Olpus 02:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - No consensus was reached as per the Talk pages. This claim is based in what evidence? I´ve proposed the merge of Metal into Heavy Metal. Many people agreed with me. The majority. Some people think it should be the other way around: Merge Heavy Metal into Metal. The Heavy Metal article was started before many of us even registered to wikipedia, it was meant to be the article describing the music we call Heavy Metal or simply Metal in general. It do not try to explain every and each subgenre of (heavy) metal, one of it is "Heavy Metal" (as a strict term meaning the bands that started this musical style). Heavy Metal has a dual meaning, one of them a synonym to Metal. This article was a featured article on wikipedia and is considered a high quality article as such. It is a shame trying to enforce this difference of Metal and Heavy Metal by destroying the hard-work spent by fellow wikipedians on the Heavy Metal articl just because some people think this difference is worth this debate! Loudenvier 13:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not anyone trying to force a difference when the difference has existed almost a decade. Hence such terms as Metalhead, Metal Bands, Metal Music, Metalfests - If, by your reconing, it would beHeavy Metalhead, Heavy Metal Bands, Heavy Metal Music and Heavy Metalfests.
Again, by that defination, we would have such things as Punk Rock N Roll, Gothic Rock N Roll, Alternative Rock N Roll, Death Rock N Roll, so on, so forth.
The usage of it was the same as Rock N Roll, and its no longer a double meaning. Yes, people with little knowledge of the metal scene, commonly refer to it as Heavy Metal sometimes, depending on generation. Most people however, call it Metal. The same as most people who arent big on it, use 'Rarrgghhh' as an insult to music with distorted vocals, regardless of genre.
That is the way things are. Heavy Metal Music = Heavy Metal. The same as Rock N Roll Music = Rock N Roll. Not all forms of metal are Heavy Metal, mainly because they lack core features of Heavy Metal, which, if you read the article, is explained. Also, ive seen featured articles, that get considered featured, when they have little to no accuracy about them. Remember, that the FA council, normally has little to no knowledge of the subject of an article, and reads it in the same way as i write, in the form of someone who knows nothing about the subject matter.
An article being well written, doesnt mean its factual, accurate or correct. Using FA as a veil to hide behind doesnt work, not with someone who will quite happily point out the flaws in the veil.
I dont wish to keep arguing this, and yes a merger is taking place. The talk page is currently discussing 'how' to do it, in a manner that suits 'all' the editors of the page. So instead of going 'this needs doing, that needs doing, and the other needs doing', how about doing something constructive towards helping the discussion of how we go about it to achieve the best results, without losing information, factual accuracy, or prose. Leyasu 15:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep because I agree with Leyasu that heavy metal is a subgenre of metal, which encompasses much more than heavy metal, such as symphonic metal, nu metal, and power metal. I can understand the viewpoint that the article on heavy metal music includes information not really appropriate for the article if taken as a subgenre, however this does not support an argument to delete metal music; instead, this just shows that there is work to be done. --Qirex 09:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont read magazines, dont have a video player, and dont buy anything other than books by Graham Masterson and Shaun Hutson. Yes, what you said is true. But again, experts in the subject are normally right, even when biased.
For instance, a group of outsiders to rocket science could tell several rocket scientists that they are wrong about how to build a rocket. The rocket scientists devoloped how to builed a rocket, have built rockets, and studied the subject intensely. They are bound to be correct.
Its worth mentioning that some people still refer to Metal as Heavy Metal music, sure, i wouldnt say it was foolish to point that out, but it is now Metal Music. Thats what it is. NPOV records all POV, yes. But it also lends to fact being the way things are, and then alternative POV on things, such as the smaller group that still calls things by its old name. Leyasu 13:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Millar[edit]

nn bio page and appears to be written by subject.--MONGO 04:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was 60-40 split on this page, not enough majority to get it deleted.. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE
If you came to this page from http://www.democraticunderground.com or some similar site outside of Wikipedia wishing to affect the deletion decision process, please be aware that the Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry allows for all comments made by new or anonymous contributors to be ignored.

In addition, the Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Civility allows for any contributor acting in an uncivil manner to be blocked from the site.

The White Rose Society (website)[edit]

Note to closing Admin, please check this page carefully for any legitimate votes that may have been dropped. There was a lot of reverting and anon voting and vandalism here. Thanks.

Please register your vote by typing in *'''Delete''' - optional reason -~~~~ or *'''Keep''', or '''Merge''' - optional reason -~~~~ below. Please limit discussion to the Discussion subsection of this voting area. Thank you for participating. -MegamanZero|Talk 21:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new statements to the bottom. Thanks. — TheKMantalk 19:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable vanity article. Holdek (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For those who think Alexis.com is the best place to really evaluate websites. Trust me, it's not. Alexis requires spyware toolbar to be installed. Most of the informed people don't even use it at all. White Rose Society is a fair and balanced archives for left-talk shows and as if we have too many syndicated right-wing hatefests all over the United States that wants to suppress dissenting voices. So, I view this a seperate entity from Ben Burch, and does a incredible job with limited resources! - Dustpuppy303 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dustpuppy303 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Keep 82,789 registered users at DemocraticUnderground.com would find this a meaningful description. I think the way to get out of the political quagmire is not to determine which side is right, but to rise above the issue. I applaud Wikipedia's attempt to civilize this discussion. Good luck with that. The White Rose Society is a part of the fabric of today's world. To choose not to like it is fine. To censor it, proves many of the points made by those the website features. --Tigress DEM 04:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the conspiracy theorists out there. I'm not a sock puppet. Had to look that up. And I made a novice mistake. I copied a previous post because all the html formatting made me think I had to have a text descriptor. I thought 'nondomesticspying' was 'nondomestictyping' and needed to complete a format loop. When I realized it was someone's login name I took it off. --Tigress DEM 05:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is the first edit by Tigress DEM, but has two others under the name nodomesticspying. InvictusNox 04:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]
On what basis do you allege these are the same person? That they share an IP address? That tells you little as many universities have all students sharing one IP address, for example. BenBurch 05:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]
He alleges that on the basis of the fact that she signed it as nodomesticspying while logged in as Tigress DEM, then realized what she'd done and changed it. See this edit. Logged in users' IP addresses are unknown to all but a very few admins. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if they are domestic partners? Then the cookie would still have been on the shared computer. This does not make them the same person, no matter how much you would like it to be so. BenBurch 05:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the constant meatpuppetry going on with this nomination, it is difficult to assume the best. After all, what's stopping my nine livein brothers and sisters from voting "delete"? Lord Bob 05:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you really have nine sibs living there, nothing, nor should there be. BenBurch 05:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have nine siblings living with me, but how could you tell (beyond my say-so)? 'One IP address, one vote' might not seem very democratic, but this isn't a democracy and given the situation, I'm well-inclined to hope the closing admin plays it safe in all respects. Lord Bob 16:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Performs useful service and provides valuable information. nodomesticspying

This comment is the second edit by Nodomestic spying, the first being another keep vote below. --Allen3 talk 23:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Great source for liberal info. User:Generic O

This comment is the first edit by Generic O. --Allen3 talk 23:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User wants to delete for reasons that have to do with that user's POV. Comes up with other threshold reasons to rationalize. User has a documented history of edit warring. Also, if this page is deleted, a knowledge hole is created that the disambiguation page isn't intended/designed/adequate to resolve. BusterD 19:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I moved the nominator's originial edit to the top, so other users could see who nominated the article, and why. — TheKMantalk 04:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. whiterosesociety.org streams and archives a lot of audio programs, both well-known and obscure. It's a very useful resource. Blue Llama 18:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A "Vanity" article would have to have been created by the website's owner, me. It wasn't. The site has delivered five million hours of liberal/progressive talk radio since 2002, and this deletion campaign seems to be "payback" from Holdek for my having complained about him for a 3RR violation. Unseemly, but there you have it. BenBurch 05:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Payback or not, this website rates extremely poorly on Alexa.com and this is reason enough to delete. GeorgeStepanek\talk 06:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was just about to mention the site's Alexa rating of 181,810, which fails the cutoff established in WP:GOOGLE -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails to meet WP:WEB per Thesquire Werdna648T/C\@ 09:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ben Burch as per WP:WEB#fn_2, since the website offers podcasting and archiving for radiostations most of which are notable. It also sounds like a bad faith nomination in revenge to a WP:3RR on January 8. Dr Debug 11:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insignificant per above. And how on earth did Ben Burch end up with his own article?? That should absolutely go too. Eusebeus 16:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP White Rose is a useful site to thousands - and right wing complaints should not be the Wikipedia delete decision maker. Papau 16:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Just as significant as thousands of other entries, if not more so. Bbernardini
  • KEEP Ben does us all a service with this site and doesn't deserve to have this page deleted! Is there a bandwidth issue here that requires you to delete some pages? If so I'm sure there are many other suitable candidates. 72.136.206.89 23:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) AnonymousArmy[reply]
Well, I appreciate that coming from you given our past differences. Thanks. BenBurch 19:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. It seems like the only content on the article is a list of items found on the website - this could be combined with the Ben Burch article (or, alternatively, expanded upon to include more history). I don't really think there is enough relavant information that would warrant a seperate article, right now though. --Toddbloom7 19:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP White Rose is a valuable resource for many progressives, who, at least up until now, also have the right to have their voices heard. Ben Burch is a true patriot.Sweetm2475 19:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete . I don't think this article has useful purpose. Wikipedia should strive to remain an encyclopedia on par with other well-known references. Putting up an entry to serve as a portal amounts to turning Wikipedia into a directed google search. I would be inclined to keep this article if there were some educational merit to the content, but currently it reads as an advertisement for another website. What's next, an article for cheaptickets.com extolling it as place for bargain airline fares? While I'm sure The White Rose Society website serves a large user base that enjoys what is has to offer, I don't think that neccesitates a need for an entry. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your favorite website. Also, currently DU has been called on to "DU" this site so expect to be flooded with keeps. I mean, the fact a message board close to The White Rose Society has been called upon to slant this discussion... recommend to lock. -m00

  • Delete M00 does that help?
The above user neglects to mention a similar campaign to urge the deletion of the entry, originating from a website ideologically opposed to DU, and his self-confessed role in it. So, all's fair, eh? WPWiles 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lets talk about this on the dicussion page. I am a huge supporter of Wikipedia. I have nothing against The White Rose Society Website, I just see the article as adverstisement and wikispam/wikiclutter. -m00
I agree it's a marginal case for retention, but I think the thing that swings it into the "keep" column is the fact that it is an archive, a resource, rather than simply a soapbox that endlessly editorialises. Although liberals might find its content more palatable, the site is potentially useful to everyone with an interest in politics or broacasting, as would a similar conservative site. WPWiles 20:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree the White Rose Society Website might be useful to people interested in politics. But there are plenty of useful resources out there on the web -- does Wiki really need to link them all? I mean, could you explain why the Wiki entry is useful, as it merely links the site? I look at it like this: anyone interested in The White Rose Society website already knows it exists and can easily find it. If someone were to search Wiki for it "The White Rose Society Website" they'd come up with an article that links to thate site. So who exactly is that article for? -m00
The poor quality of the wiki entry is an argument for improving the wiki entry, not deleting it. I think that this entry, Ben Burch's own entry, and several other entries in the same "genre" such as those for DU, CU and William Rivers Pitt, are very inadequate, probably as a result of coordinated edit campaigns by both sides. WPWiles 20:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then write some useful content! As it stands, the entry is totally useless, and adds absolutely zero to Wikipedia. It's just a link. If someone wants to add content where I could see a case that the article might possibly be of use to someone, I'll change my vote. And you are correct these topics end up being biased due to edit wars. Maybe we need to merge CU, DU, Will Pitt, and everything that's basically two warring Internet factions into a single article called "political activism on the Internet." I'd be for that, since I agree this is getting out of hand! -m00
m00 - Jackk only created the stub article for White Rose on the 2nd of this month, you know. How many other articles are fleshed out in so little time? And honestly, you can keep or delete this entry without that mattering to me or my website one iota, but this whole discussion reflects badly on the neutrality of Wikipedia, and I have had a teacher email to me say "see, this is why I will not allow students to use Wikipedia as a source!" And I sadly have to concur with her. BenBurch 00:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Tacky and shameful" is launching a delete page entry campaign out of spite. you petty petty "right wing" fascists. (aww darn better go get more edits so I can join Zoe's friends list)Freepersh8truth 19:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The proposal for deletion seems to be politically motivated and should be ignored for that fact alone; there are numerous far more questionable entries. On the other hand the page begs a few questions regarding copyright of the offered material and the name is borderline tasteles considering the real white rose. --HBS 19:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the material offered on The White Rose society is offered with consent of the Copyright holders and the radiostations / websites often refer to it as well. It is a free service available for progressive radiostations who are interesting in maintaining an archive of their material. Dr Debug 19:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I have the endorsement of living relatives of the Scholls. So I feel I have every right to use the name, especially with the Bush Administration acting more and more like Italian Fascists each and every day. BenBurch 00:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not conform to Wiki standards and is being used to simply advertise an individual's website. Furthermore, the webmaster of "The White Rose Society" has asked partisans on a Democratic Party forum to vote 'Keep'[9]. 0nslaught 20:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn website. I have deleted all unsigned votes. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN website. 181,810 page rank on Alexa. [10] Hardly notable. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. These same freaks tried to get Will Pitt's entry deleted a few weeks ago without success. And Zoe, I unstruck all of "Keep" votes you struck. I guess you were the one who deleted the keep votes from before, huh. Strange how pubbies like to cheat. Kaitykaity 21:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)kaitykaity[reply]

Keep mutleyrus

  • User only has 5 previous edits, and none since May. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so?

Keep. As I said earlier (before I was signed in) personal disputes and tantrums have no place making Wikipedia decisions. The request for deletion obviously stems from personal and political differences, and should be struck down on that alone. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Furthermore, the article doesn't contain anything which I can see that violates the rules. It's NPOV-safe, and is notable for the large archives involved. Political hissy fits aside, there's no reason to delete it. ADB

  • Delete Wars between rival internet groups aside, this should not be a Wikipedia article unless there can be some verification that it is significant. Can someone provide links to multiple independent sources discussing this website? If not, then WP:WEB applies and it should go. Ziggurat 21:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go, Ziggurat; [11] BenBurch 04:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Political and personal differences should not have a say conerning Whiterosesociety.org and Wikimedia. There are other forums for that.
This comment is the first edit by Nodomestic spying. --Allen3 talk 22:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I routinely vote delete on articles like this. A not especially notable site, article reads like an ad. I am not American and have no strong feelings about the subject matter one way or the other. --kingboyk 22:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite what members of Democratic Underground or any other internet community may think, This website simply is not notable nough to merit a mention. -- Nightowl1335

Delete. Not a notable site; little more than a vanity site.--Susan N.

  • Keep The website in question, White Rose Society, is a very useful archive of radio talk shows. If a user hear would like to hear more from such personalities as Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, and others, they can go to the website. While I personally believe the website needs a face lift, I am supportive of it being mentioned on Wikipedia. Frankly, I enjoy coming to this site because it leads to websites AND information I had previously been unfamiliar with. One such website that I found via Wikipedia is the White Rose Society. I HIGHLY recommend that the article remain. Getting rid of the article stinks of book-burning. User:JeBousley
    vote actually by 66.141.94.47 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Ask yourself this, Wiki: outside of this debate, have you or anyone else you know ever heard of Ben Burch or the White Rose Society? -- Jimmy W.
Impersonating Jimbo Wales is tacky. However, White Rose (and often me) get mentioned daily on; Head On with Bob Kincaid, The Thom Hartmann Show, The Moring Wakeup Call with Lizz Brown, and weekly on "All Things Reconsidered", "Fourth Estate Radio", "They Guy James Show", and "The Cup-o-Joe Radio Show", so at least a few hundred thousand people know who I am by now... Doesn't mean I am notable, of course, as notable seems to be whatever people want it to mean to suit their present purposes here in Wikiland. BenBurch 01:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? Go listen to the last ten minutes of any Mike Malloy show from the site, KMan... Or look at Mike's Web Page... Or Thom Hartmann's web page. BenBurch 02:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet the requirements of WP:WEB. Whether people love or hate the content on the site is irrelevant. --Krich (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:Web is a proposed policy, not an official policy like WP:Not. I agree that whether people love or hate the content on the site is irrelevant. The site has been mentioned on most Air America shows which are carried nationwide and on satellite radio, by name not by url. Several other examples are listed in previous comments. Not everyone here is a puppet quite a few voting to keep are established editors. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 03:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And those regular Wikipedia editors' votes have been left quite alone. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was not my intention to suggest otherwise. If you interpeted my statement that way, I apologize, and humbly state my correct intention. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 05:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable podcast website. Annoying puppets :(. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 02:35Z
  • Keep. It's notable _enough_ to merit a Wikipedia article. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 05:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It exists and there should be knowledge about it, but it does not seem that it should be expanded into a full entry by itself. Tyrenius 05:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius wishes to merge the article with Ben Burch [12]. — TheKMantalk 22:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This website isn't a blog. It's an archival resource that some authors or speakers might well use. Therefore, some readers or listeners might want to know more about the site. An article about it is useful enough to keep. JamesMLane 10:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep keep It's an invaluable resource to many progressives, the significance of the site is in the millions of hours of progressive talkradio that have been served by it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.48.87 (talk • contribs) 11:25, January 11, 2006 (UTC)
  • week Delete per "website ranking" test. Enough with the sockpuppets please! Your cheepening the entire wikipedia project. The system is more important then the issue. (Signed: J.Smith) 16:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Atlant 17:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't appreciate my comment being deleted. This is a useful resource, and the article is accurate. The calls for deletion are mostly politically motivated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aclearing (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, most of the deletes are because of the notability & the 181,810 page rank on Alexa. diff --LV (Dark Mark) 19:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, LV, what do you think Alexa measures? I believe it measures mostly people stupid enough to allow their spyware toolbar onto their machine in the first place, and ignorant enough of Windows to not be able to remove it later. And it measures no Macintosh, Linux, BSD, or Web TV users whatsoever... Certainly it has never measured me. BenBurch 20:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a slightly better view of traffic to my main page. Does not show direct traffic to sub-pages, or podcast hits, both substantial; [13] BenBurch 20:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and... You only need to visit the page ONCE to subscribe to a podcast... And even if Alexa measured you that one time, no further measurements will be taken of you even if you download 6 hours of shows every day. And many people do. BenBurch 21:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete low Alexa rank, fails WP:WEB, loads of sock/meatpuppets. Delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do find it disappointing that some of the decisions here are being made due to personal political affiliations and motivations, and what really should be under observation is the article's merit as an encyclopedic entry. It is my impression that this website is an archive of other radio shows, so does that in itself make it noteworthy enough for an article in the Wikipedia? I, personally, think not. While many of the original radio programs were created by notable people, and featured on notable radio stations, I do not think an archive of those radio shows in itself makes a website notable. Regarding "website notability guidelines", yes, they are "just guidelines", but many Wikipedia users consider these guidelines useful for personally determining the notability of a website. Alexa gives the site a ranking of 181,810 [14]. Now, if articles were created for all of the websites that have higher rankings that the whiterosesociety.org, assuming they have not yet been created and using the article count as of now from the English Wikipedia (912,698), websites would take up nearly 20% of the Wikipedia. It should be noted that "the Wikipedia is not infinite", nor is it an Internet directory. Personally, I do not like how Alexa works, but for lack of a better ranking system, it is what we tend to use. Another way of establishing notability (at least for forum websites), is to check the number of forum users. Currently, the Democratic Underground has 82,820 registered users, which does make it notable in my eyes, and deserves its Wikipedia entry. (While not an entirely fair assessment since WRS is not primarily a forum community) the WRS society forum has 510 registered users (short of a generally accepted guideline of 5000 registered users). Please remember: deletion of the article does not mean the end of "the White Rose Society (website)". If the article is deleted, there is always the possibility that in the future the WRS will do something notable enough to warrant re-creation of the article and expansion. Now, if this website has made any other notable contributions to society, acheivements, or accomplishments, please say so and post related evidence, since everyone here still reserves the right to change their personal decsions at any time. Thanks for reading. — TheKMantalk 21:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KMan... My argument against Alexa is that is basically CANNOT measure a site such as White Rose. It can only measure a site that people visit to read the pages. Since White Rose has become primarily a podcasting site, and Alexa misses ALL of that traffic, it doesn't bear any resemblance to the traffic to the site at all! And trust me, I have looked at this before while attempting to work on the visibility of the site, and decided it was close to worthless. Basically, if a totally unscientific measurement is good enough for you, that is up to you, but expect much more difficulty with such things in the future if you continue to use the work of a spyware vendor as a means of assessing the importance of a multimedia web entity. BenBurch 21:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the record of the number of podcasting xml hits on White Rose since logs were rolled over on Saturday;

dburch@server1:~$ sudo analog|grep xml 140954: 0.01%: 11/Jan/06 15:42: /freehartmann.xml 

51918:       : 11/Jan/06 15:42: /malloy.xml
50332:       : 11/Jan/06 15:38: /hartmann.xml
32857:       : 11/Jan/06 15:36: /rhodes.xml
29050:       : 11/Jan/06 15:41: /james.xml
16313:       : 11/Jan/06 15:31: /werbe.xml
15190:       : 11/Jan/06 15:42: /content/hartmann/hartmann.xml
 8938:       : 11/Jan/06 15:34: /Kincaid.xml
 7449:       : 11/Jan/06 15:39: /Marvin.xml
 6181:       : 11/Jan/06 15:27: /vecchio.xml
 4794:       : 11/Jan/06 15:31: /brown.xml
 2159:       : 11/Jan/06 14:50: /trupiano.xml

dburch@server1:~$

Correct, Alexa measures website traffic. Now, it is my understanding that the podcasting content that is archived on your website does not require a user to visit to your website, but this content was not actually created by the WRS. I am examining the notability of The White Rose Society (website), the website, not the notable content of others that it archives. Does the website make any notable contributions of its own? — TheKMantalk 21:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, created? Yes, some of the material was created by broadcasters who were given program development grants by WRS, and all of it was recorded, compressed, and archived by WRS. This involves four dedicated recording machines, not an insignificant task. (You try to do it.) And obtaining the rights to provide this material to the Internet public was a major effort in some cases. Also, in the case of the Thom Hartmann program, I pay big bucks in royalty payments for sole Internet archiving rights to the material. Basically, is the publisher who publishes Steven King's novels notable? I am an Internet-age publishing house. BenBurch 22:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I ran a LexisNexis search on "White Rose Society" and get one mention in the Anchorage Daily News for this particular WRS. Heck, even I've been mentioned one time in a newspaper of record. I just don't see it as being notable. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think LV is referring to this article. — TheKMantalk 22:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep... that's the one. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Thanks for finding that, guys! I was unaware of that mention. BenBurch 22:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ben Burch.--WinOne4TheGipper 22:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that the Ben Burch entry is likely to be deleted presently as I, myself, am not particularly notable. BenBurch 22:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are Ben Burch, the Olympic hopeful rower. You're not right? --LV (Dark Mark) 22:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh great. Shows how out of touch I am. I know more about DU's Burch than I know about a potential Olympian.:) Anyway, I don't think the Ben Burch article ought to be deleted, as I explained at it's AfD page. Frankly, I wish both sides would stop. The FR article is protected because some idiot keeps vandalizing it, and the articles for both Ben and Will Pitt have been put up for deletion so many times that it's no longer funny.--WinOne4TheGipper 23:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I smell a disambiguation page in my name's future. BenBurch 01:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Honestly, though I believe this is an appropriate Wikipedia entry, I didn't create it, and I don't care what gets done with this; I think it is nice to be in Wiki and all, but I wouldn't have even questioned this except for the fact that the motivation of so many seems to be political, and that offends me. But, as others have pointed out, having a White Rose external link on the page for each of the show hosts would be the only advertising that would make any difference, anyway! Nobody is going to come here and type in White Rose Society (website) who did not already know that it existed! Besides, I foresee a constant barrage of vandalism... BenBurch 01:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, low rankings. Mike 02:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Frequently referred to on Air America Radio and frequently linked to on many left-leaning websites. Also helps for disambiguation purposes. Jackk 22:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable and causing WAY too much trouble. Stifle 22:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Causing WAY too much trouble?" Jackk 09:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. FREEPERS RULE! LIE-BERALS DROOL! LONG LIVE THE FREE REPUBLIC! WHY DON'T YOU GO FIST HITLERY CLINTOON? 62.2.221.125 02:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote actually from 200.222.68.39 with the edit reason of (Fucking Whikipedia Commmietards!).User blanked page replacing it with the above message -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 14:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep If only to discourage such idiotic nominations. If this article is deleted as a result of this nomination it will happen again, and waste more peoples time. - Hayter 14:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly the converse is also true. If it's kept, somebody will at some point nominate it again. I'd respectfully suggest that we should concentrate on the merits of the article and the site's notability, and just quietly ignore the political squabble. --kingboyk 11:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have heard of the website and feel it is notable--Cenestrad 18:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sockpuppeteering on both sides is making this difficult, but the site seems to be notable. Entry could use expanding, but I don't know anything about it. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this site seems notable enough. Do we need to start protecting all politically controversial topics against sock puppets? Grandmasterka 07:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SOSVC and YoungLeadersofBC and Young Leaders of BC[edit]

interesting, but unverifiable and probably non-notable, vanity; also mirror articles YoungLeadersofBC and Young Leaders of BC. (I turned their respective wp:articles for deletion pages into redirects to this one. Is this proper? couldn't find info on multiple nominations, although it must be here somewhere.) Heah talk 04:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment' the usual procedure for linked AfDs is to do the {{subst:afd}} in all the articles, create the AfD subpage for one of them, then edit the AfD text in the other articles to link to the same subpage. No redirects need be created, though as we all know "redirects are cheap"... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 23:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth I of England (essay)[edit]

Completing incomplete AfD nomination. No vote. Andrew_pmk | Talk 19:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stalinists[edit]

The list as written currently violates WP:V and WP:CITE, and it is also an inherent violation of WP:NPOV. Who described these individuals as Stalinists? In some cases, they may have self-described, but many of them did not. Is everyone who was taken in by Stalinist propaganda in the 1930s and 1940s to be listed here? Do we really need a list that includes Charles Chaplin, Joseph Stalin, George Bernard Shaw, Pablo Picasso, and Kim Jong-il? What purpose does this serve? Crotalus horridus (TALK � CONTRIBS) 04:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per excellent nom. Reyk 06:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After considering the rewrite by Gazpacho, my vote is still delete. It's become clear that tightening the criteria to avoid POV issues leaves mainly people who should be listed in the Stalinism article rather than a seperate list, and just a handful of others. It's just not worth having this list. Reyk 06:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently POV listcruft Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep this list has been cleaned up to include only self-identified Stalinists, which solves the POV issue. But there's not much annotation in the article; I think it might still be better as a category. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence to ten years without right of correspondence "And that means once and for all"-Solzhenitsyn. Daniel Case 06:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A List of Stalinists would be useful to counterbalance the List of Fascists, so I suggest we rename it. I have removed most of the names, leaving only those figures identified as Stalinists in their respective wikipedia articles. GeorgeStepanek\talk 06:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Werdna648T/C\@ 09:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV listcruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment notable Stalinists should already be in the article for Stalinism; if individuals on this list are not in that article, then either that article needs expansion or those people don't belong on this list. I stand by my delete position; that some have commented that there are other unmaintainable POV lists cluttering up WP does not validate this one. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see anything wrong with this--Nn-user 18:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at List of Stalinists, I never supported the original move. However, some people who were removed, like Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej and H. Bruce Franklin, should not have been. Gazpacho 18:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is worthless, as it contains no useful or verifiable information. 19:17 UTC, 10 Jan 06.
    • It is quite verifiable that Hoxha and Gottwald recognized Stalin as the leader of world communism and imitated his policies. Gazpacho 22:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. See also Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_people_described_as_Stalinists Turnstep 20:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we have List of fascists, List of people described as neoconservatives, why not this one? All concerns with regard to WP:V and WP:CITE can be addressed, but only if the article exists. DTC 23:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-but limit to those who self-described as Stalinists/Stalin-thought-people and require sources showing that they supported Stalin. (That said I'd be for deleting List of people described as neoconservatives and List of people described as Maoists)--T. Anthony 23:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Stalinism as a subsection titled Notable Stalinists. I'm afraid this list will become a cesspool of unsourced inclusions of famous people who were not Stalinist at all, inserted into there to further Stalinism. Pablo Neruda, according to his article, rejected Stalinism later in his life, so he definitely should not be listed. --Revolución (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This could also be doable, but I have a feeling confirmed Stalinists would still be too long of a list to merge.--T. Anthony 04:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I strongly agree with T. Anthony and DTC here. -- JJay 03:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into Stalinism] DTC makes a good point, but the problem is the way in which Stalinist as a label is itself a shifting, uncertain, and historically determinative one. For example, it is used disparagingly post-56 (Khrushchev Secret Speech) to justify purges (Beria was a Stalinist); for collective identification (47-53) in Eastern Europe as part of the Soviet bloc integration, as well as later on a contradistinction to Titoism; as a label for different splits within different communist movements as well as their leaders, each with their own post-56, pre-56, as well as *sigh* post-37, pre-37 significations (esp. France); as a badge of identity in the Spanish Civil War, both as a ready-made identity against anarchism and anarcho-socialism, as well as Trostkyism; as a label of attack both in 1956 and 1968 (Prague), and again in 1991 following the coup-attempt in Russia; and most recently in the last Russian elections, and I am sure I am missing a bunch of additional significances. So what, I ask, is a Stalinist? And who gets to decide which of these many options counts and which do not? Eusebeus 05:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per excellent nomination. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Revolución. If the list is confined to self-identified Stalinists, it's short enough to be merged into Stalinism. The only way it becomes too long is if it's a grab-bag collection of everyone who's been accused of being a Stalinist at some point, which would be a useless list. JamesMLane 07:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete or redefine with clear criteria. Right now, the list excludes Lavrenty Beria, but includes H. Bruce Franklin. The former was Stalin's henchman; the latter has a complicated set of views about Stalin (he was my professor in college, I've heard him talk on great length on the topic) but does not call himself a Stalinist. He's of the "Stalin was a historical neccesity" school, but that doesn't mean he embraces him. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. If any form of this list subsist, watch and make sure that it does not end up being the personal blog of a handful for pushing tendentious points. Rama 10:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DTC and the fact that it has already been cleaned up since nominated: Charlie Chaplin, George Bernard Shaw, and Pablo Picasso are no longer on the list. Turnstep 12:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lists of people by ideology are inherently useful and in most cases the people on this list have something in their bios which identifies them as a sympathiser with the USSR under the control of Stalin. Perhaps the introduction should be tweaked so as to make it sound less like a pejorative list. David | Talk 13:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep'. The article does serve a historical purpose. There are a number of such subjective lists in Wikipedia (eg: List of neo-cons). --DuKot 19:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As DTC says, we have other unverifiable uncited POV lists, that doesn't mean we should keep this one. By personalising it as Stalinists rather than, say, Communists or Marxixts, this is simply an attack page. Also, it contains no actual ancyclopaedic content: there is no context regarding why each of the listed has been called a Stalinist, or indeed by whom (self-identification is not, after all a terribly reliable guide here), or how often, or in what media. Most of all, when the sixty contentious entries were removed, what was left was 17 more-or-less statist political leaders and a couple of hangers-on, one of whom repudiated the claim in later life. It's ridiculous! Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The list should be a bit longer now. I think most of the names still essentially fit as self-described. Granted I'm not so sure about that modern Russian, but most of the rest were people who worked closely with Stalin and or said they patterned themselves after him.--T. Anthony 23:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although the names may fit the description (sort a) the list brings almost no useful information to a reader. Making a "list" by putting a label to forehead of few people is not encyclopedical activity. This kind of "contributions" is what makes WP look like garbage bin. Pavel Vozenilek 01:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd think things like List of Japanese bondage models or the numerous ways to analyze Sci-Fi shows is more what makes the place look a bit trashy. Stalinists are in least an important part of history and length limits don't allow for all these lists to be linked to their articles the way lists would be in encyclopedias.--T. Anthony 04:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friends Camp[edit]

nn religous camp, granted first google hit is it, but most google hits seem to be other "Friends Camp"s Pboyd04 05:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game support

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woggle'd[edit]

To which we should add: Wikipedia is not for things you make up in online games, either. Daniel Case 06:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Georgia Liberation Front[edit]

Even if there were more than 87 Google hits, I still wouldn't consider a college debate team notable in and of itself. Daniel Case 05:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable student group, no longer exists so no chance to make itself more notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-10 05:59Z
  • Delete per Quarl -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nothing worth merging to West Georgia or policy debate. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Werdna648T/C\@ 09:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Appears to be a spoof debating team. The name sounds more like a revolutionary paramtiliaty organization. Blnguyen 00:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created this article. I didn't have time to finish it but I think your application of the notability guidelines is misdirected. WGLF is certainly notable within the field of policy debate as a truly groundbreaking project. They got at-large bids to the National Debate Tournament just telling jokes. The fact that they have mainstream media coverage (the CSTV documnetary) is also notable in my mind. Your qualms about the name are not reasons for deletion. Also the number of google hits makes them THE most notable policy debate team. Debator 01:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I once got laughs on tv telling a joke at the Bi-Annual National Pinball Convention...unfortunately, doesn't merit a Wiki article. On the other hand though, assuming you're familiar with the subject, I'm sure you have a lot you could improve on the policy debate article itself :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 02:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 10:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S-50[edit]

Unverifiable. Its source website doesn't refer to the subject. Although it has millions of Googles, the Google system is designed to match the exact text the best it can, but the first few results are completely unrelated. Down the list at #32, there is actually an exact match, but it is some music album. King of Hearts | (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When Googling a generic term like that, add more words from context. For example, try '"s-50" u235 u238 liquid diffusion' or '"s-50" u235 u238 oak ridge'. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-10 05:58Z


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Writers[edit]

Apparently non-notable magazine. I can't find it via Google - unverifiable. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-10 05:50Z


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse caused house fire (2006)[edit]

Wikinews has related news:

Wikipedia is not Wikinews. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As the article notes, the story may not have been as cute as it first sounded. And in any event it wouldn't even be notable one week from now. Daniel Case 05:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save: This was a worldwide phenomenon and therefore deserves consideration. Newspapers as far as India, the UK, Germany, Australia, and more have covered this interesting event. Additionally, this article provides the truth that many do not know about the situation.

    This page is much like Star Wars kid and the Numa Numa phenomenon. Though this one has not got as popular, it has gained a large audience and falls into the category of these different phenomenon. It is not news reporting and does not intend to be. Instead, it is there to provide information on the event for future viewers who may be interested. P-unit 05:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • This page is much like Star Wars kid and the Numa Numa phenomenon.. No, it isn't. Those were videos that continue to circulate and be downloaded online. This is a one-off news story which may not even be. There is no visual or online record of this. It is not an Internet phenomenon (Although, in that vein, why is there no Wedding Dress Guy? Getting the truth out about it is, at this point, not Wikipedia's job but Wikinews's. Daniel Case 06:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jennifer Wilbanks, the runnaway bride is covered. That is a specific news phenomenon. Though this situation is smaller, it is significant and takes up little space. Its size is proportional to is significance and this sort of reference is needed. I think it would be an asset to Wikipedia to include things like this mouse thing, the runnaway bride, and the Wedding Dress Guy you talk of. long as their articles do not become so long they overrepresent the topic, I think it is fine to keep them. These sorts of events are significant. P-unit 06:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In a perfect world, those would all be deleted too. Adam Bishop 22:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this isn't the current Missing White Female, it's a news story that everyone will forget about. Put it on wikinews if you must, but not here -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unnotable event. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 07:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's had its 15 seconds of fame. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Find a better home for it - in some record of wacky events Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 08:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Werdna648T/C\@ 09:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Interesting, but news events are not inherently encyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with above. Where are all you folks when this stuff comes up for discussion?? Eusebeus 16:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete' - "This was a worldwide phenomenon " No it wasn't, it was a news story, and one I found on page 124 of BBC One Ceefax at 6 this morning. It'll barely be remembered tomorrow. doktorb | words 19:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not every house fire is encyclopedic, even if the underlying facts are unusual. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Adam Bishop 22:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duh. silsor 22:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a mouse in my garage once, it was caught in a mouse-trap but escaped, then fell in an open can of glue but got out of that, then it got a bunch of crap stuck to it, then my cocker spaniel dog caught it and killed it, but then spit it out quickly since glue tastes friggin' nasty, then it got stuck to my dog's ear. Uh, anyway, what I'm trying to say is, uh....Delete. — TheKMantalk 22:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it looks as if it wasn't even the mouse who caused the fire at all. --Revolución (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's already on Wikinews (and written better there). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 02:45Z
  • Delete. Overall it's an unencyclopedic topic, should do fine on Wikinews though. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 11:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - total absence of context. -- RHaworth 09:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More student life...[edit]

I have no idea what this is supposed to be about, much less why it's notable enough for Wikipedia. But I do know that you're not going to establish this with errant screenshots for which the uploader provides no source info. Daniel Case 06:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy --Heah talk 06:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Speedy delete NN clubs and people can be speedied under CSD A7 Werdna648T/C\@ 09:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Baillie[edit]

Delete. Not a notable enough person to warrant a page, i d say. Mayumashu 06:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepYou make a fair point re whether the article, as I initially drafted it, portrayed an individual notable enough to warrant a page. I have added further information which, I submit, establishes Baillie as a noteworthy Nova Scotian, one from whom we will hear more in the future. Please reconsider the proposed deletion of this article; I respectfully request that it be allowed to remain. JohnMacDonell 18:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
if this individual becomes the person you feel he will, write the page up then. this does look like an attempt to promote this person to benefit his political ambitions (John MacDonell is the name of the president of the political party mentioned on the Jamie Baillie page) Mayumashu 05:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak conditional delete. If someone can cite proof that he's a leading contender to take over leadership of the government, or if someone can expand on his time as Hamm's chief of staff, then keep. -- Mwalcoff 00:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've seen worse bios. Article needs to be wikified. Atrian 06:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's pulled out of the running, according to Nova Scotia Progressive Conservative leadership election, 2006. He's borderline notable, but I think he still just falls short. I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise, but unless there is something more, I'm voting Incredibly weak delete. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 21:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Dyer[edit]

notable? Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination Segv11 (talk/contribs) 23:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep according to Amazon, at least her earlier two books were reissued in paperback [16] after the initial hardcover edition. That's a strong indication towards the 5000-sales guideline in WP:BIO. ×Meegs 06:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Meegs. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Meegs Werdna648T/C\@ 09:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep quite a few google results for her books -- Astrokey44|talk 13:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iron guild[edit]

971 Google hits]. Copied from user page. Doesn't seem like much more than organizational vanity to me. Daniel Case 06:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; merge and redirect all. Johnleemk | Talk 12:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Southern Taiwan University of Technology, Campus environment of Southern Taiwan University of Technology, Southern Taiwan University of Technology Department of Multimedia and Entertainment Science, Southern Taiwan University of Technology Department of Visual Communication, Southern Taiwan University Of Technology College of Digital Design, Southern Taiwan University Of Technology Department of Information and Communication[edit]

A single user is attempting to create or duplicate a university webpage on wikipedia. As Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider, this page has no business being in Wikipedia. The small amount of actual content here is barely worth including in a consolidated STUT article. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cruci-fetus[edit]

Page about a band that does not obviously assert its notability as required by WP:MUSIC. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete NN Bands can be speedied under CSD A7 Werdna648T/C\@ 09:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - misses requirements. Essexmutant 10:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete does not reach WP:MUSIC guidelines -- Astrokey44|talk 13:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above. Added appropriate tag. --Pboyd04 14:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the band is apparently "notorious state wide" and got regional attention. Kappa 15:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that Kappa is contesting the speedy deletion, I removed the speedy tag and will let this run through the normal AfD process. howcheng {chat} 17:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, let's let this thing hang around for a week. Delete, just another band. Lord Bob 19:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedily if possible. Stifle 22:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer of power[edit]

No obvious content. Might be a candidate for a redirect to Independence of India, though I'm dubious even of that much. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mention the alternate name for the event in the "Independance of India" article. Delete this article, too generic to serve as a redirect to a specific event, and too broad a topic to disambig every 'notable' "transfer of power" in history. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Werdna648T/C\@ 09:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Saberwyn ×Meegs 11:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Saberwyn. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 02:51Z
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 22:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HADRA[edit]

This article about a musical group, band, singer, musician, album, or song does not make it clear whether the subject meets the WikiProject Music criteria for importance. The article is even flagged with the {{music-importance}} a template which creates:

This article about a musical group, band, singer, musician, album, or song does not make it clear whether the subject meets the WikiProject Music criteria for importance. For guidelines see the WikiProject Music Notability and Music guidelines.
If you have the relevant information, please expand the article to include it, or cite sources on the article's talk page.

 ALKIVAR™ 09:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for more input. Johnleemk | Talk 08:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Hadra trance gets 20k hits, though Im not sure how many of those relate to this particular festival, it is a reasonable article. It also seems to have been held in different countries, that is France and Morocco -- Astrokey44|talk 14:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    yes but only 52 seperate sites link to their website www.hadra.net according to google, as a comparison the first site that comes up on google for "goa trance party" (goatrance.de) gets about 1,230 linking to it. Its virtually insignificant in comparison. Alexa gives it a Traffic Rank of 966,839. This definately falls below the notability radar.  ALKIVAR™ 15:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yahoo.fr gives < 200 hits when excluding a trance festival held July 1st 2005. MNewnham 17:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as utterly non-notable. Stifle 22:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kennel Club Books[edit]

Weak Delete - This one is borderline - without serious changes, this more like spam than it does an article about a company. Trysha (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 40k google hits -- Astrokey44|talk 14:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable-enough publisher in the dog world, and there are plenty of smallish businesses with articles here. Now, if it were for just a single book, that would be more spam-like. Elf | Talk 17:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending re-write - yeah... (Signed: J.Smith) 21:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, currently passes WP:CORP. Stifle 22:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. --Cyde Weys votetalk 05:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cake mix[edit]

Nominated for merging. Nobody wanted to merge it, someone transwikied it to the Wiktionary, so it's time to throw out the expired cake mix...er...article. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 09:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep its more than a dicdef because it says something of the history. Could be expanded from something like [17] -- Astrokey44|talk 14:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article could do with being expanded to include more of the history of the subject but it is sound in essence and has the potential to be used for research. -- (aeropagitica) UK 17:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Cake mix is very noteworthy. Few people make cake from scratch anymore. Wisco 19:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand (however long it takes). Legitimate topic. Calsicol 20:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, stir into a bowl with one egg and 3/4 cup of water, spread into a baking pan and cook at 350 degrees, for 40 minutes. BD2412 T 21:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. per Calsicol. Very legit. (and add frosting) Crunch 00:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into cake. --Revolución (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment2: I already suggested that. Nobody wanted to. That's why I posted it here. (See above.) Cernen Xanthine Katrena 03:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw request for deletion. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 03:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Anthony Ayers[edit]

Schizophrenic homeless man who dropped out of Juilliard some 30 years ago. A touching human interest piece in the Los Angeles Times fails to satisfy WP:Music. He played with no notable musicians and apparently made no recordings. Durova 09:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete human interest journalism. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable person. Article in the Los Angeles Times did not cover any achievements of his, nor did it have any verified wider impact (e.g. a change in attitude or policy towards schizophrenics) nor did any other media apparently find the man of interest (as was the case with Piano Man). --Malthusian (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wish the article had at least gotten him a job, which it apparently did not. Durova 17:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable as per Malthusian. Blnguyen 00:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable biography. Recommend the article author see WikiMe for writing biographies and/or WikiTree for writing genealogies. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 02:52Z


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. —Cleared as filed. 04:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mauricio barajas[edit]

Most likely a user page mistakenly created as an article. A Google search comes up with foreign-language pages that may but probably do not refer to him, either way non-notable. How many notable 17-year-olds are there? -- simpatico (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morag Tong[edit]

A fictional secret society in a single XBox game. Well written but not very encyclopedic. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mages Guild. I vote delete. — JIP | Talk 11:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete content better off on dedicated fansites. Though I am myself a fan of the Elder Scrolls games & universe Wikipedia is not the place for this. The external link to til.gamingsource.net at Elder Scrolls do nicely. Please note, this is not only limited to an Xbox game, is from the ES universe. Scoo 11:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, based partially on the precedent set by allowing a number of other articles relating to the same game series (see Morrowind). Fiction does not preclude an article's worthiness on Wikipedia, and the Elder Scrolls universe had a surprising depth to it, comparable to what one could find in a popular movie, television, or written fictional series. There are a number of articles on obscure parts of the Star Wars and Lord of the Rings universes, after all. Deadsalmon 12:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could someone more knowledgeable than myself find if there's a ES Wiki for the article to be moved to in case of deletion? My limited knowledge of how the wikis work prevents me from figuring it out at the moment. Deadsalmon 12:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is an Elder Scrolls wiki located at UESP, but they've been having DNS problems according to their cached google page. JaKaL! 18:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Davis[edit]

totally non-notable; failed City Council candidate Lincolnite 11:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Margolis[edit]

Delete, non-notable person. Google searches [18] [19] seem to support this. Dlinga 11:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't see her "albums" anywhere. The lone TV appearance and "amazing" playing is nice for her, but doesn't quite cut it. PJM 12:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To be a notable biography, this article should include references, citations and a critical appraisal of the subject's work. "Amazing playing" is POV; the album should be linked to if it is notable and reviews placing the subject in context should also be linked. This article doesn't form a good basis for reference without this information. -- (aeropagitica) UK 17:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable biography. Recommend the article author see WikiMe for writing biographies and/or WikiTree for writing genealogies. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 02:55Z
  • Delete per Quarl. Stifle 22:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, but feel free to boldly merge. —Cleared as filed. 13:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald's urban legends[edit]

Delete. Wikipedia is not Snopes, and the information is not of any substantial value. Any relevant information from this article that should be saved can easily be merged into the main McDonald's article. Deadsalmon 12:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Mostly not-verifiable. External links are not directly related to content of article. Merge any verifable content into McDonald's and Urban Legend. Crunch 12:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does have references and tries to give both points of view. I got rid of that 'debunking fact' rubbish -- Astrokey44|talk 15:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - fairly well-written and referenced. Essexmutant 16:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The references consist of several articles which mention the pig fat thing, McDonald's own pages which verify the one about how many countries McD's operates in (though not that there is a notable urban legend relating to it), and Rotten.com, which is so far from being a reliable source it's not funny. The McLibel case is covered elsewhere and I don't think pig fat and the countries thing merit an article of their own. The others are all introduced with something along the lines of "There is a rumour", which is a meaningless weasel term. --Malthusian (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge verifiable material back into McDonald's. Daniel Case 17:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what's useful into the main entry, delete the rest. 19:12 UTC 10 January 2006
  • Salvage the suitable stuff, merge with McDonalds, and Delete this informative but largely pointless piece. doktorb | words 19:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The verifiability policy puts the burden of proof on the contributor to cite sources. This article is so well-written I thought it might be a copyvio, but some key phrases don't Google as exact phrases. If everything in it were sourced, I'd vote "keep" on the grounds that I find it interesting and it's long enough to stand on its own as a separate article. Unfortunately, at present almost nothing in it is properly sourced or verifiable, so I see almost nothing in it to "salvage." Too bad, as the incidents in it ring true, are probably accurate, and would be worth keeping if sourced. Will change my vote if the article is greatly improved before expiration of AfD. I believe I'll go tag the unsourced statements. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. JohnLeemk asked me to take another look. I think it's adequately sourced now; topic is borderline but article is now reasonably encyclopedic; and this would make a disproportionately large section if merged into McDonald's. 13:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • you shouldn't delete this article because the information it provides as it is titled, are legends, meaning that they have a tendency to lack of vericity, therefore these information is only usefull for amusing and as a reference to the history of this huge company called Mcdonald's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.139.145.161 (talk • contribs)
    • You've pretty much summed up the reason to delete. This is an encyclopaedia; we can only include stuff that is verified. We can talk about rumours and urban legends, but only if it's verified that anyone actually talks about them; of all those here, only two 'rumours' are verified as existing (pig fat and McLibel). --Malthusian (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Crunch and Deadsalmon MiracleMat 17:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • McDelete. Sorry, couldn't help myself. Jtmichcock 04:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever bits have cites and delete the rest. Kafziel 16:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article. Add a section to McDonald's article with the verifiable bits. RicDod 14:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. A few minutes on Google, and I've gotten reputable sources for all but a couple of the rumours. This appears to be a worthy topic, and certainly more notable than Chicken McNuggets, IMO. I'm in the process of adding these sources to the article; here is a sample of them. [20][21][22] Johnleemk | Talk 12:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, I have added another rumour to the article, also citing a reputable source. I firmly believe it would be impractical to merge this into the main McDonald's article because of its size. Johnleemk | Talk 13:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stranlone Young Men[edit]

Non notable football team in a very low division of a minor league in a small country Kiand 12:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, vanity with some nonsense thrown in for good measure. Demiurge 13:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable team; article is mostly fluff and nonsense. -- (aeropagitica) UK 17:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a suburban weekend team? Vanity + rubbish. As if it has links to Michael Ballack and Ronaldinho, the capatins of Germany and Brazil respectively. They wouldn't have at least USD$30-50 million required to sign Ballack, let alone his salary, maybe USD$10 million per annum?. Blnguyen 00:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable football club. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 02:56Z
  • Delete, complete nonsense Stu 15:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE - OFFICAL CLUB WITH LINKS TO MANCHESTER UNITED AND HAS RECIEVED WRITTEN BACKING FROM THEIR ACADEMY COACH BRIAN MCCLAIR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan kerr10 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment: user's first edit. Demiurge 16:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, totally non-notable. Lincolnite 18:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as some strange vanity. Looks like an amateurish yearbook page rather than an encyclopedic article. Grandmasterka 07:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Delete, this somehow returns 0 hits on Google. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does lack of fame make a vanity article?

An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia. Borderline cases are frequently nominated for deletion and discussed on WP:AFD. Lack of fame is not the same as vanity. (OFFICAL WIKIPEDIA EXPLANATION)

There you have it! It is not vanity - just lack of fame!!!


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

Fullmoonchild[edit]

This band was marked for speedy deletion as a non-notable band, but the article's author makes an assertion of notability on the talk page (and there are a few assertions of possible notability in the article text), so I have moved it here to AFD. —Cleared as filed. 12:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I did some research on this last night, and they seem notable enough so that speedy delete is perhaps too harsh. However, IconDevelopment (the label they recently signed with) doesn't seem to be important enough to count as WP:MUSIC criteria, and they don't really meet any of the other requirements, unless they're popular enough to merit enough demand for an article. Snurks T C 21:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 'Icon Development' is starting up as a label/distributor/promoting agency, and does not have many noticeable bands in their "portfolio". That doesn't change the fact that the band is known in the "underground" Metal scene, and all over the world, especially in Europe.

We're striving to get more "successful" and I think our hard work will compensate in a few years. We hope that our new EP will help on making us more "notable". And again, if u compare FMC to Hand Fated (in their "website" no news since 2000), why r they more noticeable? Why does HF have a Wiki and FMC doesn't? It seems to me that it's not fair...And btw, Moonspell is great, I love them, but not the only Heavy Metal band in Portugal...

Tnx to Snurks for the support also. Cheers!

--ThunderDrum 08:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Ok, I agree we aren't that notable, but can someone explain to me where's the notability in the band Hand Fated? And they r at Wiki since April 2005...

So why their article is not purposed for delete also? I just wanna a fair chance and equal rights, if someone could explain why HF is more notable than FMC I would appreciate and repent (lol)... I've done my best to assert our notability, I realize it's not enough...I understand what u do here in Wiki, I honestly do understand that we r not notable enough to be in a Enciclopedia, but I found other band even less notable (IMO) than us...and seems no one cares about their "notability", and even I that live near the place were they (suposedly) play, never heard of them before...and I get around in music since 1993/4 I've seen also some 'stubs' and vanity articles and I've tried not to do one... Cheers! --ThunderDrum 10:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. According to the article the band is notable enough. Unfortunately, article seems to have been created and maintained by a member of the band, so it's nothing but a serious NPOV violation. ThunderDrum, think of it this way: your band is notable enough when someone else writes the article. Writing one yourself is the worst you can do. (By the way, next time you see less-notable bands, nominate them for deletion. Just because an article exists, doesn't mean it's worth it.) -- Parasti 22:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Parasti u r absolutely correct, I understand your POV...

I'll wait until someone writes it again...Cheers! --ThunderDrum 19:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Brown Party of Canada[edit]

I don't think there actually is such registered political party in Canada. The weblink just points to a fairly insignificant webforum or blog. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as hoax. Eusebeus 15:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, clearly it's not a real party but rather more of an art project. I believe this is quite apparent from the statement made in the article: "The Brown Party of Canada is not a registered fringe party. Voting for The Brown Party of Canada will spoil your ballot."

It does, at the very least, exist semiotically. That must count for something, no?

I should add, that if you want to get rid of this entry you'll be required to apply the same logic to the article for the Canadian Extreme Wrestling Party, which does have an entry. In fact, there's an entry called "List of frivolous political parties," some of which are officially registered, and some of which are not (such as the aforementioned, now defunct, Wrestling Party).

Virtualian

  • Delete as non-notable fictional political party. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 02:58Z
  • Weak Delete While Virtualian has a point, this particular article verges towards a vanity page. Cleanup required to stay around. Atrian 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete all fictional parties, or cleanup this and keep subject to verification -- SockpuppetSamuelson 08:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:BALLS, perhaps. Stifle 22:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interflop[edit]

It seems to be a non-notable website, negligible google hits for interflop.com. --Mysidia (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a rogue group! Not that I want to enrage these bad boys, but delete it just the same. -- Captain Disdain 00:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Carabinieri 13:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Fire Star 02:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sequentialism[edit]

Google turns up nothing on this Lindström chap. Therefore, no historical interest and non-notable. Daniel Case 06:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)]][reply]

  • delete rediscovered and reinvented by Lucian Einhorn (aka Lucian Winston) in late December of 2005 is a bit of a giveaway. MNewnham 16:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch mustain[edit]

High school football player. A good number of Google hits, but is a high school football player that has not committed to a college notable? I wasn't sure, so I'm AfDing this instead of putting a speedy tag on it. TomTheHand 15:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment not really my thing, but the article could do with some sources at the very least. At the moment it is just a series of unbacked assertions. Sliggy 16:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC) No vote, don't know enough about the topic to judge either way now. Sliggy 00:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless proof of the claims can be provided for verification - #1 high school quarterback? - this article should be deleted as it is of dubious research value. -- (aeropagitica) UK 17:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, he is the number one quarterback in the country according to Parade magazine, but until he has won a Heisman or been drafted by the pros, fails to establish notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google search confirms he is Parade's player of the year. 26,800 Google hits. This article on ESPN.com demonstrates that he is no ordinary high-school quarterback. I'll try to improve the article. -- Mwalcoff 00:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for the moment, per Mwalcoff. Stifle 22:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per Mwalcoof, notable high school football player, Parade player of the year, number one quarterback in the countrym but if he gets injured playing college football or becomes a bust and never makes the pros which I doubt, it could always be nominated again for deletion --Jaranda wat's sup 04:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I've no doubt this guy will be a good college quarterback, especially given Parade's record, but we really ought to wait until he does something. --WinOne4TheGipper 04:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Symington[edit]

Seems to be non-notable (as also raised in the Discussion page, Google has little to say on the subject. Probably just a prank against a guy called Symington. Nach0king 15:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Reads like an attack. No Guru 17:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not encyclopedia material. Edgar181 19:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be sullying a certain surname to describe types of people that the author finds disagreeable. Blnguyen 00:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is total rubbish. Lincolnite 18:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was transwikied; delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnati media[edit]

This looks like it belongs in the yellow pages. Perhaps a rewrite is more appropriate than deletion though Hirudo 15:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowikis welcomes Cincinnati media.--Yellowikis Admin 17:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Yellowiki. Stifle 22:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonball Z :New Generation[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article itself is poorly written, incorrectly titled (colon in the wrong spot) and POV, which obviously does not a candidate for deletion make. However, it looks like the article was copied verbatim from the forum rules, forum itself has about 120 members, a search for "dragonball z new generation" gives 9 unique hits, mostly from DBZ directories, and I see no claims of media coverage or awards received. Confusing Manifestation 17:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep eventually, but need heavy cleanup and style edits. --circuitloss 17:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at MDGs through the Lens of Indian Caste System[edit]

This should be deleted as an essay, hopelessly riddled with POV. --maru (talk) Contribs 00:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Mahapatra[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated for these reasons - 1. The subject is not notable. Presidency of a student club, young employee of a bank seems to be his only claims to fame. 2. The article appears to have been created to allow (or at least has served the purpose of) the publication of potentially libellous claims about subject, perhaps by a rival at work (the person who attempted to introduce said claims was called "Morganstanman" and he claims to work at same place as subject. 3. Much of information (which I deleted) which made up the article consisted of total speculation about the subject's future role in British politics despite no indication that he is currently or has ever been involved in politics other than as President of a student debating society.

--82.35.78.232 17:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The Oxford Union is a notable organisation and Presidents of the Union often go on to become notable individuals in their chosen fields. Mr Mahapatra doesn't appear to be a notable junior investment banker, nor to have achieved anything else beyond graduation that the author feels should be used to assert his notable status. Non-notable biography. -- (aeropagitica) UK 17:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like a vanity page. --circuitloss 17:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable biography per (aeropagitica). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 03:00Z
  • Delete as per norm. --ΜιĿːtalk 17:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 05:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Crowley[edit]

Not notable. r3m0t talk 14:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can't see how this is notable. (Disclaimer: since this is my namesake I may be biased.) — ciphergoth 16:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear, ciphergoth is named "Paul Crowley", and this article is not about him. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-3 16:09
  • Keep. Notability is not a delete criterion, and you have not provided any other criteria for deletion. The content is completely verifiable. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-3 16:07
    • Notability is speedy delete criterion A7 - see WP:CSD. Also see Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. — ciphergoth 16:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you even read the vanity page you cited: "people such as college professors or actors may be individually important in society." — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-3 17:10
      • As for the CSD you cite, that is a confusion of the criterion: it is referring to articles that simply talk about a person in a non-important way, such as "Bob Jones was born in 1990. He currently lives in Los Angeles, California, and attends the local high school." Now if it said, "Bob Jones was the boy stuck in a well for 6 weeks in 2001. He currently lives in Los Angeles, California", then the article asserts importance. As for vanity, that refers to articles that are written in a highly positive tone, such as if the article was written by its own subject. Vanity is pretty easy to spot, and this article is definitely not vanity. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-3 17:12
        • The irony is that this article was originally about a different Paul Crowley, the one who writes about Shakespeare. When I challeneged that person's notability, someone Googled for "Paul Crowley" and added information about this other Paul Crowley. When I pointed out the confusion, information about the first one was deleted, leaving only the information about the second. You may draw your own conclusions about what this says about the notability of either party. — ciphergoth 08:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Shakespearean one may deserve an article as well. I don't know enough about him to write a decent-sized article, but I knew enough about the professor to write the current article. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-6 22:38
  • Keep - seems okay to me. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 09:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reasonably more than "the average college professor".--Samuel J. Howard 10:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets the "professor test" in WP:BIO and could qualify as an author if any of his books sold more than 5,000 copies. Movementarian 10:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • thanks to all those visiting from WP:VP. I confess I'd sooner have a decision I disagree with than a "no consensus" result. — ciphergoth 13:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A man bold enough to publish books on religious subjects is on par with us at WP who write only articles. More, the books can be of some interest for some (I didn't try them) and they would miss the author's reference. --Harvestman 20:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - User:Brian0918 and others have filled out this article with enough detail that I can now see that this is actually quite a notable person, so changing my vote. Thanks! — ciphergoth 19:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Essexmutant 16:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks good now. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 03:02Z
  • keep. A department chair of a major university. Kingturtle 19:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pi hat[edit]

Orphaned article only linked from categories it placed itself in. Not convinced its a widely used mathematical concept. --Pfafrich 12:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anything hat is typically regarded as the unit vector in the direction of anything, and in my years of physics and maths I've never known for pi to be picked as the typical arbitrary direction vector. Confusing Manifestation 16:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge anything useful into unit vector. Edgar181 19:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Confusing Manifestation. Crunch 23:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Confusing Manifestation. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 03:03Z
  • Delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need to merge as there is nothing useful here not already in articles about vectors and such. --C S (Talk) 16:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Confusing Manifestation. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ConMan. -- Fropuff 02:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete (but can be recreated if a substantially differnet and improved version appears). -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steam Forums[edit]

Non-notable forum and target of multiple vandals. Original article had little content. --NaconKantari 23:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is an absolutely terrible article, delete --Untruth 23:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Disparaging article, non-notable forums. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 23:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Steam (content delivery)--nixie 23:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is anyone likely to search for Steam Forums? Tom Harrison Talk 03:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for now. There seems to be nothing here worth protecting from vandals. --Malthusian (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, despite sockpuppets. Proto t c 17:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as (apparently) notable web forum. 248,577 users is a lot. Some of the historic revisions are better than "for me to poop on". Might need to be semi-protected if kept. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 03:07Z
  • Keep - This is definitely notable. The Steam Forums are the official forums of Valve Software and cover such games as Half-Life, Half-Life 2, Day of Defeat, Counter-Strike, etc. Cyde Weys votetalk 05:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - from the original article it seemed as if it might pass WP:WEB. However, as long as there don't seem to be sufficient editors interested to keep it unvandalized without resorting to protection, and as long as there's nothing more to be protected than a stub, I don't think it's worth keeping. I think I looked at all the edits that might not have been vandalism, and couldn't find any versions of the article longer than a stub ("it exists, it has x users and y posts as of z") that weren't vandalism. Maybe add a note about the forum in wherever is relevant, presumably Steam (content delivery). --Malthusian (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There seems to be nothing here particularly useful. Delete, and if a new rticle with worthwile content takes it's place, great. If it's deleted and not brought back... so be it. There wasn't much of an article in the first place Edward nz 04:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Television's Greatest Commercials[edit]

  • This page is out of date, and there are many articles which have been deleted for less than this. Non mainstream, where do you begin just a instant delete Mike 10:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:50, 10 January 2006

(UTC)

  • Keep:stub says it's a TV show on an Australian network, seems notable enough. Smerdis of Tlön 16:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could not find any confirmation for "Television's Greatest Commercials" "tim ferguson" [23]. A program by that name existed, but was not produced in Australia [24]. I vote delete unless either: 1. the article is made about the NBC show, or 2. a proof of existence for this particular TV show is provided. - Liberatore(T) 17:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but expand to include more about both the Australian and American shows. 23skidoo 20:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Response to Smerdis of Tlön it is not notable as an Australian Show is was cancelled long ago didn't last long and obviously not a valuable page. I mean the article about commandN which is extremely popular with the tech community was deleted for nothing and this obviously a deserving deletion article. If it isn't deleted and commandN keeps deleted wikipedia and its editors have lost alot of my respect. Mike 22:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly POV. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if it's a notable show. The show may be POV but the article really isn't. Crunch 00:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Show existed theres no doubt of that, Australians know that however its not notable enough to be a wikipedia article really has no interest maybe on a list of Australian shows but not its own article especially seeing as how short it is. There could be a article written about the American version with a short part about the Australian version however the Australian version alone does not qualify for its own article. Mike 05:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If the show actually existed, and was broadcast on a major Australian TV network, it seems hard to imagine that it was not notable enough to warrant an article, even if it did not last long. Minor Australian TV shows are not less notable than minor US ones, and we have articles on minor US shows like Battle of the Network Stars; see also WP:BIAS. I'm in no position to confirm that the show actually aired, other than the fact that it appeared to be confirmed by the Tim Ferguson article. Smerdis of Tlön 12:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Unless you know anything about this show and/or live in Australia now or during that perioud I dont think your fit to comment on "whether it existed" it did exist however is not notable as most people (australians) dont know about the show as it was on for such a short period a while ago. Mike 03:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirt to San Antonio, Texas. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Districts and communities of San Antonio, Texas[edit]

History first. This article began as a section in the San Antonio (SA) article. At one point a large amount of information was added to the section, greatly increasing it's size. The section was then broken out into it's own article to bring the size of the SA article back under control. Then, it was discovered that all the extra text was a copyright vio, and the text was removed, bringing the article's size way back down. The remaining small amount of text was then copied back into the main SA article, where it now exists.

End result, the reason this article was created no longer applies, and the contents of the article are duplicated in the main SA article.

So I see no real reason for this separate article to remain at this time, though I could see it's recreation at a future date if the section in the main article were to grow again. TexasAndroid 16:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to preserve article history, and as a useful start if the article is split off again at a later date. Proto t c 17:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's not really all that much history on the sub-article to save. And it would not be a particularly useful redirect, IMHO. So while I would not oppose this as an alternative, I really don't see it as the best option. TexasAndroid 19:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect; these are cheap, and don't hurt at all. Johnleemk | Talk 07:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ali Naqvi[edit]

Not verifiable as to notability (no sources). Possible auto-biography. Jcbarr 16:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As an example, I have tried a Google search for this persons' name + "The Role of the Ombudsman and the concept of Administrative Justice"; this search returns only the author's page in geocities (other than the wikipedia article) [25] and only got the wikipedia page and the author's page. If this were an "eminent historian" he would have at least be cited somewhere. Anyway, WP:V is clear: "Any edit lacking a source may be removed" (in this case, the whole article lacks sources); the new proposal says "The obligation to provide a reputable source is on editors wishing to include information, not on those seeking to remove it." - Liberatore(T) 17:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 22:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-army army[edit]

This seems to be a vanity page. -- MatthewDBA 16:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invader Tim[edit]

No real context for this page, and I get zero Googles for "Invader Tim"+Manhasset. Probably not quite patent nonsense, so I figured I'd list it for AFD instead of going for the speedy. As such, Delete. -Colin Kimbrell 16:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just for the record, the content on the discussion page preceded the AFD nomination. As such, it might imply bad faith in the article's creation. -Colin Kimbrell 20:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete I'd like to defend this page. It is indeed a real person. You might find it to be nonsense, but in Manhasset High School, barely anyone can be asked "Who is Invader Tim" and have no response. The Invasion is widely known by the people, and it should be considered a part of the culture. People know it, people participate, and all events recorded in the entry are true. This page should NOT be deleted. Sp33df0rc3 21:35, 10 January 2006
Published dodumentation would be nice if this were so, but I do not suspect it will be forthcoming. Vonspringer


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ditherals[edit]

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Bearcat. Stifle 11:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now undeleted and reopened, per WP:DRV, as the speedy was deemed improper. As this discussion was never allowed to run its course, I decided to repost rather than renominate. Votes below are still valid. -R. fiend 19:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRV discussion --- Charles Stewart(talk) 21:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only 200 google hits, and 6 unique hits outside of blogs, therefore not common usage MNewnham 16:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Proto t c 17:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Related to this [[27]]
  • I am shocked that you want to delete this page. Ditherals is not widely used by the mainstream media, but is much more commonly used in regular speach and very common in political blogs especially in this election season. If someone is reading a blog, and comes accross Ditherals, they should be able to go to Wikipedia to look it up. Why delete it? I strongly object to the deletion request. There is no "common usage" criteria in Wikipedia's deletion protocol.
    • There most certainly is a "common usage" criterion in Wikipedia's deletion protocol; to merit an article, things on here have to be (a) verifiable, (b) notable, (c) encyclopedic, and (d) neutral and unbiased. This is none of the above. Consider it speedied. And before you make the accusation I know you're just itching to make, I am not a Liberal Party of Canada member, supporter or voter. Bearcat 05:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I protest and repeat that there is no common usage criterion in Wikipedia's deletion protocol. A word does not have to be in common usage to be (a) verifiable, (b) notable, (c) encyclopedic. There hare thousands of Wikipedia entries in uncommon usage that are all verifiable, notable and encyclopedic. The definition was not written in a baised manner. You have deleted the page without 'Wikipedia community consensus' and in violation of Wikipedia's deletion protocol which requires community consensus. Please revive the page to aviod going throught the deletion review process. Readers of Canadian Poltics blogs are coming accross the word Ditherals every day. Lastly, you accuse me of "itching to make the accusation that you are a member of the Liberal Party of Canada" without justification and I request that you retract that statement. -Palmerston — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmerston (talk • contribs) 11:43, 11 January 2006
  • I thought the speedy delete was improper, and said so at Deletion reveiw. But a google search finds only 15 unique results, all of which seem to be blogs or forums of soem sort. I would like some evidence of notability. "Widespread use" is a good way to show notability, albiet not the only way. Has this been mentioned in print journalism, for example? can we have a cite or two? Unless notability is better established, Weak Delete. DES (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I might add that if it is nothing more than a defination, a wiktionary entry might be the better course, or perhaps the term should be mentioned in Liberal Party of Canada, and this page be converted into a redirect?. DES (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary following DES's reasoning. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 21:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. 17 unique Google hits Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. Mindmatrix 17:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary I wrote the definition and opposed the speedy delete. I now agree that it should move wo wikitionary. Palmerston 21:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. Does wikitionary accept derogatory nicknames used solely on blogs for several days? --maclean25 00:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above. This does not automatically preclude transwiki, as whatever happens at wiktionary is out of scope of this AFD, and I really don't care what wiktionary does. If they want this, it's theirs. -R. fiend 01:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The reference to an Economist article doesn't check out--the leader is called "Mr Dithers" in that but the term ditheral doesn't appear, and the term on the web seems to be confined to a few political blogs.
  • Delete. Partisan neologism. The Tom 19:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. I'll list it on cleanup.. Johnleemk | Talk 13:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modification of Political Parties Under the Restoration[edit]

This page feels like utter nonsense. If it can be cleaned up, great, but there's inconsistencies (House of Commons AND French references AND US political parties) and no sources, no hard references, not linked, etc Jcbarr 16:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If this is not nonsense, then it urgently requires the provision of context and clarity. Strong delete unless verified. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 08:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite. Needs copyedit, sources, context, move to different title. Seems to be a legitimate topic about French history, maybe a poor translation from a French source? Lukas 09:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. I recognize the language as following the restoration of the English/Scottish monarchy in 1660, but this addresses the English parliament only. It's a worthwhile topic insofar as the Whig party was born during this period. Jtmichcock 04:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I buy that. Too many links to French folks. And references to 1800s, not 17th century. If we can't figure out what the page is even about, don't see how anyone can fix it. -Jcbarr 04:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not about the restoration of the Stuarts in Britain in the 17th century, but rather France in the 19th century. But it's incoherent, and does not provide a basis for revision or expansion. A good article on French politics after the Bourbon restoration would not have this name, anyway. MayerG 08:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. rather then specutlate about what the article means, why don't you ask the user who wrote it? invite that person into this discussion. Kingturtle 19:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larruperz[edit]

This article has been around since 2003, but I don't think it's worth keeping. Doesn't provide any detail about how these friends improved their local community. Not sure how much of this is extracted from a copyrighted publication (see end of article) but I think keeping this article could also be dodgy in terms of copyright. CLW 16:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Seems like it might be slightly notable from Google searches and existance of self-published book (verified via Amazon), but the article doesn't assert notability in any way. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 03:16Z
  • Delete per Quarl. Johnleemk | Talk 07:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Variance[edit]

A non-notable blog by five people, none of which are anywhere near notable enough to have their own wikipedia entry in the first place. Be careful trying to use google to justify this article, as 'cosmic variance' is a general term. Proto t c 16:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all blogcruft advertising. Proto t c 16:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - huge brick of crap. -- Femmina 17:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Incognito 17:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blogcruftus Maximus WhiteNight T | @ | C 20:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete $blog is about $topic by $writer. Do we need to include every one of them in wikipedia? no. --Timecop 23:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per timecop. Hosterweis 00:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable weblog. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 03:12Z
  • Delete Per Above --Depakote 15:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-- 3 or so of the 5 people would seem to qualify for inclusion under WP:BIO The professor test (well-published, Stanford, USC, U Chicago), even if their blog doesn't. MayerG 08:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 07:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torque Riktor[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Sbz5809 as nn-bio, but A7 only applies to real people, not fictional characters. However, Sbz5809 does note in the edit history there are no Google hits for this superhero. howcheng {chat} 17:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unverifiable and unknown outside of a small group of people. The unnamed underground magazines are likely not notable enough for Wikipedia, so surely neither is Torque. HollyAm 01:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, possible hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 03:17Z
  • Delete as per Quarl. Atrian 06:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No google hits, thus delete. --Dogbreathcanada 04:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Grouchet[edit]

  • Delete - I'm not sure such bassist ever existed. I think creator of this article meant Kelly Groucutt. Syouth 17:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – there are a handful google results (excluding WP & derivatives) for the name that clearly refer to Kelly Groucutt, so it is a common misspelling for him. However, considering that Kelly Groucutt is a living male [28], and this subject is a deceased female, I think the author has someone else in mind. I can't find anything about that woman on google, though. ×Meegs 22:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • actually... Delete, unless notability is established. ×Meegs 22:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should have looked at the page history more closely. There clearly was confusion with Kelly Groucutt, starting with the very first edit, which claimed that this woman was a member of Electric Light Orchestra. ×Meegs 05:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auron tare[edit]

Borderline speedy as nn-bio, worthy yet non-notable head of national park and associated foundation. Assertion of war journalism unverified MNewnham 17:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, Google search [[29]] shows over a hundred unique hits, many not in English, citing this person as director or founder of the archeology center, or as director of the national park. Most appear to be archeology-related academic mentions or legitimate news, not just self-promotion or Wikipedia mirror sites. You'll get lower numbers if you search with Preferences set to English only. Barno 23:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the person is associated with a number of archaeology institutions as well as being a founder of Butrint National Park according to information in website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kalivo (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep; the current head of a park at any given time may not be notable, but Tare seems to have done much more. Although the article is largely unverified, it seems verifiable. I think this article could squeak by with a bit of trimming and an (unreferenced) tag. Melchoir 12:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tare has worked in Kosova in 1998 and 1999 for ITN TV. He was working very closly with the well known british journalist Gabi Rado who was killed in Irak.

  • comment - the article in question needs major cleanup. in the future, please consider cleaning up an article, even if it is going to be deleted. people shouldn't stumble on ugly articles. Kingturtle 19:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - after cleaning it up, i think this article should remain. Kingturtle 19:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I notice that this page has been modified, and now contains even more unsubtantiated claims than before.
"auron tare" + ITN 0 google hits - I have also searched the ITN and BBC web sites and found no mention of his name.
"auron tare" + "gabi rado" 0 google hits
"auron tare" + hospital 0 google hits
this article implies he is not head of the Albanian National Trust, as claimed.
This article implies that the Archeological mission at Butrint is simply a branch office, and the Auron Tare is the head.
My nomination stands as is. MNewnham 23:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the albanian related sites. The information is correct. Also an article from Washington Post and Cnn Traveler give him the credit for establishing the National Park of Butrint

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunjammer[edit]

Vanity - not factual - of no interest Optime 17:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carrying on from discussion:
Any link from that list that might be seen as commercial, you're free to edit them out. A discography for an artist is not "of no interest". The blog one, sure, it's arguably personal, but i'd be surprised to see a blog link being deleted from Trent Reznor's page for instance. Bias.
When biographical information is central to the subject matter, i'd reckon it's relevant.
The page is not a personal tribute. I can do that on my own site thanks much, and i have. It is meant to be an explanation of sunjammer the musician. Bands *are represented on wikipedia*. Deal with it. For instance, system of a down or nine inch nails, both more elaborate than the Sunjammer entry by far. Why? Because you argue more have interest in them because it is a broader subject matter? Your argument falls flat. Bias.
"Empty of interest to anyone" is a pretty bold claim. Empty of interest to YOU perhaps, but considering the amount of shows Sunjammer has played, to fair critical acclaim (being compared with artists such as Venetian Snares for instance, who i might add also has a more detailed page).
Then, your first statement is riddled with bias. "Notable" wasn't even added by me, but by DragonFly in the first revision. Check the rev history before bringing up specifics. Stating i am not an artist is ignorance. I am a musician with a fair history of shows, releases and backing the scenes i've been a part of. I am as much an artist as the aforementioned Venetian Snares, and as such i am entitled to an entry for the project. Your personal bias belongs elsewhere.
I'll make another revision taking heed to the issues you have brought up, much like i'd appreciate it if you also did, rather than vandalize and delete the contents. If Sunjammer is of no interest, what of Knifehandchop? This entire argument smacks of personal bias.
Decept404 17:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies if this was a completely awful thing to write. My first wiki post, grant me one mistake? I tried to keep the article as unbiased as possible. Not to sell, more to avoid being misrepresented (i know, possibly pretentious). Decept404 17:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please understand that creating a new article here is not comparable to a "post" elsewhere on the Internet. Even if this article is deleted, you shouldn't take it personally; deletions happen all the time, and we still welcome contributions on other topics.
    My main concern is whether even the remaining information here is verifiable, let alone meeting WP:MUSIC. Now that it's on AfD, we may as well wait for others to comment. Melchoir 18:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't take it personally if this didn't seem like an openly personal attack. If the reasons for deletion were clear, as opposed to what seems like reasons for revisions rather than all-out deletion, i'd welcome it. No worries. I'm already working on more articles of broader interest. Decept404 18:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, the nomination was definitely a personal attack, but it had some merit, however badly stated. Anyway, I was just bracing you in the event of a deletion, which now seems less likely. It's good to see that you're moving on. Melchoir 18:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is unverifiable and subject "not notable" as in Wikipedia:Notability (music). Optime 17:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Optime's account seems to have been created for the sole purpose of destroying this article. Melchoir 18:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    True in as "move article to user space" Optime 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're quite tenuous, considering you've left represented artists with NO releases at all out of the equation, this in addition to your personal insults leads me to believe you have an agenda. On the notability subject:
    "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." - Sunjammer is along with Petrochemical the *only* norwegian export of gabba and hardcore techno.
    "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." - Playlists for NRK P3 can be found here: http://www2.nrk.no/spillelister/sending.aspx?prog=578&tid=2003-12-30%2022:05:00Z
    NRK being the national radio network provider for norway.
    "Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre." - How this can be verifiable is beyond me, but have a chat with DJ Producer or Hellfish, or (i'm told) Aphex Twin. Sunjammer is deep underground. It's more about playing shows than releasing records and making money.
    "Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre." - Established is an open term. I know Sunjammer has inspired an interest in combining classical music with noise and industrial. This is about as verifiable as anything in such a limited scene.
    I'm not going to fight this anymore, there isn't much more i can say. "Verifiable" quickly becomes me dropping a bunch of links, which doesnt feel worth it because it really is a niche thing. I'm not going to bicker any more. If an admin feels this article is worth deleting in spite of all my argumentation, that's the end of that matter as far as i'm concerned. It does feel like this article has seen unjust attention from people with a personal grudge however (though i consider myself a pretty nice guy, what'd i do wrong hey?); There is far less "relevant" material on wiki at the moment, which leads me to believe verification of the importance of subject matter, in a lot of cases, is limited to a google search.
    Decept404 18:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This appears to have become a personal feud between the article's creator (Decept404), and the AfD nominator, Optime. If someone will provide a link to prove WP:MUSIC compliance, I'll vote Keep, otherwise, Delete. WP:MUSIC proved to me. I'm a WP:MUSIC nazi. --^demon 18:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given the NRK P3 airing, I think music notability is established. Melchoir 18:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (I've edited the article to reflect this info.) Melchoir 18:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So you took my "choirboy" and raised it by "sold out"? ;) I'm good with this. Anything else in the article you reckon i should strip? Decept404 18:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Optime 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ditto Melchoir. -Jcbarr 20:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Kingturtle 19:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sallyann Jones[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Jdcooper as hoax, but hoaxes aren't speediable. However, a Google search for "sally-ann jones" australia singer revealed 5 hits, none of them useful. howcheng {chat} 17:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a hoax. Releasing 11 albums in Australia would at least get someone mentioned in google. "Sally-Ann Jones" gets 240 results, "Sallyann Jones" gets 44, none of them mentioning her being a singer. And it was started by User:SAJ as his/her first edit. - Bobet 17:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. - Liberatore(T) 17:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verification is provided. Edgar181 19:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 03:18Z


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMUNSS[edit]

Unverifiable [30] [31] article about a students' society founded in 2005. - Liberatore(T) 17:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ratner's Hardware[edit]

Unverifiable [32] article about a shop. - Liberatore(T) 17:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7). howcheng {chat} 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Steaks[edit]

non-notable band: only one single released, few search hits. [33] Mikeblas 17:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable large people[edit]

A bunch of reasons: Seems slightly POV, a lot of this has got to be unverifiable, and despite the intro's suggestion that it's historical plenty of the people on it are presently alive. "Large" is also extremely vague in this context. Daniel Case 17:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think it's encylopedic, but there are several other such lists. (Big busted, for example.) -- Mikeblas 18:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Completely POV - Why Kirstie alley and not Oprah? and seems that famous people with temporary weight gain could get stuck on the list forever. MNewnham 18:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. It's a list that could be added to (for example, Oprah can be added, as can others). It seems like the people on it are people who are known especially for being heavy for a significant period of time, as opposed to people who are transitorily heavy, like Kate Winslet or Renee Zellweger. Much of other lists - like Feminists or a similar "Notable Obese People" - is POV as well. Raedyke 19:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inherently POV. No definition of "large." Both Jack Black and Whoopi Goldberg are on the list. I don't think they are "large." And Mao Tse-Tung? I've never heard of him described as "large"! Such a list lends itself to such arguments. It's an opinion list. Not encylopedic. What do you when someone loses weight? If the list were, for example, notable people who have weighed over 300 lbs., that's another thing, but even then there would have to be documentation of the weight and we would have to ascertain that the people are notable. Crunch 19:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It includes "above average" as a definition of large. -- Mikeblas 19:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How is "average" defined? It seems very nebulous. Crunch 20:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd expect that it means the CDC's tables, based on a target BMI. [34] Even that stipulated, I don't think a weak definition is a criteria for deletion. -- Mikeblas 13:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, verify, clean-up, possibly rename, and provide standards for inclusion or move to Famous fat fucks. Youngamerican 20:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who and what defines large? Notable people alive and dead? What happens when the living people diet? Where is the threshold for large? Very POV and impossible to administer, let alone verify every notable large person's size and weight. -- (aeropagitica) UK 20:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pure POV. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete More useless listcrud. Eusebeus 22:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there any reason this is not a category? Segv11 (talk/contribs) 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the same reason it probably can't be an article. Can't define what large is, POV, no standards, etc. Crunch 23:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless, offensive, doesn't belong in an encycl. --kingboyk 00:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kingboyk and Eusebeus. kenj0418 02:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't this just be Merged with List of notable obese people, which was just debated on AfD or am I missing something here? -- JJay 03:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without specific standards and sourcing. FCYTravis 04:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for POV and lack of clear definition. Durova 07:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for POV and lack of clear definition, as well as not having the gumption to say "fat". - brenneman(t)(c) 07:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per verifiability, POV, weasel-word and listcruft concerns expressed above. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 00:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of definition and inherent POV and other reasons. Lists like List of big-bust models and performers are okay because they define themselves well and are verifiable. Grandmasterka 08:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and merge - overweight people are discriminated against. this list is useful to bring inspiration. merge with List of notable obese people. Kingturtle 19:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted both that this list exists as a spin-off from Fat acceptance movement re "inspiration" above, and that it includes people who weren't considred fat by their contemporaries, which sort of defeats the purpose. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rangongo[edit]

Hoax. Searches for any of the principles in the article yield no hits (or, at best, no relevant hits.) Mikeblas 17:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dream_Harvest_College[edit]

Delete looks biased to the point of advertising

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obeng de Lawrence. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 03:23Z
  • .*Keep A college is notable. This needs to be cleaned up rather than deleted.Obina 18:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ok I have looked at everything I can find. A College is notable, but I am no longer sure this is real. The only hits are to Wikipedia, and to the so called British Accreditation Council, which is not a well known body. I can't find a reference on the (local government) Council web site, nor any student that goes there now or ever went. I think we should delete this as un verified until there is a solid reference that it is real. As mentioned below, they are using Wikipedia on this site as a pseudo endorser for the College. Can anyone tell if the Cherie Blair photo is real or an edit? Oh and it is said to be part of Worldwide Vancover University, a virtual university with no apparent link to Vancover BC.Obina 22:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep should not be on afd. It is supported by local council. Mrsteviec 18:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to local council is only to main page, there is no mention of the college on the LB Newham site. Note how the college website refers to this article.Jamorama 20:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is bogus they sure have a lot of people fooled including voluntary directories and the local MP. [35] [36] Mrsteviec 12:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OFSTED however seem to have passed them by. The local MP is Lyn Brown, and a visit from an MP does not necessarily mean than the member has done his research. Getting a listing on the NSVC site is as easy as [filling in this form]. Considering this wikipedia entry, it is unsurprising that the college would be listed here. -- JamJar 12:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok. You seem pretty convinced. Mrsteviec 13:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • There seems to be a pattern of gaining from the reflected glory of others here, be it wikipedia, Stephen Timms, or NVSC. What is lacking is any independent verification of his notability. A visit from an MP is interesting, but on its own not enough to verify his status. Is there any comment on the college from other, more verifiably credible academics? JamJar 13:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 03:24Z
  • Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable. jni 08:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

50 Bands to See Before You Die[edit]

Just some magazine's 'best band' list. Not notable, even if the magazine is well known. DJ Clayworth 17:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT Mushintalk 19:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See my comments on the talk page for the article in question from June 10, 2005. My comment, and the unsigned comment following it, sum up why this should be deleted. Youngamerican 20:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is the opinion of the original magazine's writer and as such not suitable for WP - WP:NPOV. -- (aeropagitica) UK 20:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 22:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. kenj0418 02:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic POV. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 03:26Z
  • And a copyvio. Delete. tregoweth 22:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted per user request, CSD G7 Dpbsmith (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secular Era[edit]

WP:NOR KHM03 18:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Beat me to it. Totally POV and nothing that can't be handled by Common era. Daniel Case 18:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anyting there can be handled by Common era. Dananderson 18:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV-pushing original research. Ohnoitsjamie 18:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as made up nonsense being used to vandalise pages.Gator (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism, personal essay, original research which is currently unsourced and therefore unverifiable. Note that our verifiability policy puts the burden of proof for verifiability on the contributor. Will change vote if, prior to close of AfD discussion, good, convincing, well-sourced evidence is presented that this is a real term in real use which has been reasonably widely adopted. No relevant hits in Google Books, i.e. none of them show SE for "secular era" being used for dates. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Care. Calm down, folks. I knew this was going to be deleted, I just wrote it because it's called humor. Common Era is just as ridiculous as "Secular Era" if you think about it, and if you all had your way you likely would make this "secular era" a reality, or at least, create another time era that isn't based on Jesus. Did you even read this section of the article?
"Differenciating politically opinionated peoples intruded on, perhaps inappropriately considering Western standards, the World Trade Center in New, Old, or Ancient (whatever opinion you may hold) York City, United States at 8:46PM EST, or any other time frame you prefer given you do not associate nor agree with the opinions of the Eastern Standard Time, on 11 September, 21 BSE."
Obviously, it's all humor. Please, folks, laugh a little. Cheers, Darwiner111 19:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
HAHA....now delete it.
(Unsigned remark above by Gator1. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Darwiner, "obvious humor" does not make an article a candidate for speedy deletion, so as things stand we need to keep the article up for a week and let this discussion to proceed to a conclusion. If you were to request that it be deleted I would stretch a point and delete it (CSD G7, though strictly speaking that's only for accidentally created articles). You can make the request here, or you can implicitly make the request by editing the article to remove everything AFTER the line that says "End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point" (you'll only see this line when you edit the page). If you think other people will enjoy the humor, you could copy it to your own user page (the one that says "Darwin rules") first. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Next time, try the Uncyclopedia [37] when attempting to be funny, rather than wasting others' time with vandalism reverts. Ohnoitsjamie 20:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok ok ok folks calm down, delete it already. I'm not a life-or-death Wikipedia defender like the rest of you, so just delete the damn thing and go on with your lives. Darwiner111 20:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)/[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CrazyOsaka[edit]

website, fails WP:WEB less than 200 google hits MNewnham 18:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obeng de Lawrence[edit]

Delete Vanity Page Jamorama

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream Harvest College. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 03:24Z
  • Keep or possibly merge into Dream Harvest College. He appears to be of some note in his profession. Mrsteviec 18:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I ask how you know he is notable? There is no reference to any external sources on this page, and a quick google turns up virtually nothing other than text that is exactly the same as this entry. Jamorama 21:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into Dream Harvest College if that survives afd. Eusebeus 22:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no external evidence that he is notable. This college may in fact be a new business venture more than a college. Per Eusebeus, if Dream College survives, his name and any verifiable facts can merge there. (Jamorama are you the nom?)Obina 23:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gonys in Wiktionary[edit]

Original article Gonys was marked to be moved to Wiktionary, page author apparently misunderstood, instead moving the article here. I've copied the text (and sourced it in a fashion) to Wiktionary. Confusing Manifestation 18:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete if possible as mistakenly created article (else delete). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 03:29Z
  • Delete, dicdef that's now in wiktionary. - Bobet 16:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serendipity County[edit]

Not actually a football club, even in a lowly league, but a Fantasy Football team. Not notable. DJ Clayworth 17:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been recreated. Propose to delete agin, and perhaps action to be taken against the creator, User:Roserex57. See also Serenity Park Grunners 18:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serenity Park[edit]

'Stadium' of a made up football team, the article for which is due to be deleted, see here. Delete. Grunners 18:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best Movies of all Times[edit]

This was speedy deleted, but did not qualify under any WP:CSD. However it is PoV and unsourced, adn clearly should be Deleteed. DES (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article doesn't provide sources or any context, so unverifiable. Sliggy 19:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
then a redirect as per CanadianCaesar is a very good idea. Sliggy 00:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no way this couldn't be POV. Wisco
  • Redirect (no merge) to Films that have been considered the greatest ever. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 19:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Canadian Caesar. Youngamerican 20:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article totally subjective - WP:NPOV If people want the opinions of many movie-goers then they can go to http://www.imdb.com for such a list. -- (aeropagitica) UK 21:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Canadian Caesar. ×Meegs 21:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect as above. Tremors lol. Eusebeus 22:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect as above, maybe that will stop it from being recreated. Also, someone send article creator a netflix trial as he/she clearly needs to see more movies if these are the 'best of all times' :-) kenj0418 02:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redirect is OK. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 03:32Z
  • Delete, No redirect. Although any list with "best of all time" is inherently POV, this is too subjective. --Dysepsion 06:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — personal research; I wouldn't have a problem with this page being created again if it had valid criteria and references. Redirect per CanadianCaesar. — RJH 15:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no redirect necessary as I'd say the uneven capitalisation makes usefulness unlikely. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless uncited listcruft -Drdisque 02:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily Delete, NOW! This is obviously biased opinion and not an encyclopedia entry at all. Please, keep the opinions to forums and message boards. krispymann25 14:49 15 Jan. 2006 (EST).


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talkin' Sports[edit]

With fewer than 100 members, and no info available on their Alexa ranking, [38] this online forum does not seem notable.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 18:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hucking Filarious[edit]

Neologism, 1,160 Google hits. I don't think it's all that notable. Daniel Case 18:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete and create redirect to Marvin Monroe. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mervin Monroe[edit]

Pure fantasy. In fact, a player for a Fantasy Football team. Not known to a large audience. Punkmorten 18:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7). howcheng {chat} 20:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moose Roberts[edit]

I speedied this as a nn musician, and see no reason why it should not be speedied, but the page author has removed the tag. Musician with myspace page signed to record label with 21 google hits —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MNewnham (talk • contribs) 18:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Mo0[talk] 01:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago card[edit]

Article should be merged with article on Chicago Transit Authority, in a fare subsection. How Chicago collects its fares is not worthy of its own seperate article. — WCityMike (T | C) 18:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Do you plan to AFD all of the payment card articles? There are 22 in Category:Contactless smartcards. In Chicago these are important because a lawsuit has just been filed alleging racial discrimination in fares where people with Chicago Cards are paying less. I'll find a citation and add it to the article. Tedernst | talk 19:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is specific about the card, while Chicago Transit Authority needs only a summary about Chicago card. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 20:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's enough good content here to keep it separate from Chicago Transit Authority. ×Meegs 21:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for reasons stated above. --ScienceApologist 23:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally I would be strongly inclined to vote to merge this back into the CTA article, but the lawsuit where Chicago Cards are central convinces me that these are, for the moment, notable. Is there really gonna be a WikiProject:Smartcards? (Sigh.) Keep in agreement with the above Keeps. Barno 00:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments above, and make WCityMike remove external links from his signature. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 03:39Z
  • Keep. Important part of a major transit authority. Too big to merge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just got in somewhat of a disagreement with a user in regards to the Luas smart card. First she wrote an OK article about it, then replaced it with coying and pasting what was on the Luas page to the new article. It is my opinion that to the extent possible that information regarding these smartcards should be kept in the article on the transit system, as your average person looking for information on any aspect of the XYZ bus system, will probably go to XYZ bus system page. In Chicago card case, where lawsuits are involved, and the Chicago Transit article is already large, there is an argument for a searate article. But some of these articles are either redundant with material already in the main article or make more sense merged with the original article. Many of them cross link each other, or all tell similar histories about smart cards. I am wondering if these articles are defended just because it is newfangled technology. If these were tokens would they be even considered for different articles? It is still just they way people pay their fare.--Esprit15d 16:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the above! -- DS1953 talk 03:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Kingturtle 19:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caste feelings in andhra[edit]

Delete: POV rant, unsourced, no potential for expansion Lukas 18:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Miller (EastEnders[edit]

Delete I am nominating this page for deletion as there is already an article at Keith Miller (EastEnders). --Sweetie Petie 19:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, no extra information present that can be merged Mushintalk 19:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No information present worth merging in to the pre-existing article. -- (aeropagitica) UK 21:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mistitled subset of correctly titled article. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 03:41Z
  • Delete per Quarl. Stifle 15:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination Trampikey 16:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mistitling(?) Grandmasterka 08:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The grand union[edit]

Blatant advertising MNewnham 19:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory or phonebook. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 20:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising spam. -- (aeropagitica) UK 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 31 employees? Melchoir 12:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Yellowiki, delete from here. Stifle 15:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nermimus[edit]

Page about a non-existent animal MNewnham 19:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a first for me, but Delete. Croatian period? The page is pretty clearly patent nonsense. Rogue 9 19:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it appears to be a hoax. One hit on Google, which appears to be a log of terms entered into a search engine[39]. It appears that "Croatian period" might be a legitimate term, but if so, it's most commonly applied to architectural history rather than the physical sciences. -Colin Kimbrell 20:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax, spam. Poorly-written rubbish. -- (aeropagitica) UK 21:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 03:42Z
  • Delete as probable hoax. Stifle 15:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dylanology[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion with the reason Wikipedia is not a soap-box for personal philosophy. As this doesn't seem to fit the speedy criteria, I'm bringing it to AFD instead. Punkmorten 19:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NPOV Subjective, badly-written analysis of Dylan's poetry and lyrics. -- (aeropagitica) UK 21:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AJ Weberman is a famous Dylanologist. This article looks like a copyvio. I think it should be deleted as it stands, although IDylanology and even Weberman himself may well be suitable article material in another form. --kingboyk 23:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOR. From the article: "How I (AJ Weberman) do it is often unknown even to me." Original research, POV throughout, utter bullpatties, and nothing substantial to say. Not encyclopedic topic nor content. Barno 00:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 03:43Z
  • Delete per above and WP:BALLS. Stifle 15:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original "research". Clearly a load of cobblers. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Www.Amityconfidential.net[edit]

NN website. Article text indicates the site has a "whopping 3 members." Klaw ¡digame! 19:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crum, Crum Clan, David Crum Clan[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion as "spam," but it's really just a genealogy, explicitly violating WP:NOT. Also including two related articles. howcheng {chat} 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this may be insignificant, but it is quite common in western Pennsylvania, Ohio, and around Sacramento in California, anyhow, I don't think it will be missed by very many people --Donation1 19:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedify. The user who created these pages is about to be blocked. He removes the speedy tags and these articles are vanity pages, in my opinion. --Anthony Ivanoff 19:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Multiple non-notable articles supported by almost certain sockpuppetry. -- Vary | Talk 19:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Please, I did not know the policy on posting about ones heritage, please forgive me and delete all questionable articles. As for be a puppetmaster, I do have my brothers online working on this too, we are all stopping our posts, though I still think there should be something of the etymology of the sirname, Crum. Thank you --Benjo Mofo 19:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hi, Ben. If you'd like, there's an article on Family name etymology and a seperate one on German family name etymology, and neither currently contains anything on the surnames Crum, Krum, or variants, so that might be a good place to add your content. Thanks! -- Vary | Talk 19:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wiktionary happily accepts articles on individual proper nouns such as surnames that can include their translations, meanings, pronunciations, and etymologies. See Hastings for an (incomplete) example. Uncle G 00:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as non-notable biography. Recommend the article author see WikiMe for writing biographies and/or WikiTree for writing genealogies. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 03:44Z
  • Delete, Delete Speedy, Strong Delete Speedy and full credit to author for above comment. Welcome to WP, Ben, and may your contributions to the genealogy articles be fruitful :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Good, the Bad, and the Wallaby / Trash-o-Madness[edit]

We do not need an article for every episode of every TV show ever screened. If is an important episode, one that has an impact in the world beyod just being shown on TV, then OK. But this is just a run-of-the-mill episode of a fairly unimportant series. Delete Reyk 19:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 22:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since none of the other episodes have articles, at least not linked from the Rocko page. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 03:46Z
  • Delete per non-notable. Also I am very concerned with the use of the slash in the name. Cyde Weys votetalk 05:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 15:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And per Cyde, but actually delete anyway. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, why would you deny wikipedia users the ability to read about episodes of popular television series? Kappa 16:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to need expansion though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Jimfbleak as patent nonsense. Stifle 15:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interflop[edit]

tagged for speedy, then listed for Afd with a link to the previous AfD discussion (which is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interflop). Completign the nomination. Abstain. DES (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These comments were made on the original Interflop AfD. Since they were made before this article was created, I decided to move them above the other votes. --Deathphoenix 20:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Was deleted before and somehow was brought back, still not notable. Macks 13:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under CSDG4. I have tagged the article as such. Zunaid 15:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per Zunaid. Essexmutant 16:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect, not a G4 speedy. This article is different from the previously deleted content (most of which consisted of repeat profanities or nonsense text). However, this web site is not notable, and its constant recreation leads me to think that a {{deleted}} protect is in order. --Deathphoenix 16:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • loltheinternet, If you delete them then the communist-nazis have won. Is that what you want... do you want your children to grow up in a land full of terrorists? For shame. - Ridin Spinnas, lolxboxishuge
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.68.76.7 (talk • contribs) .

Do not delete This was maintained for so long and was going very well. If other internet forums deserve a wiki entry, so does Interflop. Interflop had many google entries until it was temporarily shut down and brought back. On google, interflop at one point had well over 100,000 hits. It deserves an entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.127.20.190 (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete- yet another non-notable forum. Reyk 19:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End of move from the other AfD.

  • Delete. NN website, does not meet WP:WEB. Alexa rank of 467,242 and currently only 67 unique Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn forum. Eusebeus 22:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, yawn, ignore the sox, block the one who likes to use inappropriate language. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn garbage. --kingboyk 00:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn forumcruft. FCYTravis 03:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable web forums. Dear God, another Christ of the YTMND forums, which ain't exactly the cream of the crop. And I think a lot of people here are confused - "Do not delete"? Haha. Cyde Weys votetalk 04:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment -- no point in voting since the edit history discloses article was never deleted despite AfD closure above on page. Must be a cabal matter, which (IMHO) means it will never be deleted. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 08:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zoe --- Charles Stewart 15:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been deleted fourteen times. That's more than enough to delete and padlock. Stifle 15:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Therealretro[edit]

Business that sells t-shirts. Doesn't seem notable to me. TomTheHand 19:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The real retro[edit]

See Therealretro above. Essentially a duplicate. TomTheHand 20:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 13:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnfield_Terrace[edit]

Not notable in its own right, merge with football ground's article? Oscarthecat 20:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Lawn Ground. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 20:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I don't think any stadium has articles about each stand, or ever should have, and stand is at a pretty minor stadium. Calsicol 20:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Add an entry in Kop, if someone has the nerve. MNewnham 21:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 04:22Z
  • Merge this and The Lawn Ground into Forest Green Rovers F.C.. I don't think non-league sides should be allowed separate articles for club abd ground. -- RHaworth 20:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relient K- Mmhmm[edit]

Not only does the "article" read like an advert, but there is also already a properly named and more informative page at Mmhmm.—thegreentrilby 20:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No information worth merging with either the band page nor their album page. -- (aeropagitica) UK 21:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mmhmm, merge any relevant material. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per aeropagitica. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 04:23Z
  • Delete, do not redirect; unlikely anyone would use "Relient K- Mmhmm" as a search string. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 04:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I put the initial merge request in, but deletion makes more sense. Jpers36 16:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wall of Death

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burundian Kowtowing Toady[edit]

Article describes a species invented for unpublished Harry Potter fanfiction. I feel bad nominating it since it looks like a lot of work was involved in its creation and it follows the formatting rules, but it fails WP:NOT, and as such doesn't belong here. For this reason, Delete both the article and its related image file (Kowtowingtoady.jpg) Colin Kimbrell 20:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I disagree with the deletion nomination, for obvious reasons; being the author of an article will do that. That aside, however, I'd say that it is a relevant article. I quote from what I presume is the relevant section: "Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it." The Toady emerged through hubbub on a high-traffic fanfic site, and has been published on said site in - to my knowledge - at least two independent fics by different authors, not counting my own ones. In my view, this should qualify as "secondary sources", and also rejects the "unpublished fiction" criticism. The verifiability requirement is also satisfied, as the comment threads in which the Toady is discussed are easily available on the SIYE website.
    I also refer you to the article on Thestrals, which is in itself an original invention, albeit by a published author. Its main use by secondary sources is, of course, in Harry Potter fanfics. The fact that there have been no moves to delete this article suggests to me that similar articles are equally permissible.
    Supporting evidence of fanfics and pure-fanon inventions being permitted include Draco Dormiens and The Tale Of Westala and Villtin.
    If the motion to delete is carried, I request a 48-hour delay (on grounds of imminent travel) to allow me to comment on any counter-arguments and save a backup of the article on my home computer.
    - Torak 00:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, you get five days to make counterarguments. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 04:27Z
Comment:You could also keep a temporary copy on a subpage of your user page; it might be a good idea to do this, in case an admin decides to close the vote early. See Wikipedia:Subpages for details and instructions.-Colin Kimbrell 19:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks for the idea.Torak 12:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Thanks for taking the time to come by and discuss this. I'm not sure that the precedents you cite are applicable in this case, in that they apply to specific works of fanfiction, rather than specific aspects of those individual works. It's also worth noting that The Very Secret Diaries (the redirect destination of Draco Dormiens) was nominated for AFD once (link) and closed with a 50/50 keep/delete split, and that many of the keep votes did so with the claim that it represented a "notable internet meme", a claim that probably would not apply to Burundian Kowtowing Toady. It is also unlikely that individual fanfiction stories would qualify as secondary sources, in that they are not themselves independent analyses of the Burundian Kowtowing Toady, or historical/media accounts of its creation. Rather, they are additional examples of primary sources.-Colin Kimbrell 19:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments on this; in what way is an article about a single fanfic more eligible than an article about a single fanfic construct being used by multiple authors in multiple fics?
Secondly, as far as the other fics go, it's a bit hazy whether they're primary or secondary sources; parts have fed into the construction of the Toady, parts have featured the Toady based on its appearance in the original discussion thread, and there have even been a few meta references directly referencing its creation. Not sure if that has any bearing on it, just thought I'd fling that out there.
Torak 12:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the Fancruft page: "Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are highly controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles. Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its deletion, but it is rarely the sole factor." Article has already been acknowledged to be well-written (Colin Kimbrell, "This article is well-written and formatted..."), and at least two external references exist.
    Original research does not apply, as the article documents the creature's inception over some time, including use prior to my own in several fanfics.
    - Torak 08:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds like a good idea. Can't find an existing general article, though, but I like the idea of an article to collect a number of fanon creatures and things. Sounds like a plan. - Torak 10:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft, reluctantly. Stifle 15:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since the article claims to release the Toady for use in other derivative works, can anyone here suggest an alternative project with a compatible license as a target for a Transwiki?-Colin Kimbrell 16:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since, ultimately, this is a fictional add-on to a fictional universe - and this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm starting to see a pattern emerge here... ;-)
    Ah well, if it's got to go, it's got to go. But if there's any way to retain it - in any form - then obviously I'd like to do so. JzG, see my first post for examples of fictional components of fictional universes that have unchallenged articles. Colin, what's this Transwiki thing you mention? And would the "derivative works" thing have a bearing on the AFD nom if I removed it?
    Torak 11:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes when we get an article that's of value but not really encyclopedic, we decide to move it to a different wiki project, either affiliated with us or completely independent but with a compatible license. Dictionary definitions go to Wiktionary, how-to articles go to Wikibooks, non-notable webcomics go to Comixpedia, etc. This process is called transwikiing, and I was asking whether anybody knows of a wikiproject for stock fiction resources, since your article might be a good fit for such a project, if there is one. "Derivative work" is a legal term, which basically just means a creative project that incorporates aspects of some other preceding project, like a hip-hop producer who uses samples in a song or a cartoonist who draws a picture of the Mona Lisa sticking her tongue out. A Harry Potter fanfiction is a derivative work, since it uses characters and settings devised by J.K. Rowling. I mentioned it here because a sentence in your article released the Toady for use in derivative works, and I thought that might bolster a claim for a transwiki to the hypothetical source I described earlier. It's not likely to help or hurt your case for Wikipedia. -Colin Kimbrell 14:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect/withdrawn by nom. Brighterorange 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Of Death[edit]

Non-sourced, probably non-notable way of hurting oneself. TomTheHand 20:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm... it appears that Wall of Death has a pretty good article on this subject. If it's alright, I'm going to redirect Wall Of Death (with a capital O) and perhaps someone could cancel this AfD. Sorry about this! TomTheHand 20:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not So Random[edit]

Non notable site that in no way meets WP:WEB; Google brings up no related hits with with a query of "Not So Random" entertainment, and Alexa has never heard of it. Delete.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 20:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom, obviously. Brighterorange 21:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In defense of this article, www.notsorandom.com is (extremely) relevant to Not So Random Entertainment, and the decision to not submit to search engines is still being discussed. I just wikified this page so as to not sound like an advertisement - the individual who originally submitted the article wasn't very versed on wiki standards. SubQuantum 21:22, 10 January 2006(UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -Jcbarr 21:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable corporation. 0 Google hits for "Not So Random Entertainment". Article links to user space. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 04:29Z
  • Delete per Quarl. Stifle 15:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Laveesh Network[edit]

Advertisment for a web domain. Coolgamer 20:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Coolgamer. Deadsalmon 21:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 06:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of German dreadnought battleships[edit]

Information already fully contained within List of battleships of Germany. Joshbaumgartner 21:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd was overlooked since it didn't have a header. Relisting today. —Cryptic (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of battleships of Germany. Probably need to verify the information matches up as a check. — RJH 15:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Verify any discrepancies.  (aeropagitica)  17:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and verify any discrepancies. I've added the details and links that distinguish a pre-dreadnought from a dreadnought on the List of battleships of Germany article. Sliggy 18:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and verify. Thanks to Sliggy for getting this information into the more general list. Perhaps within the Battleships group on that page, each group could be annotated as pre-dreadnought or dreadnought where appropriate. Barno 22:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazoness Series, Ancient Gear series, Archfiend series, Black Dragon Series, Gravekeepers Series, Rocket Warrior, Saggi the Dark Clown, Thousand-Eyes Idol[edit]

Not notable cards, very possible copyvio. Precedent is already established by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh! card lists and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh! single card articles. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all and ask the author to contribute to Yu-Gi-Oh wikicities. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 04:31Z
  • Delete Single cards aren't notable enough for the general Wikipedia, especially without anything other than what's on the card to back it up. -- Grev 19:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Everything short of the Black Dragon Series, which actually is significant and has a large fanfare. It's notable as a counterpart to the Blue-Eyes White Dragon and has a well-developed article in comparison to the other ones. -- Sephiroth BCR (talk)1:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Most of the choices possess alot of info. Both the Archfiends and the Black Dragon series being the heavyweights of the list.
    • Not really. All Archfiend series does is give you a copyvio text of the card and then gives you "strategy" that actually phrases the card's effect longer than the card does itself. No other information is included in "Strategy" other than redundancy. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 06:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the whole lot, per Grev. Stifle 14:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Single cards? I think not, thanks. And yes I know pre-adolescent boys are obsessed by them; luckily mine are now old enough to have discovered Runescape, which is at least free... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all of them, pre-adolscent boys are human too. Especially don't delete the Black Dragon series per Sephiroth. Kappa 15:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons given above. If "tosh" was a VfD category I'd be citing that too. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 15:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Jaranda wat's sup 06:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GeoLogX[edit]

NN software, the place for this is Sourceforge MNewnham 21:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable software. I don't see how Sourceforge is relevant however; it is not a software directory either -- it is a hosting service. Perhaps you meant FreshMeat. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 04:32Z
  • Delete per Quarl. Stifle 14:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Sutter[edit]

Was nominated for speedy as hoax, but I'm bringing it to AFD instead as it was nominated earlier and kept. I copy the following from the article talk page: No one seems to have noticed last year, but no one of this name ever played major league baseball (Bruce Sutter is the only Sutter to have done so). Also, Bruce Sutter had no relatives who ever played professional sports; The Sporting News Baseball Register routinely lists any relatives in pro sports for all major leaguers, and the 1988 Register (the last one in which Bruce appeared) listed none for him. This is apparently an old, undetected prank page. MisfitToys 19:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that the four votes to keep last year were all on the basis of this person having played in the majors (which isn't the case); the first person to notice that this isn't a real person was apparently an anon user just one week ago. MisfitToys 22:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain for now. Punkmorten 21:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Sutter is a professional golfer. Delete the content of this page and recreate about the golfer. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Hmm, having looked up his record, he seems to have only played in one PGA tournament, and missed the cut. Delete. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. Stifle 14:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He never made the major leagues. Kingturtle 20:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - copyvio. -- RHaworth 18:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Cascade[edit]

This article is a copy of the text from the accompanying website and amounts to little more than advertising for the campground. Delete. Atrian 21:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stacks Poker[edit]

Delete. Spamvert/non-notable/crystal ball. Take your pick. BD2412 T 21:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --kingboyk 23:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Guess I should have just AfDed it :) Dalf | Talk 00:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertisment for a service that does not yet exist, and for which no significant difference from a plethora of others has been asserted. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Finlay McWalter. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 04:35Z
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle 14:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan Visual arts[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion for no context, but I don't think that qualifies. Not sure how to act on this one, as it certainly fails WP:WEB, but considering it's an online gallery of Sudanese art, I wouldn't expect it to meet the guidelines. Keeping it would help combat systemic bias but at the same time there are no reliable sources. howcheng {chat} 21:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment-It looks like advertising so as is it'd be delete. However the name allows for an easy shift to being an article about visual arts in Sudan. Typing in "Sudanese art" at the search part of Wiki gets nothing. So as we don't seem to have such an article making this be about Sudan's visual arts could be considered.--T. Anthony 23:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and create an article about Sudanese art, and add it as an external link. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 04:37Z
    • Agree. Would you be willing to do that article?(I would, but mostly what I know of Sudan is politics)--T. Anthony 09:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 11:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance collection service[edit]

Advertisement for NN debt collection corp that doesn't use baseball bats in debt recovery operations MNewnham 21:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd 30s[edit]

Delete. Article is of questionable historical and cultural impact outside of Haverford. Doesn't look like much more than a vanity article. Deadsalmon 21:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Merge. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 04:40Z
    • Comment: Delete and Merge are mutually exclusive options. Stifle 11:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess I should say: I recommend Delete, but would be fine with Merge. :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 03:51Z
  • Delete as original research. Stifle 11:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary of the Environment[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Jombo with the reason "Book not very notable," which is not a speedy criterion. Bringing it to AfD instead. howcheng {chat} 21:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as most of it is either OR or speculation; no attempt is made to establish why this pocket guide is of any importance. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Johnleemk | Talk 07:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Bielss[edit]

  • do NOT Delete

This article is about a valid game developer. if you look on google you will find many articles on this person (over 14 pages of interviews news articles and comments to be exact). All the people posting complaints here is from a coder forum and has a personal problem with clyde. Personal issue should not be taken into account when deleting a post.

The game Control Monger was in many video game magizines (at lest 6 in 4 different countries) and on many game news sites and his game FreeWorld is in the news of many MMORPG websites on a monthly bases. I think if you look into this you will find that Clyde is a notable game designer.

here is the link to prove it is a group of people trying to get this removed for no reason http://www.codersworkshop.com/viewpost.php?id=50219

Doesn't warrant a page on Wikipedia, written by subject. WP:VAIN Flying cucco 21:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Not delete - If you do, why not remove other articles such as John_Romero, Peter_Molyneux or John_Carmack? The artical is valid and original, this is yet another attempt by a small number of people to vandalise this article. - Contact: wikipedia(at)tmrd.net[reply]


this was written by clyde "draconus" bielss himself in a cheap attempt at self-promotion. he didn't even bother to use a different username to hide the fact the he wrote the article. 88.104.180.110 22:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed to the OPs --82.116.85.47 22:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Is and has always been a "spammer" and is only here to promote his products -sorry drac, but it's true, also highly unnotable other than the blemishes that he's created across the web erbbysam 23:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete Pure and simple: Vanity Article. --Wallaby 06:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity article. Stifle 14:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a please note that the administrator who decides whether to delete this will probably disregard votes by user who are not logged in. Chick Bowen 00:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - I am surprised that people want to delete this article about Clyde Bielss. I have known Clyde for two years, when I was working as senior editor at Warcry.com. He was at the time involved in his FreeWorld project which had an open beta while they were testing. I was one of the beta testers, and considered FW an enjoyable game and good entertainment for many people. He is currently redoing and upgrading FreeWorld for better graphics and enjoyment of the game. I also know that Clyde has also helped other people in the industry get a start, since he asked me to write articles for these folks and their games in Warcry. I am logged in but not sure how to make my name appear. Anyhow, I am... Raya, News Manager, Vanguard Ten Ton Hammer.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RayaTTH (talk • contribs) . It is that user's first edit.


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting On Dwarfs[edit]

Reason Doesn't meet WP:Music. A google search only yeilds 29 results - mostly local. Esprit15d 21:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - author request. -- RHaworth 22:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wulph[edit]

Non-notable game character. Delete Atrian 21:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Non-notable game character" doesn't even begin to describe it... it's not a character from the game (as published by Blizzard); it's some player's character. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 04:45Z
  • Delete per Quarl. Punkmorten 07:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how does wikipedia work? I thought this was about sharing and expanding knowledge. I didnt even get a chance to post the facts of Wulph and you are ready to delete it. Expanding the minds of our world community is my goal, please I ask you to allow me to complete this mission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khainne (talk • contribs)

  • This is an encyclopaedia, so we only share and expand knowledge that we know is actually true. Part of this is that we have standards for what we include in order to preserve verifiability and for other reasons. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. If 'Wulph' is a widely used term on the order of Leeroy Jenkins, the article might be worth keeping or mentioning elsewhere, but you need to provide sources that prove it is. --Malthusian (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost considered placing a speedy tag on the basis that the CSD regarding non-notable bios should also apply to non-notable role-playing characters. But I suppose being the basis for 'to Wulph' is a claim of notability, if anyone actually ever says 'to Wulph', which I doubt but can't say for sure as I don't play WoW. --Malthusian (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For the benefit of Khainne more than anyone else, so he knows where we're coming from, googling for 'wulph "world of warcraft"' turns up no hits that supports the article. "Wulphism" "I wulphed" "You wulphed" and "He wulphed" all turn up no hits at all. We can't spread knowledge if we don't know that it's true :-) --Malthusian (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough, please remove the article till i have time to post a new one including more detail and references. ---Khainne 18:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Mike Rosoft as patent nonsense. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 04:47Z


Mushloon[edit]

Hoax/gibberish. No related Google hits. Previously tagged for speedy deletion, but the tag was removed by the author. Ziggurat 21:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as nonsense. Alr 22:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Patent nonsense. — TheKMantalk 23:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Bates[edit]

non-notable musician. Article added same time as Waiting On Dwarfs. Delete Atrian 21:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HanWorks Research[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Jombo as being in violation of WP:NOT. The "web-based research organisation" happens to be the blog site of User:Mh, however. howcheng {chat} 21:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theleet[edit]

Advert for a nn forum, Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 21:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A forum with 200 members that has not made a claim for notability. -- (aeropagitica) UK 22:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A memorial, not an advert. Gettez vous votre facts straight.


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

The result of the debate was placed on copyright violations, where it belongs. Johnleemk | Talk 13:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sopranojones[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:Music. Google search only turned up 1 match that was actually her. She is mostly a local talent. Esprit15d 21:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- I see a few hits that look like her, but the page looks like (and I marked it as) a copyvio. -- MatthewDBA 22:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. -- (aeropagitica) UK 22:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I moved page to [[Jessica Jones (soprano)]], so if you decide to delete, you'll have to delete both pages.Bjones 22:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's actually at Jessica Jones (singer) now and no, you aren't deleting "both pages". When you move pages, you end up with redirects, not duplicates. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought you had to delete all the redirects as well. Never mind. Still abstaining for now.Bjones 01:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment copy vio of http://www.imgartists.com/?page=artist&id=80&c=2, discussion page claims artist gave permission to use it, but the imgartists page says the permission of imgartists (not the artist) is required. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 04:52Z
  • Comment It's been moved around a bit. Quarl correctly states that the permission of imgartists is required to use it, and I was inclined to mark it for speedy deletion as it is less than two days old. However given the claim from the artist I think there is enough there to list it on WP:CP, which I have done. Stifle 11:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All that aside, she's still non-notable. Delete. Stifle 11:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Mo0[talk] 01:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Audrey Hepburn Story[edit]

Non-notable movie. Even IMdB pans it. Delete Atrian 21:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. How good a movie is is not a criterion for deletion. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and expand. Quality of the film is not a criteria. Film is notable for its subject matter, alone. 23skidoo 01:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep obviously. Eusebeus 03:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This is not a speedy keep. A speedy keep can only occur if the nomination was obviously in bad faith or disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, or if the nominator withdraws and there are no votes to delete. Neither of these have happened. Stifle 11:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Zoe and others. -- JJay 03:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've cleaned it up. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 05:06Z
  • Keep CalJW 14:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. any made-for-tv movie that aired in primetime is notable. Kingturtle 20:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being in the IMDB is enough. Durova 20:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, possibly merge with the album. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Freak[edit]

Doesn't meet Wikipedia song guidelines. Notable band, but nn song. Esprit15d 22:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable band and one of thier most popular songs. Needs to be cleaned up. TheBill 03:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't argue that the band is notable, but the song is not. Merge and redirect to whatever album it is from. Stifle 11:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, "one of their most popular songs". Kappa 15:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Zoe. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 05:09Z


James W. Kennedy[edit]

The bio for this comedian doesn't establish notability, he has no real presence on the web, and the article itself is mostly just a collection of catchphrases. As such, Delete. Colin Kimbrell 22:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable, non-funny comedian. No research value in contents of article. -- (aeropagitica) UK 22:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is so tempting to be sarcastic about how bad this is, but I'll refrain. -Jcbarr 22:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wompus[edit]

Non-notable software package. Delete Atrian 22:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darby's law[edit]

Pointless article about a neologism. —Cleared as filed. 22:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diggbash[edit]

nn neologism-- -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of television series that include time travel[edit]

Non-notable list. Should use WP:Categorization instead. Delete Atrian 22:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: participants in the discussion at Category talk:Time travel television series felt these shows did not fit well in the category and would best be served by a list. - EurekaLott 22:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to me the discussion is about those television series not fitting in that category because they reference time travel rather than being about time travel. I don't see any reasoning why this list couldn't be turned into a different (but related) category. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 06:21Z
  • Keep per category discussion, and the fact it's a subgenre of SF that's worth spotlighting. 23skidoo 01:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more bad fanlists that should be removed. Eusebeus 03:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — See the discussion in Category talk:Time travel television series. Val42 04:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as yet another in a series of improbable lists. Difficult to maintain, difficult to WP:V, and not encyclopedic. At worst make into a new cat, at best to delete. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Less intrusive as a list than as a category. CalJW 14:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Wasn't Blackadder just semi-historical comedy? If this list at least justified itself with some relevant notes and analyses of the shows, it might be salvagable. Right now I don't see much benefit. — RJH 15:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is explained at Category_talk:Time_travel_television_series – Blackadder did have a time travel episode. My suggestion has been to list the individual episodes under each series, but the nomination for deletion has come too quickly for the list format to be settled upon. — Lee J Haywood 20:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For a fuller analysis of the Blackadder reference, see the talk for the discussed list.
  • Keep – provides a reference index for existing articles, but the list will only show its value once it becomes more exhaustive.   — Lee J Haywood 20:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and flag these via a category instead to remove maintenance burden. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's just fine. Categories would be bad for this. -- Netoholic @ 23:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't see any big problem with this. David | Talk 23:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC
  • Keep. Not suitbale for categorisation.
  • I'm going to vote delete here because this is, in the end, a list of arbitrary entertainment medium which has used arbitrary plot device at some point. Time travel is a fairly popular fictional meme, I can see the merit in the category and maybe even in a list of significant fiction which uses time travel as a plot device for one episode (although probably not, to be fair), but the fact that, for example, Blackadder Back and Forth (generally regarded as far and away the worst example of the entire faranchise) relies on time travel really tells us nothing about either time travel as a fictional concept or Blackadder the entertainment phenomenon. I might even have been swayed if this was anything other than a bare list, but as it stands the reader is left to guess in which episode(s) and to what extent, with what significance, exploring which of the multiple plot lines of time travel (causality, comic anachronism, whatever), with what degree of unpredictability (it is more or less inevitable that any sci-fi series will eventually cover this ground) and even how good or bad it was (which in the Blackadder case is: very lame indeed). As far as I can tell this article has no actual encyclopaedic informational content at all. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have already suggested that the individual episodes are given in the list, but was going to wait for a consensus before proceeding with adding them. The nomination for deletion was immediate, so no discussion has even begun on what direction the article might take if it is to remain.   — Lee J Haywood 21:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments on quality of programmes are not strictly encyclopaedic and are not relevant to whether or not they feature time travel Ck lostsword 20:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cruft. Typical garbage that appears on WP more and more. Pavel Vozenilek 00:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and contextualize. As noted above, this differs from Category:Time travel television series in that the category is for series that are primarily about time travel, whereas the list is for that and for instances of time travel in series that don't otherwise feature that particular plot device. -Sean Curtin 03:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wikipedia users should be able to find examples of television series that include time travel, and it would be excessive categorization the articles in question. Kappa 15:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. this article is useful. Kingturtle 20:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but maybe only as a subsection of programmes about time travel.
When is this debate closed, by the way? Ck lostsword 20:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Howcheng as nn-bio/redirect from main to user namespace. Stifle 15:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swakhar ghose[edit]

Orphaned AFD, listing now. My vote delete as NN-BIO  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    22:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Currently a redirect to a userpage. — TheKMantalk 22:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Razz The Rabbit[edit]

A website - but Google can't find it, or anything else with this name. Conceivably the title is misspelled. Either way it seems very likely that the phenomenon does not meet our criteria for inclusion. Assuming good faith till the end I've contacted the author (concerning his other article, also up for deletion) and made comments at Talk:Razz The Rabbit but have received no reply.

  • Delete. Razz has had two months here already. I'm afraid that will have to do :) - Haukur 22:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable web site, no longer up on server.Obina 23:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable non-notable website. Very patient of you, Haukur. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 06:26Z
  • Delete per Quarl. Stifle 15:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a mixture of claims unverifiable from reliable sources (hit counts) and website clearly falling below WP:WEB, given the two (count 'em!) Google hits for "Razz the Rabbit" - both unrelated. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baunkin[edit]

Neologism, 0 relevent google hits


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Anonymous editor per CSD:G4 reposting of previously deleted material. Stifle 14:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porto Claro[edit]

Defunct micronation. It is a hoax and a personal vanity. José San Martin 22:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah. There is already a vote about it. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Porto Claro José San Martin 22:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric McCowan[edit]

vanity - importance not explained Melaen 22:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete again per WP:NOR. howcheng {chat} 07:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bird flu speech[edit]

Original Research MNewnham 22:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Non-Wikified, categorised, referenced or cited lecture. -- (aeropagitica) UK 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this essay. I'm pretty sure this was speedy-deleted earlier but I can't find it in the deletion logs. But the fact that the contributor complained about speedy deletion before creating this article confirms it. [40]. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 06:34Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 23:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hart Hancock[edit]

The page is about an artist in a California underground prog rock band. A refined Google search yields 113 hits, which are either about California underground band information or are unrelated to the subject of the article. The article also appears to have been created by the person himself (see article history) and seems to be a vanity biography. Bumm13 07:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
--Ichiro 22:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as per CSD A7. Babajobu 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric norcross[edit]

Written by User:Ericnorcross. See Vanity and autobio. Semiconscious · talk 22:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Council on Good Governance[edit]

del nonnotable student "think tank". The previous vote a year ago resulted in marginal keep and was plagued with sockpuppetry. During the passed year the contributors 100% lost intersest in their so vehemently defended article. I voted to "keep" but to watch, and now I see that the OcCoGoGo notability in fact decreased during the year: now google gives a scant 77 unique google hits. None of them give any third-party description of the OCGG, so in fact the article is still one big original research and vanity to this day. mikka (t) 22:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --kingboyk 00:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe they graduated and got lives. Delete Eusebeus 03:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.--nixie 03:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for its impressive advisory board. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 06:53Z
    • Sorry man, this is a reflected light. It is a no-brainer for a student bunch have themselves an advisory celebrity. mikka (t) 07:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The founder used to work for Chris Patten, so I'm sure Patten was perfectly willing to lend his name in an honorary capacity. --Calton | Talk 07:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, point taken. Not like one Weak Keep will do anything against all these Delete votes :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 03:56Z
  • Delete. Part of the André Nilsen self-promotion campaign. --Calton | Talk 07:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR if nothing else. Stifle 14:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless anyone can provide good evidence that they have actually been consulted by anybody. Otherwise it's just a postgrad student talking shop, isn't it? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, one of the earlier versions said that they "handed" their advice to Kofi Annan or something. After reading their stuff, I strongly suspect that they were told "thank you" followed up by a wastebasket. Otherwise we would have seen all over their website: "We told him so and he did it!!!!" mikka (t) 21:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional left-handed characters[edit]

List of fictional left-handed characters was nominated for deletion on 2006-01-04. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional left-handed characters (1).
List of fictional left-handed characters was nominated for deletion again on 2007-01-23. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional left-handed characters (second nomination).
List of fictional left-handed characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Simply put, this is trivia, failing WP:IINFO. It also lacks sources and verification, potentially failing WP:NOR. (There was no consensus in a nomination two months ago, here) >Radiant< 13:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Burkhart[edit]

the page seema a CV Melaen 23:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Accord, Free Church, Aberdeen[edit]

Godvertising MNewnham 23:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creationism and the Second Law of Thermodynamics[edit]

VOTE Tally: Delete: 12 Keep: 5

This is an inappropriate Fork of creationism, entropy, and a number of other articles. In particular, this subject is already appropriately covered on the creation-evolution controversy page. The User:Tisthammerw is currently trying to get this very same linklist included on the creation-evolution controversy page after having failed getting included on the Second Law of Thermodynamics page. For reasons discussed on Talk:Second law of thermodynamics, Talk:Second law of thermodynamics/creationism, and Talk:Creation-evolution controversy, it isn't clear that this should be done. After all Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. Also note that one of the links is to his own personal webpage, in possible violation of WP:VANITY and WP:NOR. --ScienceApologist 23:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is not enough research material on this page to make it worth merging. -- (aeropagitica) UK 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete, first, let it be said that contrary to ScienceApologist's accusations I did not create this fork. This stub was a consensus reached decision from a previous discussion on whether or not to include a popular creationist claim regarding the second law of thermodynamics in the second law of thermodynamics Wikipedia entry. It was decided that the issue, being a significant minority view, was nonetheless best put somewhere else and this stub for it was created. See for instance this mediation section and especially the end of this section. The link BTW ScienceApologist is referring to is owned by me but it is not a personal web page (i.e. it is not about me, it is about science, philosphy etc. and contains no actual vanity content). It is also not original research, as it consists of more than a dozen verifiable citations. I have had a dispute with ScienceApologist before, and he is now trying to remove web pages of mine both here and from the ontological argument section. I didn't actually put the link there (some other user did, apparently finding the page useful) but ScienceApologist wants it removed nonetheless. You can find out about that dispute here. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created this page, not tisthammerw, as a solution to a very extended discussion on Talk:Second_law_of_thermodynamics and Talk:Second_law_of_thermodynamics/creationism, following the direct suggestion of the appointed WP mediator to that discussion. The joint feeling in that discussion was that a detailed treatment of this pseudoscience topic was not appropriate for a frontline physics article. Therefore this page was created to allow a detailed examination of the history, sociology and whatever else for this topic here, rather than in Second Law of Thermodynamics. The article is clearly flagged as a stub, because to start it I merely cut and pasted the material that had previously been on the Second Law of Thermodynamics page -- which putting here allowed us to remove from there. A detailed treatment of this topic is by consensus not appropriate for Second Law of Thermodynamics, not appropriate for entropy, so it is ++useful for those articles to have this article that they can hand the discussion off to (including links, references, etc). Of course, at the moment the article is just a stub; but I very much doubt it will stay so short for very long(!). Like any other article on WP, the contents of this article are up for editing and change -- I'm not going to make any defence for or against tisthammerw's link. But the bottom line is this: having this separate article here in WP's namespace is useful, and has helped resolve a lengthy discussion elsewhere, so please don't delete it. -- Jheald 23:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I'm sorry that you have decided to effectively create a POV fork as a resolution to a dispute, but that's not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. --ScienceApologist 03:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a POV fork. It's a rational factoring of the content into two NPOV articles, reflecting the consensus outcome of an extensive and prolonged discussion. If there's something in this new article that you don't think reflects NPOV then edit it, but it seems a pretty solid and balanced NPOV beginning to me. -- Jheald 03:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
For WP policy, see WP:Content forking - Article spinouts. That is what this is. -- Jheald 16:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
It may not be a POV fork of the 2nd Law article, but it is definitely a POV fork of the creation-evolution controversy article which already deals with second-law objections to evolution. It would have been better if editors at 2nd Law had consulted editors at creationism or creation-evolution controversy before making a wholly separate article. As it currently stands, there are a lot of problems with this article and it doesn't lend itself to a redirect merger (it's not just a matter of editting). This is a generally poor way to handle a content fork especially now that Wikipedia has articles about so many subjects. --ScienceApologist 04:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what basis you have to call it POV. The section on the creation-evolution controversy says almost nothing about the topic, though that it even exists in the entry bears some mention. You said there are lot of problems with this article. Really? Can you point out even one? --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mention them in the opening rationale. --ScienceApologist 06:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Could you perhaps (for instance) isolate and/or rephrase your justification for calling it POV?
The POV is creationist and it isn't clear that a fork of 2LOT based on creationism is appropriate. --ScienceApologist 06:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The second paragraph doesn't say anything about how the arguments against evolution are flawed; it has a tone of "the creationists are wrong, so there." This isn't really an improvement on what exists in other articles. Gazpacho 07:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So fix it. You might like to look at Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Complex_systems_and_the_Second_Law. From the standpoint of the 2nd Law article, the most useful thing is to have the links etc discussing just what the anti-evolutionists tend to claim here rather than there. -- Jheald 09:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as an unneeded fork. Stifle 14:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — small essay; external link list. — RJH 15:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless this becomes an actual article. (No-one say "give it time" please - you don't have to post something to Wikipedia the moment it enters your head). Currently a list of external links with introduction, violating WP:NOT. --Malthusian (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A bit more detail is necessary, I think, given that this is an ongoing issue. Either this subject is signficant but not expandable beyond this stub, in which case it should be either in creationism or second law of thermodynamics; or this subject is significant and more can be written, in which case I'll be happy to keep when I see it; or this is a view held by an insignificant minority, in which case it doesn't belong anywhere here. (Addendum: the creation-evolution controversy page says that this theory is too stupid even for creationist organisations to recommend using it, which means that it seems unlikely to be worth covering in any more depth than that article does.)
  • Currently the article does not explain why creationists believe the 2nd Law proves God's existence or whatever, but does find time to say that they're wrong. Even if it isn't a fork and its creation was a good idea I can't support keeping that. --Malthusian (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you calling me a problem contributor ??? -- Jheald 19:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
My apologies, I thought tisthammerw was the original author. FeloniousMonk 19:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Wade is the primary author since the linkfarm is his creation and that is the majority of the article. --ScienceApologist 13:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you track back through the history of Second Law of Thermodynamics, I think you will find that that set of links evolved through the normal process of Wikipedia editing, with contributions from several sides; to produce what I believe is a reasonably balanced sampler of discussion on the topic. Which is why I am left somewhat confused by the claim that the current article stub up for deletion is said to be POV. But perhaps you can enlighten me? -- Jheald 14:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Check out the discussion at creation-evolution controversy where the links were removed except for one for reasonable rationale. --ScienceApologist 20:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that rationale mostly only applies to that page though, not to this one. -- Jheald 11:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Except, we are arguing that supposed content associated with this subject blongs on that page. --ScienceApologist 06:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the discussion regarding creationism and the second law of thermodynamics, one suggested comprimise was to move the links to creationism. ScienceApologist removed them however, and suggested they be moved to creation-evolution controversy where he deleted all the links I moved there save for one anticreationist link. --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very one-sided interpretation of what occurred. You can read about the rationale for excluding the linkfarm on the Talk:Creation-evolution controversy page.
  • Comment: Malthusian, the primary problem is that creationists make five separate arguments concerning 2LOT, none of which are scientifically supportable. As for delete vs keep, if this article is to stay it needs work, but not as if it were a full-blown article. On the other hand, I'm not sure that it should be kept at all, per the points raised by SA and others.
Given creationists never-ending litany of objections to evolution that cover such fields as physics, chemistry, cosmology, biology, mathematics, philosophy, theology, geology, paleontology, archaeology, etc., if we allow this article to stay, we'll need articles on such diverse topics as "Dendrochronology is suspect because two or more rings can grow per year", Light moths increased before trees got lighter", "Dinosaurs may still be alive in the Congo", "There is not enough helium in the atmosphere for an old earth", etc. But, having said all of that, I'm not going to vote because I had some involvement in the genesis of this page. Also, I understand both sides of this issue, and neither is truly compelling at the moment. Jim62sch 18:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point has always been that creationism objections to scientific viewpoints do not belong in every single article about a topic that they object about. I have to agree that making a new article is not reasonable for each topic's controversy, and that it should be in creationism, however I'm beginning to think that the article on creationism is hopelessly bogged down with comparisons between it and science. Maybe there should just be one big article similar to religion and science or something like that? I suppose I am delete but for relocation. This stuff needs a home. I think creationism would be better if it talked about creationism instead of objections to scientific evidence and theories, and that the articles on scientific evidence and theories would be better if they were similarly limited in scope. Call me a reductionist, I guess. There are plenty of things in the Bible that do not have to do with creationism and yet violate the scientifically accepted laws of physics. --Ignignot 21:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, being a stub is not sufficient reason for deletion. The article is only a few days old - wait a month and see if it grows up, and if not delete it then. Second, creationist misunderstandings about thermodynamics should be addressed somewhere in Wikipedia; but certainly not at Second law of thermodynamics. There is no adequate comment elsewhere. Third, deletion of this article will result in continuation of creationist interference with Second law of thermodynamics. Placing the debate on a separate article will allow that article to be improved without unnecessary interruption. Banno 20:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WRT points two and three -- send your creationists who want to interfere over to the creation-evolution controversy article. That's where the subject belongs. --ScienceApologist 20:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you would make creation-evolution controversy a sort of ghetto for creationists? Have you noticed how crowded that article is? Banno 22:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article already includes information about the 2LOT arguments made by creationists. If there is more encyclopedic content to add, let it grow organically from that article and then create a daughter article. I don't think a case has been made that this article deserves to exist. --ScienceApologist 06:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a POV fork if only the creationist view were discussed, but there is nothing in the nature of the page that necessitates that. At present, it says just about nothing, so how can you claim it to be original research? Delete the page before it is written and you will never know. Give it a chance. Banno 22:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page title itself is begging for original research to creep in as it is establishing a pseudoscientific look at a scientific subject. It would be like having a page on New Age spirituality and quantum mechanics -- a completely inappropriate platform for establishing an encyclopedia article. --ScienceApologist 06:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article could be expanded to include arguments against evolution, and geological time, dating back all the way to Kelvin. Kelvin argued (before the discovery of radioactivity) that the earth was too warm to be as old as geologists claimed and Darwin's theory required; when he presented his argument for a max age of 20,000,000 years (which was solid, if you don't take into account the heating due to radioactivity) in a popular form (MacMillan's Magazine, volume 5, 1862,pp. 288-293), it was in the context of the recent publication Origin. And in 1872, he presented a short essay on the origin of life, based similarly on thermodynamic arguments; after an invocation of the "solid and irrefragable argument" of Paley's Natural Theology, he concluded,: "...overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie all around us; and if ever perplexities, whether metaphysical or scientific, turn us away from them from a time, they come back upon us with irresistable force, showing to us through Nature the influence of free will, and teaching us that all living things depend on one ever-acting Creator and Ruler." (Report of the Forty-First Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Edinburgh, August 1871, pp lxxxiv-cv)--ragesoss 04:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whilst Kelvin's calculations was important to establishing the ancient age of the earth, (given the radioactivity issue which when discovered pushed it back further), that is not how modern YEC creationists ("creation scientists") use the term. The more modern "sophisticated" IDists don't use 2LOT because it is so dumb. Kelvin recognised the importance of evidence over scripture and recognised evolution but with "divine guidance" [42]. But the thermodynamics and the age of the earth is a different to creationism and the second law of thermodynamics, and is therefore OT. — Dunc|☺ 11:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And yet, strictly speaking, Kelvin did make the connection between his work based on the 2LOT and creationism, broadly defined. I'm not saying it's the same thing as modern YEC invocations of it, but it fits the title and potential content of the article; there is enough history of 2LOT-based arguments related to creationism, from both a geological and biological perspective, that the article could contain significant content in the future. The article is potentially broader than just "YEC creationism and the 2LOT applied to biology". And even for just recent arguments, the article has a lot more potential content, including arguments that the 2LOT didn't operate until the Fall of Man, and a more extensive treatment of the detailed arguments and criticism. As Banno argues, we can't just relegate everything to do with creationism to the controversy article. 2LOT arguments are extensive enough (and different enough from other aspects of creation-evolution) to merit the existence of this article. The creation-evolution article is largely not about the details of the intellectual arguments in the debate, but about the nature of and participants in it. --ragesoss 05:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We can relegate everything to the controversy article. In fact, we already do. The subject is covered there in as much detail as it deserves from an encyclopedic standpoint. --ScienceApologist 06:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More than that, Kelvin's arguments had to do with hydrostatic equilibrium, the equivalence of heat and energy, and gravitational collapse and were not about the 2LOT per se. --ScienceApologist 06:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NOR vio POV fork. Karmafist 06:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Karmafist. Guettarda 06:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 04:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KNova[edit]

Tiny web community, less than 100 registered users and almost no posts on their forum. Their involvement in some "raid" on ebaumsworld doesn't mean they should get an article. Rhobite 23:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Being relisted once is enough, having been on AfD for nearly 2 weeks without any trace of support for the article. -Splashtalk 00:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmo Connor[edit]

This article was nominated for AfD, but the nominator failed to carry out the second step of the process. No reason is given in the edit summary. My personal assumption for deletion is that the subject, a German 'warez reporter' is not an encyclopedic subject and fails the qualifiers at WP:BIO. But as I said, I'm just cleaning up the nomination. No vote at this time -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Shreshth91
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 04:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BG Knoccout and the Dresta[edit]

band un-notability Melaen 23:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination. Lukas 09:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nn-band. Stifle 14:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rambling article about someone we're unliklely ever to hear of frm a reliable source. Except maybe a court report. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cléo and Arcoun[edit]

just a "poem" - I don't think it is worth moving to wikisource Melaen 23:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 03:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The black n blues[edit]

non-notable band — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethie (talk • contribs) 18:46, 3 January 2006

if there was 2 albums with the same listings could it stay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgonzo1978 (talk • contribs)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable musical group. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 06:47Z
  • I feel your definitions of notable are skued. There are many americain blues artists that have never sold your amount of sales and are still thought of as legends. For example Charlie Patton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.37.81.112 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per Quarl. Stifle 14:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this medium censoring the content based on personal views? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.37.81.112 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete in the end. Checked the links, checked the writeups, but in the end this band is not yet big. They might be one day, but not yet. Sorry, guys, this is after all supposed to be a general encyclopaedia not a music paper. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthas Arena 2[edit]

Delete - Ad for a Warcraft III map. No claim to notability Werdna648T/C\@ 11:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 03:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kartshin[edit]

This article has apparently been used as a battleground between supporters of two rival rabbis, resulting in cases of blanking and complete replacement of the article. In both cases, the entry is very problematic. The current version refers to a small town in Galicia. No data is provided and the name looks misspelled. Google only comes up with family names. Given the context of the other version, it must refer to a location in the province located in Poland / Ukraine, but that's not even indicated, and Spain has a region of the same name. Again, the name "Kartshin" looks like is a misspelling / anglicisation (it is definitely not correct Polish, but I have no knowledge of Ukrainian.) The old version was an article about one of the two rival rabbis. Problem I: both persons already have an article, see Ben Zion Halberstam (The Second) and Mordecai David Unger, and so has the object of the dispute Bobov (Hasidic dynasty). Problem II: no rationale was provided for giving a biographical article this name.

I propose deleting this entry including its redirect Kurchin (I've tried googling that too, but I've found no town, village or whatever. The only references are as a family name.) Valentinian 23:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 03:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halleys comic[edit]

Delete. 38 strips, no Alexa. Melchoir 23:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 03:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star wars kotor III[edit]

Article about a video game in the early stages of development. WP:NOT a crystal ball, and there is little or no verifiable information available on the subject. Megamix? 23:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 03:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seacoast Church[edit]

nn church, with no claims to notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 03:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hastings Street[edit]

minor road Melaen 23:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect to Black Bottom, which already contains a lot more information about it. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 06:42Z
  • Delete as utterly non-notable. Stifle 14:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redirect sounds attractive but since there must be tens of not hundreds of Hastings Streets the world over, in the end perhaps not. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily redirected to Gunge by Melchoir. Stifle 14:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gunged[edit]

Unsure whether this is notable Oscarthecat 23:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 03:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Modernaction[edit]

advertising, vanity Melaen 23:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 03:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alishasaurus[edit]

Delete as hoax; no hits on Google. Melchoir 00:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless verification appears... on closer inspection of the name, this is almost certainly a joke. --W.marsh 00:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no fossil--> hoax; "Alisha" ... —ERcheck @ 03:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No fossils have ever been discovered" - ummm, Delete as hoax -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 06:37Z
  • Delete hoax. Maybe BJAODN due to fake-latin etymology. JzG 17:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no such animal.
  • Comment this may be a thinly-veiled attack page... 131.111.8.97 00:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 03:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Blair (Toronto)[edit]

Delete. Not newsworthy. He does not require his own page. I also question the page creator's motives. The user has a history of vandalizing the Rachel Marsden page. Will go into further detail later. Cyberboomer 23:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_10&oldid=1081095285"