Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 11 January 13 >

Purge server cache

January 12[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. Johnleemk | Talk 17:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Port Prophecy[edit]

nn web directory r3m0t talk 00:18, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 17:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Touch Local[edit]

nn web directory. r3m0t talk 00:18, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 17:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Wide Web Directory Project[edit]

nn web directory (again!). r3m0t talk 00:19, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 17:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ootmat[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 17:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maddie[edit]

less info aboiut this charachter here than in the article it leads to. very common name that cant really be a redirect since there are lots of maddies. perhaps turn into disambig? BL kiss the lizard 00:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not. Link contains another article on the subject, perhaps slightly better than the bit mentioned in the show article. (If that article is redirected, please merge any additional info) - Mgm|(talk) 11:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per MGM, this is a duplicate page with an unhelpful name. I thought it was gonna be that Bruce Wills detective agency show. Obina 22:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disamb as or delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 05:25Z


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

The result of the debate was I can't believe this, but it's a...keep. Johnleemk | Talk 17:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeys in ships[edit]

Do you really want to make this monkey chimpanzee cry? Then don't support anti-monkey bias! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not sure what to do with this. merge it somewhere, or just delete it? its not very encyclopedic. BL kiss the lizard 00:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFD discussion

Please do not remove votes from AfD pages. The following four votes were removed by User:213.202.181.5:

  • Speedy Delete. Patent nonsense. --Aaron 01:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since it's only a sentence I move to just delete it completely. Phaldo 01:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not quite patent nonsense, but not worth an article either. If anyone wishes they could capture this at British Navy or some such article. Johntex\talk 02:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would someone interested in monkeys find it there? Kappa 02:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can be verified -- Astrokey44|talk 05:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, why shouldn't wikipedia users be given access to this interesting information? Kappa 02:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arrr!!! BD2412 T 02:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - A classic. Zoe\talk 02:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It can be verified-- Astrokey44|talk 05:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Used in fiction: [Willis the Pilot by Johnna Spyri] Other mention: "After joining the Navy and before being assigned to his first sub, the sailor adopted a tiny monkey as a pet."[1] and finally the wikipedia article anout the monkey hanger legend also mentions this as practice. Englishrose 09:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are various references on the talk page. Kappa 09:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok, change my vote to keep then -- Astrokey44|talk 11:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Important monkey related history. Englishrose 08:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arrr!!!, per BD2412. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • not sure what to do with it says the nomination.....tell ya what, just leave it alone! keep (possibly rename to something a little less clumsy, but dont ask me what!) Jcuk 10:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Fantastic. --popcorn26 16:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC) This appears to be the second vote in this AfD by User:213.202.181.5. Robin Johnson 15:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as references by Englishrose and the ones on the talk page are included in a reference section in the article. Interesting enough for its own entry. Would feel out of place in a general naval article. - Mgm|(talk) 11:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We shouldn't be whitewashing our colored simian history. Cyde Weys votetalk 15:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verified, interesting, and the sort of quirky article that makes us stand out as an encyclopaedia. Suggest renaming to Monkeys on ships, however. --Malthusian (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Monkey, in the "as pets" section. Seems to be verifiable information, but I don't think its noteworthy enough in itself to deserve an article. Robin Johnson 15:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: with Monkeys, verifyable info but it's the wrong title for an encyclapedic entry. Deathawk 15:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if Monkeys in space qualifies for its own article, I see no reason Monkeys in ships shouldnt. Both have enough history behind them that a decent article for both could exist. It would needlessly cram content into Monkey to merge it (especially considering later it would need to be spun right back off again).  ALKIVAR™ 16:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep, Brilliant article, all verifiable. --Hermit Crab 18:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)This user does not exist and appears to be another vote it this AfD by User:213.202.181.5 who also removed votes. Englishrose 16:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • um, what happened to the delete votes that were at the start of this afd. I had changed my vote to keep and struck out my comment using <s> but the wording was changed and 3 other delete votes seem to have been removed. [2] -- Astrokey44|talk 23:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User with the IP addy: 213.202.181.5 has disrupted the vote and this afd needs carefully restoring. Englishrose 00:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' --Terence Ong Talk 14:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please monkeys in ships are important erasing does not make sense Yuckfoo 16:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The phrase "is thought to have occurred and is rumoured to have lead to" does not give me any confidence that this is actually true. There are no references cited beyond a reference to a fictional Hollywood movie - a medium not known for its historical accuracy. Atrian 04:48, 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 Speedy delete for personal attack. Johntex\talk 02:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shitball[edit]

Vulgar and utterly meritless. BJAODN. AnAn | Talk 00:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was orphaned. bikeable (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it wasn't. Ashibaka tock 01:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense (could have been speedied as an attack). bikeable (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rubbish and patent nonsense (agree it meets csd) Digital Thief 01:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not BJAODN.--Ezeu 01:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unpleasant nonsense, possibly Speedy for personal attack. Blnguyen 01:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mis-classification as BJOADN. AnAn | Talk 01:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Exists only as an insult. Wisco 01:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not BJAODN. Inhahe 01:52, 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. howcheng {chat} 20:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Box Transformer[edit]

Not encyclopedic. Does not satisfy WP:WEB. Blunt-nosed Google does not faind any evidence of notability. Delete unless new information provided. brenneman(t)(c) 00:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. In addition, user has created 3 articles of this type with his account, which was created today, and never used for anything else. Could be an advertising or pagerank scam? DeleteBrokenfrog 00:51, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 17:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lumanation.com[edit]

Pure advertising, nn. Delete. Schutz 00:55, 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. Ichiro 19:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shomari Buchanan[edit]

Non-notable football player who played a few years in the football minor leagues and that's his only claim to notablity. [3] 656 hits for a proffsinal football player is very little also. Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 00:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, WP:BIO needs to change some we can't have article on every player who ever played in the minor leagues, and the Intense Football League looks like a local area only pros league so unless he played in a more advance proffesianal league, he should not have a article. --Jaranda wat's sup 01:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per ReeseM. --Aaron 01:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Arena Football League experience makes him oh so very marginally notable. I mean, by the prints off my fingers marginally. I can taste the delete on this guy. But he makes the cut. Lord Bob 01:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, professional football players are of interest to readers. Kappa 02:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Johntex\talk 02:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, professional sportsman. Just because he's less popular than a regular football player doesn't mean he's not notable. Are we going to remove players in a champion underwater hockey team based on just Google hits? - Mgm|(talk) 11:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would suggest we do exactly that in most cases. I wouldn't want to say that no individual underwater hocky player will ever deserve an article, but most practitioners of any given trade (be it football, carpentry, or oil changing) do not merit an article about themselves. Johntex\talk 17:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Local leagues" in America cover regions with larger populations than the national leagues of many other countries. Calsicol 13:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand with info on his college career at Alabama. -- Mwalcoff 00:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. --Terence Ong Talk 14:43, 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. howcheng {chat} 20:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Slipstream[edit]

Band vanity Ezeu 01:24, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Lego Mindstorms. As User:Jcbarr points out, Lego Mindstorms already has more info than the NXT article, so no need for me to actually expend effort doing a merge. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NXT (Legos)[edit]

Article irrelevant to any encyclopedia, is advertising lego - Invadervelcron 01:23, 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 speedied by User:Howcheng Segv11 (talk/contribs) 09:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeb Asuncion[edit]

Appears to be a pointless sledge at his non-notable boss. Blnguyen 01:37, 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 DELETED to make way for page move. Johntex\talk 02:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belizean Kriol language[edit]

Please delete this empty page so that Belizean Creole can be moved here. Jorge Stolfi 01:39, 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. howcheng {chat} 20:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bounty Source[edit]

Appears to be advertising. Note the use of "we". Blnguyen 01:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 02:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment text is copyvio of Bounty Source's corporate website Johntex\talk 02:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This AFD was originally closed by User:Johntex as a copyvio. The article has since been recreated in a form that is not a copyvio. However, the new non-copyvio form is still subject to AFD, as it is a promotional article advertising something that, by the article's own admission, isn't even out of beta yet. Rather than have a duplicate AFD listing for this article on the same day's AFD log as this entry, I have re-opened this listing. The original closing note is preserved below for the record. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 21:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE A8 COPYVIO. Johntex\talk 02:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment - In terms of it being beta software, Gmail is also in beta, yet you have a gigantic article for gmail. In terms of it being promotional, I will work on making it more informational. Wkonkel 22:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google is the 800 lb gorilla of the Internet. Google features that are in beta will be automatically more notable than many completed software projects by small companies. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 00:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are many websites in the world. Nothing in the article indicates that this particular one is significant. Friday (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Alexa rank infinity. Melchoir 20:08, 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 delete. howcheng {chat} 20:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robot Sybil[edit]

Appears to be a televison or radio series starring John Cleese. Cannot find a series (or a character) by the name of "Robot Sybil" on Google, and searches of John Cleese on Wikipedia and IMDB make absolutely no mention of this series, or any role in a series fitting that description. I've done a similar search on Geoffrey Rush, also with a complete lack of results. IMDB has no results for "Robot Sybil", neither does TV.com. Therefore, we have some serious Wikipedia:Verifiability issues here -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 01:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable at best. Only 5 Google hits, which would be hard to imagine for a TV show - could be a hoax, not sure. Johntex\talk 03:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Four of which appear to be Googlebombs for sex sites. The fifth is about a pharmacy chain, and the reference to "robot Sybil" is a nickname for their labeling and dispersing machine. -- Saberwyn
  • Delete per nom. May be related to Fawlty Towers, but delete. Madman 04:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only related beacuse it involves John Cleese and a character from each shares the name of Sybil -- Saberwyn
  • Delete must be nonsense. not even those 5 hits are related to it -- Astrokey44|talk 05:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above ComputerJoe 08:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Cleese? Sybil??....all sounds a bit Fawlty to me...... Delete Jcuk
  • Delete, unverifiable. Anything involving John Cleese would be easily verified if true. If it happens to be true, it deserves an article simply by being connected to Cleese, but I doubt it's real. - Mgm|(talk) 12:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as possible hoax and non-verifiable. Cyde Weys votetalk 15:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong Talk 14:44, 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. howcheng {chat} 20:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda by redefinition of words[edit]

This could easily be covered under the article "Propaganda" if it needs to be covered at all. —Gaff ταλκ 01:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and follow suggetion above, if necessary. PJM 02:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, Propaganda is already "49 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable". Kappa 02:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Johntex\talk 03:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Madman 04:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ComputerJoe 08:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone turns it into something that isn't just a POV stab at American conservatives. Subject is covered at Propaganda, Newspeak and similar articles. God knows we don't need any more Americentric conservatory/librarian controversy than we have already. --Malthusian (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The specific phrase "propaganda by redefinition of words" is strongly associated with L. Ron Hubbard, who claimed to be the first person to document the usage of this technique and who advocated its use for his followers. Therefore, even though the actual subject is already covered in greater detail at the articles Last Malthusian talks about, I would suggest that it be deleted and made into a redirect to Scientology beliefs and practices, which talks in detail about Hubbard's HCOPL titled Propaganda by Redefinition of Words and how Hubbard defined it in Scientology doctrine. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe this is a notable subject and shouldn't be merged. If someone knows more history about it and can make it less POV this could be a great article. Grandmasterka 21:23, 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 SPEEDY Delete A1 - no content. Possible hoax. Johntex\talk 03:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doorstopolgly[edit]

No google hits. Appears to be self-styled slang or nonsense. Delete. Blnguyen 01:53, 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 - personal attack page. Johntex\talk 03:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny courteau[edit]

Obscene attack page.Delete. Blnguyen 01:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom --Bachrach44 01:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, obvious attack page. With all due respect, it does not belong in AFD. PJM 02:12, 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 speedy delete - advert and crystal balllery. -- RHaworth 18:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Networkboards[edit]

nn, ad, vanity Hirudo 02:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's an ad. Will 02:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 02:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, tagged as such. Proto t c 10:56, 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. Mgm makes some good points for keeping, but many of the keep arguments have been refuted, and I find it persuasive that most of the users favouring a keep have changed their minds. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Stacey Cochran[edit]

Delete, Autobiographical vanity page Will 02:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rewrite Published author [4]. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reluctant Keep. Although this is a POV vanity article complete with photos from the family album, Stacey does have a claim to notability, so I say we give him 30 days to rewrite - if not, we delete. Madman 04:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Delete due to this being a vanity page. He certainly seems to know how to spread his name around, but has done nothing notable in my book. Madman 05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is, unfortunately, notable. Crunch 05:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with tags - possibly inappropriate tone. How do we deal with vanity of someone who is notable? -- Astrokey44|talk</ small> 05:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable author but contents of page require rewrite to bring the tone of the language in-line with encyclopædic standards. -- (aeropagitica) UK 07:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, published author with several titles on his name. If you think it needs a rewrite, either tag it for cleanup or do it yourself. - Mgm|(talk) 12:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And while not enough to make someone notable in itself, I think being a finalist for an Isaac Asimov Award makes it a more than average author. - Mgm|(talk) 12:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also wrote reviews for Plots with guns (major ezine). - Mgm|(talk) 12:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alexa rank 3,694,914.--Samuel J. Howard 12:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help it that Alexa users aren't reading magazines. - 131.211.210.17 08:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If he's self-published with a PoD publisher, which do show up on Amazon, does it really count as "published?" -Will 04:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He hasn't won any of those awards, and he's only sort of a published author: it's a vanity press[5] (yes, I know notable work can be published this way, but publishing this way does not make one notable--Samuel J. Howard 12:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it's a POD printer. Vanity presses cheat you out of loads of money before printing, Lulu doesn't. Besides, publishing with "a vanity press" doesn't automatically make your book non-notable either. -- Mgm|(talk) 12:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
either way, the point is the same it's an author mill and publication there says nothing about notability.--Samuel J. Howard 12:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Samuel J. Howard. Durova 14:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with SJH. We are too lenient on these self-authored vanity projects when a vague case for notability can be made. If the subject is notable, let someone else recreate a less noxious entry later on, but in the interim kill this. Eusebeus 14:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Isaac Asimov award makes him notable. Fight bias against SF writers on Wikipedia! Cyde Weys votetalk 15:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He did not win the award, he was merely a finalist. Shoehorn 00:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am a science fiction reader and I voted to delete. I would also delete any other self-published non-award-winning writer. Durova
    • He won an honorable mention for one story in 1998 in a contest for college undergrads. [6] That hardly makes him notable. -Will 05:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I won four awards in graduate school and was a finalist for others. That doesn't make me notable. Durova 08:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing vote to Neutral per comments on this page (especially the NaNoWriMo spamming). --Cyde Weys votetalk 23:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, sufficiently notable. I see enough copies of his books on used sites to extrapolate a reasonable print run. -Colin Kimbrell 22:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. (1) Notability - One can either believe the claim (made on the talk page) of having several times exceeded the limit of 5,000 copies sold, or ask for proof. I believe the claim as per Colin Kimbrell's and my own observations. (2) Autobiographical - this is discouraged but not forbidden. We always have WP:NOR, WP:CITE, etc. so anyone who does not believe what is stated in the article can ask for references from reputable sources. There is a reason why posting an autobiography is discouraged, but it is not impossible to do an acceptable job. And remember, it's just the start - like all editors, Stacey should be prepared for his edits to be mercilessly edited by others. AvB ÷ talk 00:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say it's "just a start". On the contrary, the record shows he had edited his autobiography of an article over 30 times starting back in September. He shows up on the History page as 12.214.7.234. Madman 06:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if only because Stacey achieved minor notoriety in 2004 for spamming thousands of NaNoWriMo participants. In spite of his unremarkable writing, he is notable for his relentless self-promotion, which should be reflected in the article. Shoehorn 00:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete. Let's not encourage authors of dubious notability to spam their way to the pages of Wikipedia. It's my belief that any vanity pages should be speedy deletions. If you build it, they will come-- and if you truly are notable, surely a reader will create an NPOV page for you. Ipsenaut 16:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's relentlessly defending his notability on the article's Talk page, too. What happened with NaNoWriMo? -Will 04:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stacey incurred the wrath of many NaNo users, but I don't recall any official administrative action. I've pasted his spam on the talk page. The best part of the story is his reply to one of his spam victims: "I was just trying to make friends, you jerk." Shoehorn 08:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to Delete -- He continues to revert changes to the page which refer to his notorious spam episode. Since he is unwilling to acknowledge this episode, he doesn't even deserve this much notoriety. Shoehorn 09:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Author is not published in the traditional sense; his books are available only via a print-on-demand publisher, and there is no verification that he meets the minimum audience standards for author notability. The Asimov award sounds notable, but it's given only to college students who have never published professionally. In fact, it's not clear that he's ever been published professionally -- his almost-prize-winning mystery novel seems to have been turned down by the publisher that sponsored the prize. (His magazine appearances seem to be mostly in semi-professional magazines.) There are thousands of local bands around the US that have bigger followings than this guy does, but they don't get articles. Monicasdude 05:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay to argue his notability on the number of books he sold, but not being published in a traditional sense doesn't make one non-notable by default. If I had enough info about them, I would write an article on the top 10 Lulu authors. - 131.211.210.17 08:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No real disagreement; I was responding to the argument that being a "published" author was notable in and of itself. I don't think being "published" through Lulu is evidence of notability because anybody who wants to can be "published" through Lulu. Monicasdude 14:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd argue four things at this point.
1.) Cochran hasn't stated that his books have sold 5,000 copies per WP:BIO.
From the article's Talk page: "With regard to the validity of the article, Wikipedia is clear on this: Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more. I have met this criteria several times over the past fifteen years as a writer". We cannot vote away articles per WP:BIO if they pass one or more "inclusion criteria" (though other arguments can be brought forward to delete an article).  AvB ÷ talk 13:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2.) small-magazines are for writers more like what journals are for academics (see: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics) than like the journals envisioned in WP:BIO
It's probably me, but I keep reading this as an argument for Keep voters :-O  AvB ÷ talk 13:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the discussion of academics, it's suggested that publication in academic journals, and I think so-called small magazines are similar, is NOT evidence of notability, because of the publish or perish neccesity mutatis mutandis publishing in small magazines is important for "being a real writer" and getting the creative-writing equivalents of professorships (sometimes actually professorships). So more than just the publication in journals, the argument is that professors should be more than the average professor and not just published in a,b,c.--Samuel J. Howard 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that explains it. We simply have somewhat different expectations of the outcome of the discussion of this proposed guideline. But I think your point will be difficult to defend as long as the guideline has not reached consensus and I'm also not sure it is consistent with the 5,000 cutoff point (WP:BIO). AvB ÷ talk 00:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4.)The previous finalists who seem to have articles in wikipedia have other claims for notability Frank Wu's article says he won a Hugo award, Sean Williams is a New York Times Bestseller List author, Mary Turzillo won a Nebula Award, and Dave Wolverton's case is less clear, but it seems he's won and now judges the Writers of the Future award and his article alleges he holds a (minor) world record.
--Samuel J. Howard 06:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wolverton's had novels published by Tor Books, a major mass market publisher. Clear-cut notability. Monicasdude 14:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that just wasn't clear to me from a quick examination of the article. Note that this would, IMO, militate against the notability of Cochran, since Wolverton's notability is established apart from this contest finalist status--Samuel J. Howard 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some great edits have been made, but I think the case for notability is weaker than it was when this was first listed. We can't find a precedent for award finalists and he's self-published. This all came up after the original listing on AfD, and some of the original Keep votes were made under the assumption he won those awards and he was truly 'published.' If any are still paying attention to this, coming in and reevaluating might be helpful in getting this wrapped up. -Will 23:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I detect a pattern here: [7] He is anonymously editing himself spuriously into other articles where his own relevance is dubious at best. Cleaning up that mess now. Will 00:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seen it too. He placed himself above Pulitzer winners on the list of alumni of his alma mater as an 'award-winning novelist' (we have established he hasn't actually won any awards). He has gone so far as to denigrate esteemed authors (e.g. Philip K. Dick) with completely unfounded comparisons to himself. Ipsenaut 00:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He[8] is deleting the spam paragraph:

In November 2004, Cochran won the ire of writers worldwide when he sent private messages to thousands of NaNoWriMo participants, on the NaNoWriMo forum, pleading to place spurious reservations for his books at booksellers so he would be assured a sum of money per reservation. [9]

He produced a new justification for each time he reverted it. I'm not going to push myself over 3RR with this, but if he feels there's a problem, he needs to put up a factual accuracy boilerplate instead of deleting arbitrary paragraphs. Will 00:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. At this point, I see nothing left in the entry that is questionable, and his short fiction publications meet the eligibility criteria regardless of whether or not his novels are self-published. I am a new user on Wikipedia and wondered how information was monitored. Now I know, and I'm glad to see that the article has been cleaned up. I believe he is notable, however, and the article should remain. --jlgssk 09:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reason to believe the above is a sock puppet account created by the estimable Mr. Cochran, or else someone affiliated with him. Is it typical for new users-- who coincedentally teach writing and research in a college-- to start off their Wikipedia careers with obscure AfD discussion pages, and make no other edits? Ipsenaut 16:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
jlgssk, see WP:AFD: "Unregistered and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons)."  AvB ÷ talk 16:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately for me, I am actually a real user, not Mr. Cochran. I'm obviously not very good at this. I've followed this discussion for awhile (and the discussion on NaNoWriMo in Nov. 2004 because my students sometimes participate in it). The constant NaNoWriMo references seem to violate NPOV, and the article with the bare facts simply didn't seem inappropriate anymore. And AvB, thanks for the link. I'm learning the rules as quickly as I can, but there's a big learning curve. I'll keep my comments to a minimum. --Susan,jlgssk 17:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Something is rotten in the state of Wikipedia: All of jlgssk's contributions show up under 'recent contributions' for 12.214.7.234 [10], the IP address that Cochran has been using to edit himself into other articles, as well as create the Stacey Cochran article. (S?)he is lying; this user is not a separate one from Mr. Cochran. If an admin can sort this mess out, I would be much obliged. -Will 20:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is getting absurd. He changed his name in the above post from 'John G' to 'Susan.' [11] We all forget things occasionally, but I think this is adequate evidence of shenanigans. -Will 20:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well spotted Will. Sock puppet hadn't signed in so got caught red-handed. Can be added to the article as another example of "harebrained schemes". jlgssk's Keep vote should be disregarded. AvB ÷ talk 23:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Susan's my wife. Her vote should be disregarded. You can't imagine how much trouble this has caused her and I today. Please delete the article. Stacey12.214.7.234 00:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you and retract the "sock puppet" designation. Most other Wikipedians will, however, view Susan as your straw man now... Anyway, the AfD now has to run its course and outright deletion is not possible. But even Adam Curry's article isn't as harsh about his faux pas - it may well serve as the template for moderating the language about your perceived misdeeds later on, should the article be kept. AvB ÷ talk 11:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable enough, despite hairbrained schemes. --King of All the Franks 17:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure vanity: vanity article, vanity edits, and vanity publications. --Calton | Talk 07:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable vanity biography. Note that he never actually won any of the awards cited, he was only a finalist. All of his books are published by a 'vanity press' publisher. The subtext here is that he couldn't find a regular publisher to take him on. Atrian 04:53, 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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 12:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goyle Sr.[edit]

An incoherent vanity page?

  • comment it's a page about a character from the harry potter series. lord Voldemort is the main bad guy in the series. The question is whether characters from HP are notable.--Bachrach44 02:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Death Eater and possibly to Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter. There is no reason to have this as a standalone article.-Mr Adequate 02:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to "Death Eater". No content to merge to "Minor Dark Wizards", and if more content comes to light, the redirect can be altered or undone completely at a later date. -- Saberwyn 05:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Death Eater. He's a deatheater first and formemost. Yes, Harry Potter characters can be notable, but there's extremely little to tell about this one, so he belongs in a list of minor characters of some sort. Like a list of Death eaters. Even the Harry Potter lexicon has no first name and just two lines of info on the guy. - Mgm|(talk) 12:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • fictional stubs should be Merged -- Astrokey44|talk 23:56, 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. howcheng {chat} 20:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matadio[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 Delete A7. Johntex\talk 03:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Cheren[edit]

Appears to be non-notable person who worked on a film set.Blnguyen 02:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Delete: This was put in by a newbie who is repeatedly putting in useless articles. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This couldn't be speedied? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, notability not asserted.-Mr Adequate 02:47, 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. howcheng {chat} 20:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dalplex[edit]

Appears to be a non notable fitness centre. Blnguyen 02:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable. Johntex\talk 03:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn -- Astrokey44|talk 05:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable Tokakeke 05:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cyde Weys votetalk 15:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's the largest fitness centre in Halifax, Nova Scotia (if not Atlantic Canada) and a few notable events have occured there over the years, including events that aren't sport related in the facility's large field-house. Ask anyone from Halifax if they've heard of Dalplex and they'll say "yes", I'm sure that makes it notable. I didn't even know an article could be deleted for being "non-notable". Ouuplas 02:59, 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 and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 12:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Hawley[edit]

Appears to be vanity. Pessimistic Delete. Blnguyen 02:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't vainity, it was made by a fan, not by Joe himself. This page should not be deleted. Edited by Ibram, 9:42 Eastern Time, 11 Jan 2006.

  • Comment. First post by this anon user, for AfD log to be the first place visited by a new user would possibly imply a link to the author of the article. How is Hawley notable then??? Blnguyen 02:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Below noted is that Tally Hall is the author of the movies. He is credited as the "official moviesmith" of the band and producer of the videos. If most notability is from Tally Hall, would a merge be in order?
  • Neutral. Delete as vanity. - Rudykog 02:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I made this in hopes of adding a page for each of the members of the band. I am a diehard Tally Hall fan. I don't see how it is vanity if it is a fan simply supplying info. --Wickerchair 02:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for actually helping me. I will make some edits. I tried to rid of opinionated statements. Good now? --Wickerchair 03:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Better, but what about notability? Has the average person or a large minority of the population heard of him or even this band? (This is discussion is getting rather large and should be moved to the discussion at the top if you wish to continue). - Rudykog 03:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: there is no indication of the notability of the person or the films or the site that serves them. I am not impressed. Hu 02:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, I am new. I live by tally hall. Yes, TH is a fairly unknown indie band from Michigan, but if you went to Albinoblacksheep.com, you'd see the most viewed video files: Directions, Banana man. He edited those. He has also won awards for songwriting. It's not vanity if submitted by someone else. Why delete it?
  • Keep. I'm local to this band, so I may be misjudging their notability (though I've never seen them) but they seems to be rapidly growing in popularity, with a CD released, touring outside the midwest, etc. I would argue that Hawley and the band are both on the lower end of notability. As for albinoblacksheep.com, I really don't think there's much question of its notability, despite Hu's annoying attitude. I think the author should have a chance to improve the article(s). rodii 03:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Tally Hall. Not notable outside of the band. The albino site actually says that Tally Hall is the author of the videos, not Joe Hawley. [12] -- Astrokey44|talk 05:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Tally Hall. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:12, 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 deleted as copy-vio. --M@thwiz2020 02:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halcyon (Genus)[edit]

dicdef, literal dictionary.com copy, wikitionary entry already exists Hirudo 02:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's copyvio so it will have to be deleted. 02:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Blatant dic def. Already in Wiktionary. Speedy. - Mgm|(talk) 12:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as copyvio. Stifle 01:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily deleted as copy-vio. --M@thwiz2020 01:31, 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 SPEEDY DELETE G1 Nonsesne. Johntex\talk 17:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobo the evil cat[edit]

0 google hits [13], unverifiable, possibly something made up. Kappa 02:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nonsense. --Ezeu 02:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. - Rudykog 02:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no context, no notability, almost certainly nonsense since god-fearing traditional values types don't generally give the name "Evil" to an entity meant to represent their values. And "Mexican Navy", unh-hunh (snore). Hu 03:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • <Grumble> - this oughtta be speedied. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think anyone would mind too much if that happened. Kappa 09:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:BALLS Segv11 (talk/contribs) 09:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Kappa said, I don't think anyone would mind if an admin was bold and speedied this. Proto t c 10:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete -- Astrokey44|talk 12:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as patent, unverifiable nonsense? Cyde Weys votetalk 15:20, 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. howcheng {chat} 20:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snopperman[edit]

NN possible hoax. Snopperman produces two google hits and Vaft Rudner zero. JLaTondre 02:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 02:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense content. -- (aeropagitica) UK 07:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we really need to expand WP:CSD to allow speedy deletion of nonsense that while not "patent nonsense" is still a stupid case of complete bollocks Segv11 (talk/contribs) 09:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but they need to be worded in such a way, badly written, but useful info isn't deleted because of it by mistake. - Mgm|(talk) 12:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense -- Astrokey44|talk 12:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and if it's an Internet meme I sure as hell ain't heard of it. Cyde Weys votetalk 15:20, 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. howcheng {chat} 20:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encore vu[edit]

I believe this is either a neologism or a hoax. Joyous | Talk 03:01, 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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 20:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-Plethora[edit]

NN site that fails WP:WEB. Google search for E-Plethora had 131 unique results of which most referred to a site that was not this one (cell phones vs. software). -- JLaTondre 03:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanityspamcruft -- Astrokey44|talk 12:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The link isn't even working for me. And the link isn't to e-plethora.com but something totally different. I really don't get it, what this is supposed to be. I can't find anything about it on google either. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 01:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 05:36Z
  • Delete. nn. website. jni 09:16, 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. JIP | Talk 10:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nickelodeon Characters[edit]

As far as I am aware, there is no Nickelodeon Show, so this is a list of characters who appear in several different programs on the Nickelodeon (TV channel). I see no point to such a list. Delete.-Mr Adequate 03:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unnecessary list, characters can be found by going to individual show articles -- Astrokey44|talk 12:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize. The whole point of this thing is to have a list of all the characters without the need to go through 20+ articles by hand. It's not an indiscriminate list, they're related by the TV channel. Still, I don't see how this list could have any info other than what would be in a category. (And for the record, I like lists a lot, so I try to find reasons to keep them) - Mgm|(talk) 12:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. A category would not allow the subdivision by television show, nor would it allow the redlinks, which indicates potential future articles, while not limiting the list to only those characters that have their own article. Turnstep 16:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Turnstep. -- JJay 02:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepper JJay.  Grue  14:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Categorise. 1. Categories allow subcategories as subdivision. 2. All the redlinks does is encourage Nickcruft. Read WP:FICT#Fiction in Wikipedia for our guideline regarding lists of characters in fiction in Wikipedia, which this is. --Perfecto 20:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable list of fictional characters. Nothing on the page says how these characters are connected. Atrian 04:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Perfecto's arguments. —Cleared as filed. 23:50, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taino Pharmacopoeia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Jimfbleak —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 05:38Z


TagTooga[edit]

Delete: This is commercial promotion by a user with the same name as the article who has the same text in its user page. There is no indication of how this site or software is notable or significant or important: I suspect it is none of those. Hu 03:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no evidence of third party interest. Kappa 03:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, 7 google hits with only two links? - Rudykog 03:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Print out, tear into little bits, burn the pieces, flush them down the toilet, and then nuke the sewage system DESTROY ALL ADS. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So is that a "delete"? :) Turnstep 17:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - advertising. I've tagged it as such, but delete if that won't work. Proto t c 10:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam -- Astrokey44|talk 12:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spamcruft. Cyde Weys votetalk 15:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Turnstep 17:10, 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 SPEEDY and BJAODN as funny nonsense.--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me Og[edit]

Hoax article on the "leading scientist" Cro-magnon from 27,000 BCE. Includes mathematical discoveries with wife Ugga and nonsense about cave painting translations. (C'mon, fellas, we're not fooled by references to papers by Hu, Watt and Wen.) Almost funny enough for BJAODN, and then Delete bikeable (talk) 03:28, 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 article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng {chat} 21:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaahlskagg[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Anabanana459 03:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If they've released a full length album, how is that failing WP:MUSIC? I would have thought it was, in fact, passing it. pfctdayelise 04:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NMG states 2 or more with a notable label (which may be indie). They say there's no sources for one of the albums, so how do we know it exists? I'm not sure about the label, though. - Mgm|(talk) 12:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep album available at several mp3 sites -- Astrokey44|talk 12:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All that proves is that they know how to spread their work. Do they actually have a real printed CD in shops either brick and mortar or online? - Mgm|(talk) 12:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems they do - called "Erotic funeral" see [14], [15] -- Astrokey44|talk 00:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, copyvio. The text is copied and pasted from here. Punkmorten 22:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which case, Delete as copyvio. Good catch, PM.-Colin Kimbrell 20:07, 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; default keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MOTH[edit]

Not encyclopedic. Does not make claims the appear to satisfy WP:MUSIC, I am unable to confirm that they do: neither Songs for the Earth nor Back from the Dead Google well enough to demonstrate notability, no allmusic entry that I could find. Delete unless more evidence provided. brenneman(t)(c) 03:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just teach AOL users to capitalize properly, or am I missing something? - Mgm|(talk) 12:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep Found a few references such as [16], [17] [18]. Note that the same article is at Moth band. -- Astrokey44|talk 12:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Per Astrokey. The seem to weakly meet the WP:MUSIC as a specialist act since they claim to be sometimes featured on UK Christian radio, and they have a band member from a notable group. Though we don't need the same page twice, so we should "Speedy Delete" the mirror page. In fact the best name for this page is probably Moth (band), since the all caps is not their normal name, Moth band is not clear and Moth is taken by the bug. Obina 22:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:MUSIC says "Contains [..] member [from] a band that is otherwise extremely notable" (emphasis mine). Additionally, for "performers outside of mass media traditions" it asks for citations for being influential in style, establishing a tradition, etc. This doesn't qulaify. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:21, 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. howcheng {chat} 21:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of pop culture references in Family Guy[edit]

An unusually crappy nomination from me, but here goes: A clear case of WP:NOT indiscriminate collector of information.
brenneman(t)(c) 03:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. For most other series, sure. But the random references have always been a big part of Family Guy's humor. I don't see it as being any that much less important than a listing of the characters. That said, there's generally an area for the references made in the induvidal episode entries. - SAMAS

  • Delete per nom. This is different from a list of characters. A list of characters is finite and definable. A list of "pop culture references" is open to interpretation and therefore inherently POV. It's impossible to define what makes up a pop culture refenece. Crunch 05:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Potentially endless and also not encyclopedic. I also don't know if there is any other "List of pop culture references in..." deals "List of pop-culture references in the Simpsons", "List of pop culture references in Futurama, "List of pop culture references in Mystery Science Theater 3000", etc all get nothing.--T. Anthony 05:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That said a list of titles that reference television or literature titles could maybe be doable. In least in that titles are more finite and definite of a thing.--T. Anthony 05:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 06:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ComputerJoe 08:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd reckon that there's somewhere this could be merged. Delete if not.--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aaron. Proto t c 10:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I started this page last night, while in an altered state of conciousness, and now I see that the page is not really appropriate. I just thought it would've been fun. I apologize.
Don't feel too bad. There are like a dozen lists related to the Simpsons so if you ever want to try again maybe you'll be able to do a list relating to this show that's easier to manage.--T. Anthony 15:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Creator himself gives up on the page, also this would be better dealt with in individual artices/sections summarizing each episode. Cyde Weys votetalk 15:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does not qualify as a speedy, as other people than the creator have already contributed to the article. Turnstep 16:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are better places for everything listed here on other FG articles. This list would be exceptionally unmaintainable, since FG is essentially a show that is built on a foundation of pop culture references and allusions. Youngamerican 15:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, simply because there is a far more complete list on the actual Family Guy page. Grandmasterka 21:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fanlistcruft. Stifle 01:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, et alii. -- Krash 01:41, 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. howcheng {chat} 21:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aria (adult film actress)[edit]

Not encyclopedic, not a notable actress. Her IMBD entry has her in nine films, including Nasty Nymphos 31 with eleven others. But let us reflect on that for a moment. Do we believe that there are 350-odd notable porn "stars" based upon the Nasty Nymphos franchise alone? Google is similarly unimpressive. Delete as porn-cruft, despite her "genuine intensity" and "ability to handle multiple partners".
brenneman(t)(c) 04:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, how is 32,000 google hits unimpressive? Also won various AVN Awards. Kappa 04:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - make sure you're not confusing her with Aria Giovanni, a different performer. I don't know this name well enough to cast a vote one way or the other. 23skidoo 04:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we have any evidence of impact beyond her sphere, or even an unusual level of impact within her sphere? And can we WP:CITE these awards? - brenneman(t)(c) 04:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do we have any evidence that no-one would want to look her up, and be disappointed when they found out that wikipedia had destroyed all its information about her? Kappa 04:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using the screenname given in the article, Google returns 432 unique hits for Marie Silva. Attempts to search while differentiating between her and the far more notable Aria Giovanni game up with 500-700 unique hits, depending on the searchstring used. Internet Adult Film Database lists 5 different female entries where Aria is the name, or one of the names, of the 'actress', and one male entry. This means a general Google search for Aria (something porn related) is going to pull up results on all six of these people, plus use of Aria as a generic female name, and linkfarming. If there's a Wikipedia notability criteria for pornstars, I'd like to see it, but at the moment I doubt this Aria would pass it. Delete -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 04:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless waste of space. Calsicol 04:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable prop. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:14, Jan. 12, 2006
  • Keep Per this Google search, which I find to be more accurate than any of the previous ones. (note a wikipedia article in top ten even when searching for porn! go wikipedia!)--CastAStone|(talk) 07:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And you're untroubled by the fact that this includes links like naughty slumber party pictures! based upon matching "naughty allie foursome naughty rich girls men black gay porn naughty school girl ... naughty office aria ugly black girls having sex street whores santa"? Web search optimisation, you know? Not to mention (per above) that we have no idea if these are for the "Aria" in question?
      brenneman(t)(c) 07:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 306 unique hits from 1.5 million per your search. Its a pity we can't filter out all the linkspam and optimisation, all the misspellings of "Giovanni", and all the websites that don't refer to the Aria in question. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Funny how many people take the trouble to set up googlebait for people that apparently no-one is searching for. Kappa 09:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • These kind of people would set up 'googlebait' for anything if they even thought there was a remote chance of a hit, which in this case I think there is. How hard is it for someone to mis-spell (or completely forget) Aria Giovanni's surname? -- Saberwyn
  • Delete. Many of the google 'hits', even those without 'Giovanni' are still referring to Aria Giovanni, who actually is a notable porn star. This lady is not. The information is unverifiable, as porn star's biographies are almost always made up. Proto t c 10:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bet you tell kids the Easter Bunny isn't real, too, don't you. What about "genuine intensity" sounds made up to you? :) -Jcbarr 12:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Saberwyn. Search engine spam and non-relevant links galore in Google. - Mgm|(talk) 12:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above & AB's SOE point. Eusebeus 14:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Zunaid 14:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - At first I thought this was Aria Giovanni and I was like, "No way!" ... then I realized it's a nobody. Cyde Weys votetalk 15:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all non-notable porn stars. Ten a penny, just like their films. The fact that there's so much confusion because of her incredibly generic name demonstrates why we don't want an article on every single porn star. Think of poor Aria (disambiguation): "Aria may refer to - an opera song - Aria Giovanni, porn star - Aria, porn star in Naughty Nymphos 38 and others - Aria, porn star in Gigantic Gazongas 78 - Aria, porn star in Towel Fetish Lovelies Volume 42" etc etc for several pages. --Malthusian (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • She isn't non-notable, she won was nominated for a bunch of awards. And we'd only need one Aria (porn star) disambig. Kappa 16:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: do you have the specifics/a reference for these AVN awards? Sliggy 17:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK I can't cite that she won any but she was nominated for 7 [19]. Kappa 17:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the link, appreciated. It confirms that she hasn't won an AVN Award. I don't think a nomination to one of these awards is proof of significance (we're not talking the Nobel prize or Oscars here, are we?), and there doesn't seem to be much else in the way of claims of significance so delete. Sliggy 20:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Brenneman, Malthusian, et al. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 05:43Z
  • Delete as insufficiently notable. As far as I know, all cited AVN awards were for Aria Giovanni, not for Marie Silva aka "Aria". Whenever a name becomes notable, as in Ms. Giovanni's case, several aspiring starlets take on the first name as a pseudonym, and others use the surname with a different first name as if they were her "sister". Barno 17:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having sex doesn't make one notable, nor does doing so in front of a video camera. -R. fiend 19:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It does if you are Traci Lords or Sylvia Saint. Let's not allow personal bias to dictate our decisions. --kingboyk 21:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ...but this 'performer' would appear to be not notable. --kingboyk 21:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are some notable porn people, but it seems we've gone too far. Verifiability problems also. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete not quite notable enough for Wikipedia IMO, wish her the best, though. Johntex\talk 03:24, 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 OBVIOUS SPEEDY --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Ardissono[edit]

Vanity page about editor AnAn 04:44, 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. howcheng {chat} 21:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiac (computer game)[edit]

Mod for Deus Ex. No links to reviews, nothing to really prove it's anything more than just another game mod. "Some fans of Deus Ex consider ZODIAC to be a better game than the official 2003 sequel, Deus Ex: Invisible War." I'm sure that's the case, and I'm certainly going to give this mod a go after the next time I play through Deus Ex, but as it is, it's POV. Drat (Talk) 04:57, 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 SPEEDY --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Louis Nichols[edit]

Non-notable, vanity, perhaps a hoax even. Blnguyen 04:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn bio. - Rudykog 05:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn bio - this is more appropriate to a personal webpage or a blog, not an encyclopædia. -- (aeropagitica) UK 07:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete tagged as {{nn-bio}} for CSD A7 Segv11 (talk/contribs) 09:36, 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 SPEEDY--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elle MacGeorge[edit]

MOre nonsense from User:Ardissono. Delete on nn/hoax/vanity. Blnguyen 04:55, 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 SPEEDY --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil ruiz[edit]

Nonnotable hs music teacher. Delete. Blnguyen 05:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, nn bio / CSD A7. --Muchness 06:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete not notable, article conveys no valuable information and shows no potential to do so without a complete subject change --58.104.41.6 08:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete tagged as {{nn-bio}} Segv11 (talk/contribs) 09:48, 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. JIP | Talk 10:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of pop culture references to real restaurants[edit]

A list of what cartoons spoofed McDonald's or Taco Bell seems less than encyclopedic. tregoweth 05:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, enables users to find out which restaurants are depicted in popular culture and how. Kappa 10:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete list-cruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Samuel J. Howard 12:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep probably should be moved, maybe to List of pop culture parodys of real restaurants - it isnt just a list of restaurants, its a list of parody names for restaurants like Krusty Burger and McDowell's in Coming to America -- Astrokey44|talk 13:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Talk to the driver Crunch 13:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Eusebeus 14:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Lukas 14:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This seems like good content to me. It's interesting, at least. I see no compelling reason to delete - this isn't just listcruft, and it is a valid source for someone researching, say, fast food and pop culture. Cyde Weys votetalk 15:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename per Astrokey44. Youngamerican 15:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as nomination. FredOrAlive 15:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-Encyclapedic. Deathawk 16:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does not seem indiscriminate at all to me. Useful list. Things like this are what makes Wipidedia a good thing: each of the entries is linked to the relevant article. Turnstep 17:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Totally unmanageable. -- Krash 19:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you expand on "unmanageable"? I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that. Turnstep 22:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would tend to think "unmanageable" means that nothing can prepare a reasonable number of editors for the incredibly ridiculous amount of crap that will inevitably pour into the article. Runaway list syndrome. This can be applied differently to different situations. But in this instance, we're dealing with contributions that will be highly subjective and unverifiable. -- Krash 06:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think I agree with that. While this list is young, it is small and tightly-controlled at the moment. It's also a fairly finite list - I can't see it growing too much more than it is - it's not as if there are thousands of cartoons and movies which each have their own Burger King spoof. The entries are also very easy to veify, as they come from pop culture. One can simply check the primary source (offhand, I recognize about half the entries on this list) or visit the articles for the cartoon/movie. Even external refs should be pretty easy. I'll even go add a couple right now to demonstrate my willingness to maintain and verify. :) Turnstep 14:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're not going to change my mind because I think, apart from my aforementioned sentiments, it's a silly thing to make a list of. Back to subjectivity. Many McBurgerKings in movies/TV are parodies of the all-american-burger-joint-fast-food-mentality where it's hard to say whether they're referencing a specific place or just making up a place so as not to get sued. Also many of the links provided don't provide any proof that the said parody is actually based on the restaurant which is claimed. -- Krash 19:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, an endless pointless list of trivia. None of those things are good. Except lists. I don't mind lists so much. Lord Bob 21:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, perhaps rename. The way fast food is portrayed in pop culture can be a reflection of how our society treats it. Perhaps a short description of the fictional restaurants might be warranted. Grandmasterka 21:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Cyde Weys. Fascinating bit of social history. -- JJay 03:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is clearly historical and it may be useful someday, as a secondary source.
  • Delete non-encyclopedic list. --G Rutter 15:48, 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. howcheng {chat} 21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Goldberg[edit]

This doctor's only claim to fame is that he "coined" the term "internet addiction disorder" in 1997. This is mentioned on the Internet addiction article, and that is the only place on Wikipedia this individual should be mentioned. If you or I were to create a neoglism (or whatever it's called), no one would care. This doctor doesn't deserve his own article any more than any doctor you could find in the yellow pages. Captain Jackson 05:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he were to get IAD into DSM-V as a recognized mental disorder, that IMHO would make him encyclopedic... but that hasn't happened yet, so I agree with you.
  • Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 09:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 20k google hits, seems fairly notable -- Astrokey44|talk 13:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Assuming I'm using my library's database correctly, the only listings for Ivan Goldberg in Who's Who are Ivan D. Goldberg, a microbiologist on the faculty of the University of Kansas medical school; Ivan Goldberg, an ophthalmologist with a practice in Sydney, Australia; and Ivan Baer Goldberg, a real estate executive in Newport News, Virginia. My vote is delete, but if not deleted this should be a redirect to Internet addiction disorder. Note that the latter article states that IAD is not currently in DSM-V. Until it is in DSM-V, his coinage of the term is not a very significant accomplishment. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 20,000 hits on a search engine isn't very much, and how can we even know they're all for this guy? I don't know how any one person can be given credit for creating the term "Internet addiction;" I'm pretty sure about one million people each came up with it at the same time. Captain Jackson 19:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as author and for having coined IAD. -- JJay 02:46, 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. Ichiro 19:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual sequel[edit]

Appears to be a dicdef, followed by original research and an inherently POV list. No sources given. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:11, Jan. 12, 2006

  • I get 935 Google hits which makes it somewhat notable. The article's definition that "creative teams often change employers ... [and] often create a new product that is a sequel to their previous works" makes it possible to check if an item is the product of the same creative team, thereby eliminating POV. I don't see a problem with a list like this. Keep. GeorgeStepanek\talk 05:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It states clearly on the Arx Fatalis article that "Arkane themselves have gone on the record stating that Arx is intended to be Ultima Underworld III, however they could not obtain a license for the UW name". Similarly, BioShock is intended by Irrational Games as a spiritual sequel to System Shock 2. Spiritual sequels are not just some concept invented by fanboys.--Drat (Talk) 06:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the formating is weird and could be cleaned up, but it seems fairly notable -- Astrokey44|talk 13:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've definitely heard of this before. A "spiritual sequel" can be anything between fan-made and the original creator making it under a new name because a publishing company olds the copyright on the old stuff. Cyde Weys votetalk 15:28, 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 wasSPEEDY --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John william jarrett[edit]

hoax/vanity/nn attack? as it claims the person is now on unemployment benefit. not notable in any case. Blnguyen 05:08, 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 SPEEDY --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curt Shumate[edit]

Non-notable joke bio, Delete. Blnguyen 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 SPEEDY A7 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ratstar[edit]

Some more nn self-promotional nonsense by same author as John william jarrett.Blnguyen 05:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 06:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Lukas 08:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just Delete. feydey 09:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this author finally found a class of bollocks that's not speedyable... techincally Segv11 (talk/contribs) 09:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm... the company does not exist. So, the focus of the article is actually about a group of people. And the group, as well as the folks therein, are not notable at all, nor claims notability at all. THUS - A7. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:55, 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 withdrawn by nominator. Ichiro 19:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Math Is Fun[edit]

Advertising. No establishment of notability. Delete. Blnguyen 05:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notability, its extent of operations and its impact have been established. Blnguyen 00:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response Advertising? Other sites such as Cut The Knot have Wikipedia entries and also carry advertising (to pay for hosting costs). And all content is free.

The site is a top-50,000 website according to Alexa (not bad for a math website), is listed in DMOZ, Kids.Gov, the BBC, and thousands of school websites all over the world. On a school day there are over 10,000 visitors.

The site has existed for over 5 Years and is well respected.

Just because you have not heard of it, does not mean it is not a notable website in its area. MathsIsFun 06:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Cut the Knot for deletion as well. Perhaps you misunderstood what Blynguyen meant regarding advertizing. The problem is not that you support your site through advertizing, but that you are using wikipedia to advertize your site. See "advertizing" under the "soapbox" section of WP:NOT. - Halidecyphon 10:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You have to explain the extent of its operations, etc, so that people can see why it is important and noteworthy. Blnguyen 05:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete It looks like a good cause so I'll be generous: link to some mainstream press coverage or objective endorsement from a respected and impartial source such as a professor of education. Change the tone of the article to something more appropriate. You might persuade me to change my mind. So far the artile fails to meet accepted standards. Durova 05:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. Just barely creeps over the bar in the rewritten version. Obvious educational value speaks in its favor. Durova 14:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless media coverage is verified. Doesn't meet WP:WEB without media coverage since Alexa Rank is 53,607 and only 2000 or so forum members. --Pboyd04 05:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Blnguyen, Durova and Pboyd04

  • I moved a huge comment to the talk page. Please don't clutter up AfD discussions with section headers and large comments. Rhobite 06:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was asked by Blnguyen to explain "Extent of Operations" - that is what you moved MathsIsFun 06:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article needs to provide an explanation as to the notability of the website - media reviews & critical appraisal will be enough to stake a claim as to notability. As it stands, the text tells a researcher nothing. -- (aeropagitica) UK 07:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added a list of sites that mention this site, including an independent review, on the discussion page MathsIsFun 09:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Alexa gives it a 1-week average of 26,000. This is reasonably notable. GeorgeStepanek\talk 08:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep site looks real, but article is useless Segv11 (talk/contribs) 09:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe someone could improve the article? (And, yes, this is indeed a good cause - I get lots of positive feedback) MathsIsFun 10:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the reviews that were put on the talk page -- Astrokey44|talk 13:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sounds like a notable and valuable website. I would argue keep even if it didn't meet WP:WEB cause teaching math to kids is oh-so important. Cyde Weys votetalk 15:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:WEB. Turnstep 16:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, explain how it meets WP:WEB. There are three criteria, any one of which implies notability. This website meets none of the three criteria as far as I can tell; it is not 1) the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, 2)winner of an independant award, or 3)distributed through an independant publisher. Please explain your statment or otherwise support your vote, thanks. - Halidecyphon 09:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is one of only 16 commercial sites recommended for kids by the US Government for "Science and Math" http://www.kids.gov/k_science.htm. That seems notable to me, and meets the spirit of WP:WEB (a "rough guideline"), for an independent award. Turnstep 13:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining your vote... So everything on kids.gov is worthy of an encyclopedia article. I guess I'll go write Barney Cam and Coast Guard Coloring and Activity Books. :-p Halidecyphon 16:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. It's only had a Alexa rating below 100,000 for about a month. Like the site, glad you put it in DMOZ. This is an encyclopedia, not a web directory. 2,000. Besides, it's bad policy to do an article on your own website just to get recognition. - Halidecyphon 09:42, 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 SPEEDY DELETE --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Graham Gallinger[edit]

nn bio, vanity. Delete.Blnguyen 05:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 06:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable random human. Violates WP:BIO; vanity. -- (aeropagitica) UK 07:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This looks like a very clear case of WP:CSD A7 (no assertion of notability). Indeed I think it was exactly this type of article A7 was made for. Since nobody has voted speedy delete yet, I won't delete it myself, but I will tag it as {{nn-bio}}. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - A7-failing high school student. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 09:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as CSD A7 Segv11 (talk/contribs) 09:58, 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. howcheng {chat} 21:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great London Challenge[edit]

Fixed busted AfD nom. No Vote as I haven't actually looked at the article, just fixed the nom. The original noms vote is below. CastAStone|(talk) 07:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • not notable scavenger hunt. Mikeblas 05:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy (?) delete, non-notable event, no claim to notability. Lukas 08:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It says here its an example of "authentic learning". Is there some educational article it could be merged to? -- Astrokey44|talk 13:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A one-off exercise from last year. If it was annual it would be different. MNewnham 19:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Rename to University Heights P.S and use as basis for article on the school. -- JJay 03:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable event, little context. The claim that it was used as the the basis for a challenge in The Amazing Race is neither true nor relevant. That some editors have used it as the basis for an article on the school is also interesting, but doesn't necessarily qualify it for an article. Crunch 14:15, 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 Keep Marskell 10:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Method[edit]

Original research --Hansnesse 05:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. More likely to be fake report about some non-existent original research. Blnguyen 05:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not original research and per 67.35 Kappa 06:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google does have links to the website promoting the book/dvd, the "mystery method" blog, etc., I don't think the evident research (discussions on usenet, according to the article) qualify as research by WP standards. See Wikipedia:No_original_research especially this section. The primary publication, as near as I can tell, is the "Mystery Method Venusian Arts Handbook" does not seem (to my browsing at least) to be on Amazon.com. Amazon lists his DVDs (the ones I could find) as "self-produced" or "Studio:Mystery Method." I don't find a collection of self published media, a commercial website, and a blog to be evidence of substantive verifable research. My apologies, I should have been clearer in the nomination. --Hansnesse 06:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I google "mystery method" [20], I see five sponsored links. Five presumably different companies are paying to attact people who search for this term. Wikipedia should be providing those searchers with an neutral answer. Kappa 06:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Mystery Method itself claims to be original research, but I see no reason why a verifiable article could not be written about its development, marketing and claims. God knows, with 50,000+ Google hits, there's enough information about it just there on the internet. Keep. GeorgeStepanek\talk 09:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links to www.fastseduction.com and www.mystery-method.com were left at AFC. Presumablu the requester made an account and pasted in the info themselves. - Mgm|(talk) 10:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the term seems to be used by many sites -- Astrokey44|talk 13:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable seduction technique, Mystery (the developer) is the main focus in Neil Strauss' book The Game (next to Strauss himself). --Malthusian (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This meets delete requirements as WP:NOR since there are no sources. But it seems you found some. It seems like many of the best independent links and sources mentioned above need to be added to the article.Obina 22:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepsubject of the book The Game which is being developed into a movie...

It has also been written up in a number of magazines and newspapers.


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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 21:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chain_Reaction_Cycles[edit]

Delete. No useful content, not notable, and there solely for the link. BG 05:56, 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. howcheng {chat} 21:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Webb and The All Stars[edit]

Appears to be an egregious hoax/vanity, see search results which point to numerous non-notable athletes due to the sheer commonness of the name. Sad thing is he's been here since last March. Delete with extreme prejudice. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:03, Jan. 12, 2006

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

The result of the debate was delete. Nobody voting keep has demonstrated that the information in the article is verifiable from reliable sources. Thus, it's original research and by definition cannot stay. howcheng {chat} 21:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Wide Web War I[edit]

No vote. Anonymous user 67.103.171.2 nominated this article for deletion, but was unable to complete the nomination due to not being logged in. The anon's reasoning, as posted on the article's talk page, is listed below. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not think this is a notable article. (Not to mention that it is hardly the first "World Wide Web" war.) I am going to list it AfD. Then we can all come to a consensus. --67.103.171.2 05:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. Not notable, ridiculous self-important title, and (to my understanding) was self-created by those participating in the event. There is nothing here that can't be handled in the eBaum's Controversy section. In fact this article falls well short of already existing information in the other article. 67.103.171.2 13:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is knowledge, albeit knowledge not interesting to some. It should be allowed to stay, just as every other article here. - Loknar
    Comment. It should be noted that we don't allow any article here. Check the CSD and Deletion policy.SoothingR 17:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 06:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not really a notable event. (Signed: J.Smith) 06:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "the Web War to End All Web Wars" or the "Great Web War", since we don't know whether there will be war reparations and resentment over the Treaty of Google leaidng up to a second world wide web war...yet. No, just kidding! Delete. Elle vécu heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 06:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and BJAODN. It's a battle between two tiny, crappy forums, and they post on Wikipedia calling it the "great world wide web war"? Don't make me laugh. Ambi 06:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They're definitely not tiny, and the article claims there are more than two. Crappy? We each have our own things, remember to keep your own biases in check! ;) - Rudykog 06:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I made this article so that there would be a place for all the information instead of spreading it out between the YTMND and Ebaumsworld articles. Why not migrate all the information over to this one and make it a legitimate page? - Achristl 06:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I compiled the majority of the information that you want to "migrate" over. Sorry, but no. TheNewMinistry 06:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just another example of rot-brained Internet "culture". --Agamemnon2 07:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How exactly are these events notable? The article requires a rewrite to explain this to someone reading about these events for the first time. -- (aeropagitica) UK 07:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A well-written article on the subject already exists at this location:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ytmnd#eBaum.27s_World_incident TheNewMinistry 07:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not because "Internet 'culture'" is "rot-brained," but due to non-notability. Otherwise, simply redirect to existing content at Ytmnd. -Rebelguys2 07:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Lukas 08:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom--nixie 08:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm changing my vote to Keep, although I'd advise a rename. The incident itself has become sufficiently notable, but as of this point the name is an embellishment. --Antrophica 06:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the name is not common (80 Google hits). The article should at least incorporate information from the YTMND and Ebaumsworld articles which have far more information. — mæstro t/c, 13:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this article speaks of a relatively small event that some believe will be larger than it is in the future. Avengerx 13:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite --ryan-d 13:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There have been other uses of the term (as early as 1996 [21] ) - maybe it could be a disambig page with a link to Ytmnd#eBaum.27s_World_incident -- Astrokey44|talk 14:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, forumcruft. Eusebeus 14:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Maybe, just maybe, there is room in the associated websites' articles to talk about this dispute, but it certainly doesn't deserve the honor of being called a World War. You can't just make up a name for something and put it on Wikipedia. Cyde Weys votetalk 15:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless this somehow gets into real news (or if they invade Poland). FredOrAlive 15:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I speedily deleted this nonsense a while ago. YTMND got into a nerd/troll fight with EBaum's World; NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC. --King of All the Franks 15:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge With eBaumsWorld and similar sites ComputerJoe 16:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need an article for a small struggle between two websites that lasted for two days.SoothingR 17:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per whatever. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's mentioned on different pages, which is redundant. It is quite notable as well, considering the list of sites that took place in it are well known and popular. (IE Newgrounds) --Zeno McDohl 17:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article title is OR. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is hardly a "small struggle". The "war" is continuing. Tokakeke 18:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete minor forum fad. Gazpacho 18:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is hardly a "minor forum fad", it's an all out war between two of the biggest sites on the internet. Tokakeke 18:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think YTMND and ebaumsworld are "two of biggest sites on the Internet" ...... *sigh* Cyde Weys votetalk 20:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is documentation of a legitimately significant occurance, internet history in the making. Records should be kept if anyone is to learn from what happens over this turn of events. Garbage Man 12:57, 12 January 2006
  • Keep. This topic is taking over the articles for the associated sites, and, as such, is becoming difficult to follow in that form. Besides, there are articles much more insignifigant than this one that have survived these votes. Also, I would like to point out that the people who are calling these sites "small" and such clearly have no knowledge of this subject and probably should not be voting. Dr Ellipso 19:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None of the Keep votes I am seeing offer possible justifications as to why the article "World Wide Web War I" should exist. Who is calling it that? Who made up that name? Wait until the actual World Wide Web War I takes place and then write this article on whatever that happens to be about. I do not know with what weapons World Wide Web War I will be fought, but I do know that World Wide Web War II will be fought with acoustic coupler modems and TTY interfaces. --Cyde Weys votetalk 20:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unimportant "event" whose participants have chosen to give it an arbitrarily pompous name. Lord Bob 21:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This event has/is garnering a considerable amount of online attention, and is showing itself to play a substantial role in the pressure that's been building concerning legality debates over ebaumsworld material. Kdevoss
  • Delete While this is an important event for YTMND it is not important enough to have its own article. The information on the YTMND article is good enough. Plus World Wide Web War I is a very silly sounding name.--Virulent 78 22:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It should have its own article, because it's going to be mentioned on the pages of YTMND, eBaum's World, Newgrounds, and so on. So it becomes quite redundant. --Zeno McDohl 23:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to the info on either the YTMND or eBaum's World article. It was pretty huge deal, had two pretty big websites going at it, and got a ton of attention, but not big enough to constitute its own page. I'd say keep it to the separate pages for now. I've seen this term commonly used for the whole debacle, so a redirect would work. ShadowMan1od 23:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I got very annoyed jumping between the different articles with information on this Wiki was the first place I came when hearing about this in order to get a un biased view and the lack of centralized article made this hard, it is redundant to have the information on multiple pages when a single centralized article could be created. This event is certainly notable, it involved many notable internet community for example something awful, newgrounds, YTMND and eBaum's World which are all considered sufficed notable to have there own articles. It is to be the subject of at least one radio show (real life not purely internet) and an article for The Inquire. It is also claimed that the FBI are involved, this IMO shows this is not ordinary forum feud. Though I agree that the name might need to be changed in the future I have heard many people calling it WWWW1, along with YTMND-day and the raid. --Elfwood 00:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know myself if WWWW1 is the absolute best name for this, but it made the most sense to me at the time. YTMND-Day or The Raid refer specifically to the attacks on Ebaums forums on Jan 7 and 8. That event is only part of what's been going on for the last week or so. That's why I named the article WWWW1. - Achristl 00:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename I see a lot of uninformed delete votes. This dispute involves some of the largest English-speaking Internet communities (2chan is freaking huge), with SA having, if I recall correctly, over 60,000 members. *reads* No, make that 70,000. I find the dispariaging remarks about Internet culture to be outright ignorant. If you think that Internet culture is irrelevant, I have seven words for you: all your base are belong to us. The Taped Crusader 01:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All Your Base made it to Time Magazine. Has this? Melchoir 05:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you think that internet culture is irrelevant, I'd like to direct you here. GreatGatsby 04:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The information on Wikipedia is independently verifiable. I see no such claim here. Melchoir 05:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, probably rename and rewrite. This is a notable event and IMO there should be a single location (an article of its own) for information on it. Ergbert 04:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. Where is the media coverage? Melchoir 05:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move/Merge Ebaumsworld, Somethingawful, Fark.com etc are mainstays on the Internet. I'm surprised this issue hasn't showed up on Slashdot personally, but the point is that this could turn into something significant. While I'm not sure how appropriate the title of the article is (I havn't seen it used elsewhere yet) the information is appropriate. EagleFalconn 05:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per this media coverage: [22]. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 05:49Z
    • But Rename, suggest something more descriptive and less grandiose like "2006 YTMND-Ebaumsworld Internet war". —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 05:51Z
    • Eh, that's a start, but it's a pretty weak source (the author, Nick Farrell, isn't even listed as one of their few contributors) and it doesn't address most of the detail in the article. I'll maintain my vote for now. Melchoir 06:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge wherever the heck. Or if discussees say this is to be kept as is, definitely rename. (changing vote, see below; the following rambling still stands, IMO.) I think some specific, single-shot issue between two sites hardly is notable enough for an article of its own - this stuff should be documented in the articles for the site(s) in question (or "History of (sitename)" subarticle if we're talking of some really freaking huge site that has a long history, like Slashdot for example - note that I haven't checked if either site has such subarticle and if not, I don't advocate their creation based solely on this incident). And no frigging way this is a "war", unless it's fought by 12-year-olds in their basements of their ancestral birth-homes, in which case it's just mislabeled as such. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. It is not just two sites, it is several notable internet sites, including YTMND, 4chan, LUE, LUElinks, Newgrounds, KNova and many others. There is also the fact that it has spilled in to the real world, including FBI involvement and “vandalism” (read a piece of paper on a door) of eBaum's World head office. There is also a real life radio show on this subject, which is going out at Saturday at 3pm Australian Eastern Daylight Savings Time. Though I do support a re-write and a re-name, this AFD should be able weather an article on this topic should stay and not weather this article should stay. --Elfwood 16:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are "notable" now? I haven't even heard of any of these sites except for ebaumsworld and YTMND, and frankly, I wish I had never heard of them, because all they've ever done for me is to cause people to forward me really crappy links to stupid things on websites. And AFD is Articles for Deletion, not Topics for Deletion. This article needs to go. Nobody is calling it "World Wide Web War I". If someone wants to merge some of the information into the relevant articles on these sites, go for it. But this article name is ridiculous and speaks volumes for the trumped up self-importance the sites involved in this spat have. --Cyde Weys votetalk 16:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some are nn I will admit, but YTMND, LUE (part of gameFAQ), Newgrounds (how could you not have heard of newgrounds I don’t know) and eBaum's World are all very notable. And so is Something Awful if it was involved. My comment about AFD was just meant to mean that the fact that this article is badly named is not a good reason to stop (or make difficult) a future better named article from being created. Also I have heard people call it WWW1 along with the internet war the creator of this article did not make it up, but that dose not stop it being a bad name. --Elfwood 17:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So apparently the criterion for whether an article should be deleted or not is whether you've heard of the parties involved? If you really haven't heard of forums like Newgrounds or 4chan, that just means that you don't really know enough about this subject to judge whether it's notable. Your comments regarding "crappy links" pretty clearly betray your own bias against the subject matter, so I wonder why you care about this article in the first place. Also, Elfwood is right about the name. I didn't make it up, I just saw that other people have been using it. A re-name is fine with me, but a bad name does not a bad article make. - Achristl 18:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to Delete - Apparently the other articles have already included this particular information in much better, rewritten form, so this article is completely unnecessary. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not really a World Web War, surely, but even then it's a little piece of internet history. Why not just leave it be? User:Youlikeyams? 16:19, 13 January 2006 (GMT)
    • Hrrmm, you should fix your vote then, it should read "Delete, it's not really a World Web War." --Cyde Weys votetalk 16:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You mean it should read "Keep, rename". --Zeno McDohl 17:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no need to merge. This is a minor disruption between two sites that doesn't deserve to be covered. Ral315 (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not everything that "merits" a paragraph on The Register merits an article here; cover in the articles on the participants. --&nbsp;Kbh3rd 16:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. This is hardly non-notable; the incident included a DDoS attack that broke 24 hours of continuous operation, and that's just for starters. This is very important to understanding the impact that eBaum's profiting from others' copyrights has had on the Internet, and beyond that it's an important sociological phenomenon on it's own. Forget Internet culture for a moment. This shows just how far thousands of people will go to protect the rights of someone they barely even know over principle, to the point where they're going to lots of trouble to coordinate without a central communications location. Dismiss it as the petty actions of 12 year olds if you want, but it's clear that it was not. This was the culmination of a long-strained situation that was brought to it's breaking point. It wasn't a needless tantrum; it was an action borne out of the knowledge that nothing else was going to be done. It illustrates several aspects of social dynamics as they relate to the Internet perfectly. Rogue 9 17:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, those who find internet culture non-notable need to pause a moment and consider the logic there. Why is it not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia with the lofty goal of collating the sum of human knowledge, will it also exclude information on Andora as non-notable since most people in the world wouldnt know where to start looking for it on a map? I'll also add for those whinging about media coverage that I am a journalist and I know for a fact another journalist I am friends with will be devoting his radio show this weekend to the event. The show is on australian radio in Hobart, and is called Chez Geek. There will be a webcast of it in addition to a regular broadcast, but there does seem to be a good chance of it getting /.ed. --Fearghul 17:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Where are you getting "goal of collating the sum of human knowledge"? Verifiability is policy, and notability is tradition around here. Yes, I demand media coverage, because as it stands the article is a load of speculation. What justifies these edits? Who came up with the list " YTMND, 4chan, LUE and sister forum LUElinks, Newgrounds, KNova"? Why should I believe there were "crippling attacks"?
    This AfD seems headed for no consensus, and there is speculation of the appearance of reliable sources in the future. That's fine. Maybe the article will be verifiable in a month. In the meanwhile, I will personally be content with the cleanup tags, as long as the article gets a respectable name. Melchoir 19:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In 5 years time, what will this article be worth to anyone? Aside from that, I hardly think this little feud deserves the dubious honour of being the "first" internet war. And to suggest it encompassed the whole WWW is ridiculous. --L T Dangerous 19:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you suggesting that the World Wars encompassed every country on the Earth at that time? BocoROTH 05:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WWs did have a major impact on the whole world; economically and socially. I don't see how this "world wide web war" had an impact on any site other than YTMND, Ebaum's World and maybe two or three other sites.SoothingR 11:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's amusing and tells the story of a well-known event. Needs to be somewhere --User:Anonymous 19:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This attack is unprecedented in historical terms for the internet, and may represent the way conflicts are eventually handled on the internet when government/law enforcement doesn't get involved......sort of the era of internet vigilantism MPerdomo 19:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to the "Controversy" section of EBaum's World. I merged and redirected a similar article, YTMND Day, to that target a few days ago, and this one should be treated the same way. If we want to spin this off as a separate article once things stabilize, we can do it then, but for now it makes sense to keep all the info on the subject in one place. -Colin Kimbrell 20:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the point was to make this article that centralized source, it is redundant to have the information on Multiple different articles (YTMND, EBaum's World and others) and many people believe this event is notable enough to have its own article. This information will be the same weather it is part of a larger article or a dedicated one, so I see no reason for not creating it now.--Elfwood 20:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's been a day, and the apparent mission of this article is not doing so well. The two camps of redlinked users are not only uninterested in editing each other's articles, they seem uninterested in improving this one. Instead of two redundant articles, there are three. Sigh.... Melchoir 23:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article was created at 05:23, 12 January 2006 it was then listed for deletion at 06:11, 12 January 2006. People will not want to do what is a lot of work on an article that could be deleted and as shown by the times above they really did not have a chance between the Creation and the listing to do so. If this article survives it should become the main article on this subject with little effort and a link on the pages on all involved parties. Though some one may want to put some thing on talk pages to the effect of put all information about wwww1 (for want of a better name this will do for now) in this article. --Elfwood 00:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, I nominated a stub immediately upon its creation a few days ago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three cards and a top hat, and it would have been deleted if a couple of editors hadn't taken the opportunity to improve it, both expanding and citing references. I find that an AfD is the best way to attract positive attention to a failing article on a worthwhile topic (not that I abuse the tag to that end). This AfD is extremely visible and active, and the article remains in the doldrums. Of course, I can't object if you ask others to help out here. Melchoir 00:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But its not happing on this article (possibly because people are editing the information on the other pages covering this), take my attempt to get a discussion on a possible new name started, Rudykog said we should wait to see if it survived the AFD, even though if we could show that the name would be changed as soon as we are able it would help the article stay. I would try to edit in some more information but I dont have time with my exams. --Elfwood 00:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wait to see if it survived the AFD"? If that's what the supporters of this article are doing, it's ridiculous. We cannot vote on a hypothetical article that doesn't exist yet; we can vote only on the article we have, and that article ought to go. Melchoir 01:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, and "WWW War I" is a rather pretentious title for a feud between several borderline-mainstream websites. --El Zilcho 23:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari 00:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or, better, merge and redirect, because no notable source has given this event the title "World Wide Web War I" and there is not enough information to validate an article separate from the ones already existing (i.e. eBaumsWorld controversy section).--vekron 04:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know that to some people this may seem boring and stupid, but, as an educated man (I'm not some emo teenager) this is worth noting. If wikipedia can have a page for the movie spaceballs (good movie by the way) it can have an article over a MAJOR INTERNET EVENT. I don't think you guys understand that thousands of people were a part of this. This is the "first ever grand scale" massive strike against a website. Whether you agree or disagree with the attack, that is irrelevant. It is your duty as a provider of information to not exclude something because it is not "pretty" to look at. Life is not always pretty. We cannot plead ignorance to events which do happen. This is real life stuff, and as long as we stick to posting the facts, which will fully come to light given time, these articles are of real merit. --The mk 555 06:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spaceballs was a movie produced by a major movie studio. It had a budget and theater take both measured in millions of dollars. How you can even begin to compare this nothing of a conflict to that is beyond me. And if you think this is the "first ever grand scale massive strike against a website" ... where have you been these past few years? Yahoo was taken down by a DDOS. Microsoft was almost taken down by a DDOS. Whitehouse.gov has been DDOS'ed. Compared to this incidents this little forum spat is nothing. Hell, have any of these sites even gone down? And nobody's trying to censor anything or "hide the unprettiness of life". I'm sorry you feel that way. --Cyde Weys votetalk 18:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but merge with EBaum's_World. Not the first "World Wide Web War", nor (barring further developments) worthy of its own entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IceWeasel (talk • contribs) 08:07, 14 January 2006.
  • Comment May I just remind everyone who's voting "merge" that this article is orders of magnitude inferior to the same content found at either YTMND or EBaum's_World. There's really nothing to merge; you may as well simply vote "delete". Melchoir 08:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh... I should have guessed that someone would vote "merge" right after I said this. Melchoir 18:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, with something, at least until there are any more developments in it. --Bky1701 10:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: You have GOT to be kidding me. So someone lies, sends in a nonoriginal work, and suddenly, this is the biggest Internet event in the past 10 years? eBaum's world already has a section on this, YTMND already has a section on this, I frankly think that's more coverage than this deserves. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 14:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the point of this article was so that those sections could be removed from the eBaum's world and YTMND articles or at least greatly reduce them and then link to this article. The YTMND-day section on the eBaum’s world and YTMND pages are taking over there article, why should we have 2 separate massive blocks of text on articles covering different topics when we could have one sterilized one.--Elfwood 15:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with eBaumsworld. If it actually turns out to be something big, perhaps with eBaum being sued, then it should be remade, in my opinion. If it just turns out to be some isolated attacks on each others' servers, no need to keep it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.20.198.162 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 14 January 2006.
  • Rename. I'll amend my earlier vote; although this is a significant event, it does not encompass the entire World Wide Web. How does "Ebaum's War" sound? -- Garbage Man 11:58, 14 January 2006
    • The problem is the Wikipedia policy "no original research". You can't just make up a neologism for something that has happened. The name itself has to be notable or you have to use standard naming syntax, such as "Controversy with eBaum's World". Also, may I point out that calling it "Ebaum's War" is very POV, and actually rather misleading. Let's reserve the word "war" for real wars, okay? A childish spat between various online sites does not qualify as a "war". --Cyde Weys votetalk 18:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least rename. Has anybody notable called this event in this way? David.Monniaux 18:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one whatsoever. It's just a name invented on the spot within the past week and no one voting Keep in here seems to realize this. And frankly, I find it rather insulting to even begin to call this spat anything remotely approaching a World War. Millions of people die in World Wars. Sure as hell no one is going to die in this. --Cyde Weys votetalk 18:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am sorry but that is incorrect. I have seen people call it both WWWW1 and the internet war both before the creation of this article. Also a bad name means the page should be re-named not deleted so there is no reason for the keep voters to justify it. --Elfwood 18:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't matter at all if you "have seen people call it that". Are these places you saw it verifiable sources? No? It's just some forum posts somewhere? I rest my case. I highly recommend you read up on WP:V. Just because some people online call it that doesn't make it a notable name. And all of the content on this page is already contained in YTMND and eBaums World and the information there is better. There is absolutely no reason to keep this page. --Cyde Weys votetalk 18:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you had bothered to read my comments you would see I want the name changed. I was responding to your erroneous comment that it was made up for this article not that it was a valid name. --Elfwood 18:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The bad name is simply symptomatic of the problem that the writers of this content are personally involved in it and have no perspective on its importance, along with all the usual problems listed at WP:VANITY, including WP:NOR. Melchoir 18:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The situation is notable, however, I don't think it's earned the name. For now, sections on the pages about the relevant sites is fine. If it spreads widely or becomes complex enough that more space is needed to fully describe it, then its own article ("Content Conflict with Ebaumsworld", maybe) for a detailed version would be a good idea. -- Jake 18:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sooo.... delete, right? Melchoir 18:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eh. Redirect, probably. -- Jake 19:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not being called a world war (lots of people dying); it's being called a World Wide Web war (people fighting on the WWW instead of in real-life). Ergbert 22:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, possibly rename--this event is notable among certain circles, but they are LARGE circles. User_talk:SkunkyFluffy
  • Delete, idiocy. Adam Bishop 23:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia's existence on the World Wide Web makes WWW antics seem very notable to some Wikipedians. This is an illusion. silsor 23:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there's just nothing that can be said about this spat that's encyclopedic. This might change if it's covered in Wired or something (and that would give us a name, too) but it isn't. Demi T/C 23:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and nuke from orbit. Wholly and entirely unencyclopedic. Wow, 70,000 users. There are more people than that in my city, and it's not even the largest city in my county - and certainly not every single thing that happens in my city is encyclopedically notable. The fact that people created great forumdrama is not unique, it is not notable and it is not verifiable by secondary sources. Nor is it in any way the "first" time some people got pissed at each other on forums and started DDOSing each other. Get back to me when someone actually *dies* in this "war." Until then, it's just a bunch of people arguing, and we all know that arguing on the Internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. FCYTravis 01:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable enough for it's own article, unencyclopediac.--Sean|Black 04:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the Background section is filled with much more information about what ebaum has done regarding using other's material and claming it as his own so he could make money off of it. Otherwise, it's hard for most people to understand why this seemingly minor theft of an animation was the straw that broke the camel's back and turned this into a real battle.
  • Delete. Why is this even here? Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 04:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Enough information is already given on the YTMND and Ebaum's World pages. Anomaly1 04:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I still support deletion, but I wonder, if the article does get deleted, can we BJAODN Natalinasmpf's self-reverted warbox? Melchoir 05:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It exists, doesn't it? Kurt Weber 06:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.google.com/search?q=%22verifiability,+not+truth%22 Melchoir 06:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And that's a major problem; there are plenty of lies that can be sourced. An encyclopedia should be in the business of providing truthful information first and foremost. This is not to say that everything that is truthful should be in an encyclopedia, but a policy stating in effect that truth is irrelevant doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Rogue 9 08:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point was rather that truth is not nearly enough. Truth alone is worthless to us. Melchoir 09:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This user votes "Keep" on everything except for patent nonsense and libel. And I would argue that this doesn't exist, at least not under the name "World Wide Web War I". If I throw something together out of clay in five minutes I get to have an article on it because "it exists" and it's not patent nonsense nor libel? That's a ridiculous voting "policy". --Cyde Weys votetalk 07:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a fellow who has stated that everyone in the world -- everyone -- is notable, and that that everything that has ever happened -- everything -- is notable, too. So weigh his comments accordingly. --Calton | Talk 05:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ludicrously puffed-up "war" between groups of people despearately in need of hobbies. --Calton | Talk 05:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Should be a paragraph in the EBW article, if anything. Jeremy Nimmo 13:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if not for Wikipedia, I would never know about this "war".  Grue  14:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Uh, isn't that the point of Wikipedia? To teach you about things you don't otherwise know about? - Achristl 15:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point? Teaching? I seem to recall something about building an encyclopedia. Melchoir 15:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's not the point at all, Achristl. Wikipedia upholds a zero-tolerance policy towards original research. For that simple reason, Wikipedia is not meant for teaching the public things which they otherwise wouldn't know about.SoothingR 15:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this pompousity. It has no business being called a "World War". BallSack 15:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, having the same info on the articles about the sites is more than enough. 'World wide web war I' is just a random term someone made up and gets 71 google hits. - Bobet 15:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it is funny.Night at the Opera 15:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't tell me Eternal September is happening to us. Melchoir 15:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • that is offensive. Night at the Opera 15:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please, you want to keep an article becuase it's "funny", and you add cleanup tags to it with the summary "lol, templates for the hell of it". Melchoir 16:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • take a look here sense of humor. Night at the Opera 16:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Having a sense of humour is delightful, but I'm not entirely sure how voting based on funniness and throwing on templates because you can helps build an encyclopedia. If this is more your bag, I suggest Uncyclopedia, where a sense of humor is essential to the core aims of the project. Lord Bob 16:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per MPerdomo. -LtNOWIS 21:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What, not the "dawn of an era" argument? Can't we wait for someone else to make that claim? WP:NOT a crystal ball. Melchoir 21:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just some arbitrary term someone made up. --W.marsh 21:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Should be covered, if at all, in the web sites for the individual forums.--SarekOfVulcan 22:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let's forget this article ever happened. Ashibaka tock 23:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A record of this is important

Keep! It may not be the at the level of war yet, but such things will happen sometime, and having some reference for scale is important.

  • Speedy delete This entire stupid "war" is being faught on all sides by self important egotists and is entirely non-notable. All pages relating to it should be speedy deleted on the grounds that wikipedia is not the place to wage "war".
  • Delete - Relevent information already posted on the respective entries, no need for a broad page on the sujbect. - Hbdragon88 05:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spat already covered in the website articles which doesn't require its own article (and certainly not under this overblown name). --G Rutter 16:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Name is absurd. - Halidecyphon 16:59, 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. howcheng {chat} 21:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James O'Donnell[edit]

This does not seem important enough for an encyclopedia JamesTeterenko 06:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been around long before you, buddy. Who are you to all of a sudden decide whether or not it is significant enough to remain on wikipedia? Get over yourself, this has been here for months and deservedly so. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.comments posted above by 24.185.85.144

months? 20 days is not even one month. -- Astrokey44|talk 14:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this person's writings have been compared favourably to some of the best sports writers alive, the critical assessment should be cited and/or linked to in order for a researcher to look in to this for themselves. As it stands, the article is POV, not Wikified nor does it contain useful research material. -- (aeropagitica) UK 07:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me. We'll keep it. I also read the work and I personally would compare it to some of the greatest sportswriters of any era. It is a valuable tool of research in that it has very informative nfl draft articles and the links can be found for his articles on the website. (Lunkwill) 07:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC) comments posted above by 24.185.85.144 again

  • Delete, and ignore votes by vandal 24.185.85.144 - Lukas 08:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "James O'Donnell" nfl draft gets only 50 hits or so, most of them arent to do with him. Plus the article was created by a user who has been blocked from wikipedia. -- Astrokey44|talk 14:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case speedy delete under CSDG5. In any case, delete as vanity. Zunaid 14:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a one-week block for vandalism, not a permanent block (yet). Delete anyway as non-notable, since I'm finding a grand total of one article by this guy. -Colin Kimbrell 20:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable type of person. Stifle 01:28, 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 ☎ ) 08:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kuzmiak[edit]

It is a dicdef as now abakharev 06:56, 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 MERGE to Master's degree. -- Jonel | Speak 04:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Technology[edit]

Article about a degree offered at only one school, provides no information, only link to is a user page, authors only edit. CastAStone|(talk) 07:00, 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. howcheng {chat} 21:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot truck, ithaca[edit]

Listed for speedy deletion by Dalf (talk · contribs), but doesn't meet the criteria. No vote from myself. -- Longhair 07:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn nonsense. - Rudykog 07:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn (and my brother went to Cornell). Billbrock 07:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable -Drdisque 07:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hot truck is a staple of Cornell Life. Check the Cornelliana Page. There is no where on the web that you can look up the menu, nor is the phone number easy to find. If you know anything about cornell, you know that this deserves recognition. - Daniel.Herr
  • Delete or merge into Cornelliana Segv11 (talk/contribs) 10:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cornelliana. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 05:54Z
  • I work in Ithaca (not at Cornell, though), and I've never heard of this. Reads as advertisement with a bit of unverified indication of notability. Delete or merge into Cornelliana, removing the menu. Barno 17:06, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glen At Work[edit]

Non-notable independent film series still in production by a non-notable amateur filmmaker. -- Longhair 06:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Longhair 06:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Crystal-ballism. Ambi 06:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 06:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment. There is an article about how the series is being written here, so it is verifiable at least. There seems to be a little mininetwork of barely notable articles relating to this guy, his work and frie--er, colleagues.pfctdayelise 06:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball Segv11 (talk/contribs) 10:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per noncrystalballism. Cyde Weys votetalk 15:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 05:55Z
  • Delete per nom. Sarah Ewart 05:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. It's a great title, though. Cnwb 05:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. enochlau (talk) 06:12, 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 speedy deleted by Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Punkmorten 22:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listen (the band)[edit]

Band, no works or recordings listed, may lack notability for inclusion here. -- Curps 07:51, 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 ☎ ) 08:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Burroughs[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion by Nifboy as nn-bio, but IMO does not qualify as the person appeared on a TV episode as himself. However, outside of that he has notability whatsoever. howcheng {chat} 07:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but not speedy Segv11 (talk/contribs) 10:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, fails WP:BIO. Kcordina 10:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely non notable. --Oscarthecat 10:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nifboy 18:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable vanity biography. Recommend the article author see WikiMe for writing biographies and/or WikiTree for writing genealogies. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 05:55Z
  • I'm gonna vote to keep this one, as Mark appeared "prominently" on a nationally broadcast television show. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.180.156.39 (talk • contribs) a contributor to the article, 03:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Do NOT delete. This invaluable record needs to remain of one man's 15 minutes of glorious fame. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by a contributor to the article, 12:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC).
  • Despite Mark Burroughs absolute lack of notability beyond his TV debut, shouldn't there be some sort of a consideration for the promise of great things to come. As this Mark character gains notoriety, it seems this article will grow and develop into a more comprehensive entry. And isn't that what wikipedia is all about. We should give a chance to this Mark to prove himself. chrispknight 17:20, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 12:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilke Schönbein[edit]

Filling in an incomplete nomination by User:58.104.41.6 (steps 1 and 3, not 2). No reason for deletion provided in edit summary. Apparently a puppeteer with "a unique style" No vote at this time -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 09:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, performer with no claim of notability. Lukas 11:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Don't think it's a speedy creates a powerful dynamic art form is a claim of notability. Her Le roi grenouille III (King Frog III) was performed in Théâtre de la Commune, Aubervilliers. She also performed Metamorphoses in the Magdeburg festival. That's not inconsiderable to find for a non-English puppeteer. One may certainly question her overall notability though. Dlyons493 Talk 20:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable biography. Few Google hits (yes, I did search "Ilke Schönbein" with o-umlaut). I don't know anything about Metamorphoses, can you expand on that? If "creates powerful dynamic art" is a claim of notability, would "creates powerful dynamic Wikipedia articles" be one? :). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 05:58Z
  • Comment I agree the article seems fairly marginal from Google but that's not a great tool for a finding a non-English puppeteer - however it's all I can use. Metamorphoses is presumably based either on Ovid or maybe Kafka. And yes, "creating powerful dynamic Wikipedia articles" be a valid claim of notability and much easier to verify too :-) Dlyons493 Talk 18:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Incognito 05:42, 18 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; default keep; lyrics transwikied. Johnleemk | Talk 12:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island, It's for Me[edit]

It's just lyrics. I couldn't determine whether or not it's a copyvio (sometimes state songs are PD). An encyclopedic topic, but needs rewriting from scratch and I couldn't find any relevant info. I'm frightened to observe how long this article has been around (since 8 Sept 2005). Deco 08:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Definitely an encyclopedic topic. Barring discovering a copy-vio, I'd just slap a {{cleaup}} and {{expand}} tag in there. -Rebelguys2 08:39, 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 ☎ ) 08:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve oakey[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion by Atrian as nn-bio, but article claims the subject is a skateboarder who has appeared in skateboarding movies. However, IMDB has never heard of him or the movies. howcheng {chat} 08:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete apparent hoax/vanity whose claims of notability seem quite false. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:17, Jan. 12, 2006
  • Delete I wish there weren't so many articles that would be speedyable as A7, except they make bollocks claims of notability.... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 10:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A few hits for "Steve oakey" skateboarder so probably not a hoax, but they seem more like random comments. No bio or anything verifyable -- Astrokey44|talk 14:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. (Stumbled across this nomination while trying to wikify Frank and teds greatest hits, which was contributed by the same editor.) Admittedly, many of the details in this article fail the verification test. However, what troubles me about deleting this article is that (1) we have no criteria for determining how to verify that a skateborder exists, let alone to prove he/she a celebrity even within this subculture, & (2) doing a Google search shows a lot of dead links about him -- which suggests that Internet sources are not a reliable way to verify facts about skateborders. I'd feel more comfortable about deleting this article if a search thru the relevant magazines on this article had also been done. (The websites for the few skateboard mags I found all had suboptimal search features, so even if Oakley was the subject of a featured profile this would be hard to determine short of reading the table of contents for every issue.) -- llywrch 18:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and unverifiable per Ilywrch. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 06:01Z
Er, I said keep, not delete. Do you want to select another opinion to agree with? -- llywrch 17:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was a sloppy comment by me. What I mean is, I don't see any evidence that the subject is notable; and from your research, the subject appears unverifiable. Yes it sucks to rely on the Internet for "verifying" information, but that's all we got until someone actually digs up those magazines. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-15 23:22Z


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Max Rebo Band. -- Jonel | Speak 04:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rappertunie[edit]

Minor Star Wars character. NN ComputerJoe 08:17, 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 ☎ ) 08:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Twigger[edit]

Delete: It really looks like Twigger's autobiography page. Only one author and no verifiable sources. --awh (Talk) 08:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, after Oscar's rewrite, I guess I would change that to weak keep myself. --awh (Talk) 22:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Only claim to notability is a prize in an undergraduate essay competition at university. Lukas 08:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind: Keep. Somerset Maugham Award makes him notable. Sorry. Lukas 11:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep actually it looks like he's published a bunch of stuff, but can't see if any of it is verifable Segv11 (talk/contribs) 10:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - his books are listed on amazon [23]. --Oscarthecat 10:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having tidied the page, I consider this a strong keep. --Oscarthecat 11:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - per Oscar the Cat's comments and excellent rewrite. (Although hopefully fans of his works will do some further editing rather than Twigger himself) MKaiserman 13:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep several published books -- Astrokey44|talk 14:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rewrite and notability claims above. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 06:02Z
  • Keep. The William Hill award also makes him notable, and yeah, I've got a copy of Angry White Pyjamas at home, so I know he's real. --Calton | Talk 05:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Angry White Pyjamas itself isn't particularly real, but I suppose that's a different story :-) --awh (Talk) 14:33, 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 redir to Bittorrent. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seed (BitTorrent)[edit]

Duplication. Information already present on Bittorrent page Oscarthecat 08:24, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Refrigerators[edit]

Delete: non-notable website Lukas 08:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new, and I made a long defense of the site. If editing this entry is a violation of wiki guidelines, I apologize--I'm not sure where to post this. FYI: The term 'Women in Refrigerators Comic Books' generates over 1 million hits on google. Again, if this is the wrong place to comment, I apologize! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Women_in_Refrigerators Fcr 09:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did some edits to the entry, including outside references where appropriate, and the removal of content that I couldn't verify via another source. The terms 'Girlfriend in Refrigerator Syndrome' and 'Women in Refrigerator Syndrome' don't appear in the site where the term 'Women in Refrigerators' originated. Neither term is as common as 'Women in Refrigerators' (done with a search of 'Women in Refrigerators comic books'). The term 'Girlfriend in Refrigerators' appears to have originated on Wikipedia. I referenced both terms in the article for clarity, and noted that neither term appears in the original source documents,. and 'Girlfriend in Refrigerators' appears to have been an invention (accidental?) of someone writing whoever wrote the original 'Girlfriend in Refrigerator' Wikipedia entry. Is 'Women in Refrigerators Syndrome' still an appropriate article title? I think the early whimsy and lack of references in the redone article I wrote might've caused a problem, so I did my best to correct it. Fcr 14:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is one thing about the title 'Women in Refrigerators Syndrome'. The author who coined the term, Gail Simone, has never referred to a Syndrome. As the previous revision described, she did create a list of superheroines and send it out to comicbook fans and professionals--which sparked discussion (and continues to spark discussion on-line). She then published the list and responses (with help) online under the name 'Women in Refrigerators.' The term 'Women in Refrigerators' didn't exist until the website was created, and she's never described the list and the responses as a 'Syndrome.' Lauren Dayap (in late 2004, in this article) made an off-hand comment and said 'the girlfriend in the refrigerator syndrome' without explaining what the term meant. This is the closest reference linking what Gail Simone said to 'Syndrome' that exists on-line prior to June 2005. The intent of the article was as a better reference source for anyone doing research on the subject, the site list and site that sparked and still sparks discussion, Gail Simone, women in comics, women on the Internet, with links to the original site if a reader wanted to dig a little deeper into the meaning material. Titling the article 'Women in Refrigerators Syndrome' would essentially be coining a new term. The most accurate term is 'Women in Refrigerators' (which was coined by Gail Simone for the website where the materials were originally published). Anyway, I thought it was important to add that ... in fact, it might make a good extra addition to the article if it doesn't get deleted. Phew, I gotta work on that brevity, sorry everyone!Fcr 18:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep referenced, 12k google - but the article should be about the term or the syndrome, not the website, so perhaps rewrite or move -- Astrokey44|talk 15:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sounds like a useful and encyclopedic article. I wouldn't be against renaming it or whatever but the basic content should stay. Cyde Weys votetalk 15:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and keep per above: fairly well known theory about misogynism in comic books. Smerdis of Tlön 15:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable, sparked a lot of discussion. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meekohi 20:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Without this article, I would've been totally confused and edited out references in other articles. --JD 23:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Dragonfiend 03:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definately a comic phenomenon worth mentioning in Wikipedia. Technogeek 00:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it.
    • Comment Please remember to sign your vote with four tilde (~) characters. According to the edit history, this vote was from 68.87.100.242. I took the liberty of setting it to the proper format as well. Technogeek 00:51, 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Binswitch[edit]

Incomplete nomination by User:Rebelguys2 (steps 1 and 3, not 2). No reason for deletion given in edit summary, but from looking at the article, I'd say -- Single line, two sentance article on a now-collapsed band with mediocre popularity. May qualify as a CSD A7 -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 09:08, 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 KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 04:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZK Framework[edit]

Not notable. 80 google hits. Sleepyhead 08:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • transwiki to wikibooks since there is already something there about it [24] -- Astrokey44|talk 15:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename since "zk framework" doesn't appear to be a normal name for it. TONS of Ghits for "zk java" or "zk ajax". —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 06:05Z
"zk ajax" gives 109 google results. "zk java": 43. Tons?? --Sleepyhead 08:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I meant without quotes. Its name isn't "zk ajax" (two words) nor "zk java" -- it's "zk" -- I'm just adding context words because obviously just searching "zk" will get unrelated hits. I get 128,000 hits for zk java (without quotes). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-15 23:27Z
  • Delete Its homepage is on sourceforge. That doesn't particularly bode well for a professional project. And I get excessively few google hits, per Sleepyhead. Radiant_>|< 00:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes there is some negative correlation between "homepage on sourceforge" and notability, but not so much that that fact would automatically make it non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-15 23:27Z
  • Keep There have been quite a few authors for this article. Seems like quite a few people know about it. Let it stand and maybe get a new name for it. Achen00 00:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What? It's not notable now so lets keep the article so it will be?? That is not the purpose of wikipedia. --Sleepyhead 08:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am one of the authors of the ZK framework. ZK is new but I don't agree it is not notable. Since opened on Nov. 13, 2005, it attracts more than 8,000 downloads. It is #1 in the Sourceforge's ranking of Software Development/User Interface, and #2 in the ranking of Software Development Frameworks. Tomyeh January 17 2006.
  • Keep because it is in fact quite notable. It is not about how many google hits only but also about where the related entry is. The framework's name is actually "zk". When searching zk, with only two letters, its google hits is 2,190,000. Then where is this ZK framework? It is #2 entry at the first page; and #10 is also related. It means google engine "thinks" this framework is the second most relative to these two letter "zk" out of 2 million plus hits. Then search with context word zk ajax, just like Quarl said, there are tons of XXX about this framework. In fact, the first ten entries of the first page are all about it. —Jwalk 2006-01-17 17:28


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A7 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan "Trueborn" Smith[edit]

Another incomplete nomination by User:Rebelguys2 (steps 1 and 3, not 2). No reason for deletion given in edit summary, but from looking at the article, I'd say -- single sentance article about the vocalist and guitarist for a band with questionable, no-proof-supplied, notability. May qualify for a CSD A7 -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 09:11, 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 ☎ ) 08:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web fluid cartridges[edit]

Redundant page, nearly all of the information here is already in the Web-shooters section of the main Spider-Man article Hirudo 08:43, 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 Speedy Ay Seven --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knut Sandvik[edit]

Nn, self bio, vanity. -- Egil 08:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. No-brainer. --Oscarthecat 08:47, 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 ☎ ) 07:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lantfeust[edit]

I am unable to verify the existence of such a wolf god. "Lantfeust wolf" gives 27 google hits, none relevant, "Lantfeust god" gives 9 hits, again none are relevant. There are some more Google hits using the spelling "Lanfeust", but again I have trouble finding anything relevant. No sources have been cited in the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep, per nom. Daniel Spike 19:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC):

I found mention of this ancient god in a history textbook of which the name escapes me...it mentions that the god's existence, but nothing else. No details, nothing. The preceding comment was added by 70.51.73.231, User:Daniel Spike does not exist.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Jonel | Speak 04:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Craik[edit]

Very short article providing little or no context. Danny Lilithborne 08:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep he's real according to google Segv11 (talk/contribs) 10:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - merge with George Washington article, unless significantly more notable info can be added about him. --Oscarthecat 10:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - listed with bio info on "Famous Americans" [http://www.famousamericans.net/jamescraik/] Lukas 11:04, 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 Speedy deleted as an empty or very short article providing little or no context (CSD#A1). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:15, Jan. 12, 2006

Nanny Yvonne[edit]

NN, and unintelligble enough to be a borderline speedy Segv11 (talk/contribs) 09:04, 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 no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of misleading brand names of food[edit]

Un-encyclopedic list. --Blu Aardvark


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 ☎ ) 07:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halo 2 enemies[edit]

Reason why the page should be deleted Orion Minor 09:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete My reasoning is that the information on this article is covered in the Covenant and Flood articles. Secondly, the article is of a much poorer quality than the other entries. I simply do not see a reason for this page that is, at the moment, redundant. If a large number of people feel that another action should be taken, I'm open to suggestions. I'm not trying to push this on anyone. If people think it should stay, ok then.
  • Delete (as nomination), or perhaps redirect to Halo 2, but nothing actually links to it in the first place.. FredOrAlive 15:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into respective articles on Covenant and Flood. Meekohi 20:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. At the very least, merge, if only to discourage recreation. -Rebelguys2 22:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article more suitable to Gamefaqs.com or similar. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 22:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete information already at The Covenant. -- Astrokey44|talk 00:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (if nothing to merge then delete/redirect). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 06:07Z
  • Delete, as per nomination. Someone42 18:01, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power Rangers Online Archives[edit]

Non notable, and very dead fansite. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - dead site, not notable anyway. --Oscarthecat 10:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the actual site hasn't been around for 5-6 years now. Kusonaga 10:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Lukas 10:59, 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 ☎ ) 07:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freedomtarian[edit]

As the article itself explains, this is a non-notable neologism. A quick Google check does not suggest it has any significant real-world use [28]. Mattley (Chattley) 10:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention Mattley you bully/stalker, that google hit point is retarded. You tried to use it on the communist page and it backfired on your ass as my section title had more google hits than some of the other section titles in the article and you still demanded its deletion.
You just want to delete anything I poist. Period. (Gibby 17:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC))
besides this was aired on national television on a fake news channel and repeated by one respected real jounralist and one fake journalist...not to mention said fake journalist has created new words before and some have recieved their own pages... It is also too early to tell if it is not notable, and seriously, who desides what is notable and what is not? (Gibby 17:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete. "Freedomtarian" was a one-off word Colbert used in the interview.. "Truthiness" won a word of the year award and had an AP article written about it. They're not comparable, yet. If "freedomtarian" catches on then we'll write an article about it. Rhobite 17:42, 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 SPEEDY DELETE --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loony goon circus[edit]

Vandal 193.62.43.121 brought this to my attention. ;-) It appears to be a non-notable gaming clan, garnering 19 unique hits on Google. [29] Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:37, 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 MERGE to Abakuá. -- Jonel | Speak 04:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iremes[edit]

can anyone make heads or tails of this? borderline speedy {{nonsense}} or {{nocontent}}; but maybe I'm missing a cultural reference here... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 10:37, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 12:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gokrida[edit]

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out this article. Is it about some game? Is it about some group of gamers (which appears to be the case towards the end). Either way, it needs to go. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a MMORPG, not as huge as something like World Of Warcraft, but notable, nevertheless. I've updated the opening paragraph of the article to make this clear. --Oscarthecat 11:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very, very weak keep. I think it may be notable enough to keep the article, but it definitely needs some cleaning up, verification, and the removal of much of the useless, non-notable information in there. -Rebelguys2 22:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although GoKrida doesn't have as wide a user base as other MMORPGs, its mechanical and social systems are unique among this class of online games/sub-societies. The entry would benefit from some editing, making it more descriptive and less "how to."
Keep - It definitely needs improvement, but that's fixable and not really a reason for deletion. - Evyndd 03:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pare it to a stub, encourae replacement with something descriptive, perhaps additional notating of the qualities that make this MMORPG different than others. The WurmOuroboros 04:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Much more information on the unique features and nuances should be added by participants of this program. An area of personal experiences of Gokridans should be created to give readers a true taste of GK.

Delete --NaconKantari 00:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! GoKrida, while it is an MMORPG, it is unique. I mean, how many other such games are linked tothe National Heritage Foundation? The game is a society simulator, and the complexity and beauty of it is in the fact that the players make the game within the boundaries of the GoKrida online universe. The players are working on making this page as WiKi acceptable as possible. One person just informed me he had learned how to edit Wiki just so he could work on this page.
Comment - A search of the NHF's website returned no matches for GoKrida [30]. GoKrida's website bills itself as "GoKrida, a National Heritage Foundation" [31], whatever that means. All Google results for the terms National Heritage Foundation and GoKrida return the same phrasing using the indefinite article [32]. I have been unable to find any connection to the National Heritage Foundation. -- Jonel | Speak 03:08, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balderson's Cheddar[edit]

  • Delete: Advertisement, non-notable commercial product. Link spam to commercial website. Lukas 10:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: Doesn't pass google test, clearly an ad. Meekohi 20:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 22:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Balderson is a troll on discussion websites. No possibility of encyclopedic content. Barno 17:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, this AfD is about Balderson cheddar, which is quite verifiable. Your comments are essentially irrelevant to this discussion at the moment. Mindmatrix 17:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Article contained no assertion of notability nor non-commercial verifiability, and Google search of the titled spelling failed to provide evidence. However, subsequent googling for "Balderson Cheddar" gives plenty of hits, from different sources, often non-advertisement, unlike the included link. Vote withdrawn. Tending toward weak keep or merge into Cheddar. Barno 19:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • First, my apologies for being so terse. I wasn't trying to get you to change your vote, only your reasoning behind it. A google search for Balderson cheese or Balderson's cheese yields a total of roughly 1150 hits, so it has some relevance, but it also appears to be another generic cheese producer. (For what it's worth, I've seen their products in several supermarkets in my area.) I thought I'd add this to clarify for any other users who particpate in this AfD. Mindmatrix 23:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have eaten Balderson's Cheddar. But it does not need a Wikipedia article. -- JamesTeterenko 01:35, 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 SPEEDY REDIRECT --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of place artifacts[edit]

POV, no sources cited, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Robin Johnson 10:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to OOPART. Kappa 10:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aah. Yes, that one looks a lot better as an article. Supported. Robin Johnson 11:16, 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 ☎ ) 07:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fall of Hyperion: A Dream[edit]

Transwikied to Wikisource:transwiki:The Fall of Hyperion: A Dream Segv11 (talk/contribs) 10:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki complete, so delete. Stifle 01:20, 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 ☎ ) 07:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weisse Guys Brewery[edit]

Delete: Advertisement, non-notable commercial product, link spam to commercial website Lukas 11:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom, pure advertisement. --Oscarthecat 11:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was my obviously my first entry into Wikipedia - I hope that you have seen that we have made the necessary adjustments to the article. Thank you very much! - Weisse Guys


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

The result of the debate was delete. To User:Ad van der Ven, this may not be original research meaning you didn't do the research yourself, but it's original research as defined by Wikipedia. howcheng {chat} 21:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lottocracy[edit]

Neologism and original research throughout. Delete. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No original research. The idea has already been published in the chapter A Concept for Government of the book The World Solution for World Problems (ISBN 90-9002592-8, no copy rights attached). You can find the book also at PiCarta.

Furthemore, how strange do delete an article with an important message just becuase of a name. What is a neologism and what is wrong with it?

If I look in Wikipedia for Neologism I find:

A neologism is a word, term, or phrase which has been recently created ("coined") —often to apply to new concepts, or to reshape older terms in newer language form. Neologisms are especially useful in identifying inventions, new phenomena, or old ideas which have taken on a new cultural context.

So there seems to be nothing wrong with a neologism!

  • From Wikipedia:No original research -
    "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is:
    • it introduces a theory or method of solution; or
    • it introduces original ideas; or
    • it defines new terms; or
    • it provides new definitions of pre-existing terms; or
    • it introduces an argument (without citing a reputable source for that argument) which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; or
    • it introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source; or
    • it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source.
    ...
    Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications."
  • Sorry, but this article fails on almost all counts. We would not "delete an article with an important message just becuase of a name" - we would delete it because Wikipedia is not the place to try to put across important messages at all. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - original research, delete as per nom. --Oscarthecat 12:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can only say one thing: I am a scientist, go to my homepage http://oase.uci.kun.nl/~aven1935/ and you will see that I was involved in the publication of 55 scientific papers. My last paper was in the British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology (2005). I must say I am very disappointed with this answer.

    I have always considered the British people as open minded. In Holland there is at least one official publication with the term lottocracy (lottocratie) in the title, which was one of the reasons to present this article to Wikipedia. It is most disappointing to hear that a concept, which meets almost all of the above criteria, among others, it really introduces a solution to the problems facing our world going to an end, is simply wept from the table by a single subject. In scientific publications one usually has three referees to judge a paper. In Wikipedia one seems to be sufficient.

    At the same time I know that the above words have no value whatsoever. In Holland we would say: spoken to a deafman's ear.

  • Delete, OR. Sorry anon, but there is something wrong with neologisms: see Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms. --Malthusian (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, of course. Lukas 14:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NEO, WP:NOR, etc. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lincolnite 20:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have articles on demarchy and sortition. The book chapter in which it is claimed above that this concept is discussed actually contains no mention of the term "lottocracy", and is in fact discussing one way of implementing demarchy. At best, this would be a redirect to demarchy, but research doesn't reveal it to be a widely accepted alternative name for the idea. This is original research, a new word (that is almost solely associated with Ad van der Ven — the Ad van der Ven (talk · contribs) that is this article's author) for an existing concept being promoted by its inventor in Wikipedia and elsewhere. Delete. Uncle G 23:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G. Mattley (Chattley) 00:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Demarchy because I see enough Google hits to make it worthwhile. Else delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 06:14Z
    • Now exclude all of the search results that are sourced from Ad van der Ven. Uncle G 07:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm, okay does seem like Ad van der Ven is promoting his idea. However, I still think a Redirect would be good. It seems like many people reinvent the term and it has an obvious meaning. The redirect would not be acquiescing to AvdV; it is more like "if there's anything about Lottocracy, it's as a synonym or subtopic of Demarchy". Demarchy exists and is a more serious article, a redirect will stop people from recreating 'lottocracy' thinking they invented it. I myself immediately understood the concept from the name 'lottocracy'. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 08:28Z

Do NOT delete this Article!

First of all it is not original research.

The idea of lottocracy has been described in detail in the chapter A Concept for Government of the book The World Solution for World Problems (ISBN 90-9002592-8). The book is officially published in 1988, which is, according to present standards, long ago. I cannot help it when the general public is not informed. Since the time of it's publication the book has been available, though, as a hard copy in the Library of Congress (Washington DC), the British Library (London) and, among others, in the Library of the University of Princeton (Princeton, USA). You can also find the book at PiCarta.

  • Delete - it is original research by a non-notable author, who is using self-referential citations to prove his point. Non-notable and unsuitable content. doktorb | words 12:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Doktorb,

Would you really be so kind to wait a little with your comments. I am in the process of editing. This will take a few minutes. So, please, ...

Moreover, I do not know what you mean. The author of the book has died several years ago. Therefore, again, I do not know what you mean. I am Ad van der Ven, a honest scientist (having published 55 papers in well-known scientific papers) and I repeat, I am not the author of the book.

Now I am continuing.

Second.

The term lottocracy is not my term, but the term of the author. The term has been used seven times in the book! I cannot help it, that the author uses this term to label his idea.

I really think, with all my heart, that the above referees have been rather careless and have made their recommendations too easy!

Comment - to the author of this article: I can understand your frustration, but please note that Wikipedia is not an academic journal and this is not peer-review. For a topic to merit an entry in wikipedia it needs to be notable in its own right. This discussion is largely about whether or not this concept is notable. It is being termed original research by other editors because it is not a term in widespread use, discussed by multiple notable authors but, rather, a term used in a not especially notable book by a not especially notable author. It may be a brilliant idea, but until it becomes a notable brilliant idea, it isn't appropriate as a topic for an article. Other editors have suggested that the concept is essentially the same as sortition or demarchy, so perhaps some of this information could be integrated into one or both of those articles. Mattley (Chattley) 13:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mattley,

Thank you for your consideration. You are the first one who makes a comment in a kind and most informative way. I do understand what is meant by "notable". I am a scientist with many publications, among others a book, and at least I consider the topic certainly notable. But that will probably not do and I am well aware that the concept is a matter of subjective interpretation. Some will consider a topic notable and some not. In that case one still can hold to the criterium of importance, which by the way is also subjective. I can only wait and see.

In the mean time, I will certainly consider most seriously your suggestion to discuss the topic under the heading of demarchy, which by the way is in some respects completely different from the concept of lottocracy.

  • Delete as original research, etc.Stifle 01:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Stifle,

I repeat. This article is not original research. See above:

The idea of lottocracy has been described in detail in the chapter ...
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng {chat} 22:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rockets red glare[edit]

  • Delete: Not notable and never will be since they've already disbanded. No real official web site, article is basically external links and even their influences are of questionable notability. Might even be a speedy candidate? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
    What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
    Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
    O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
    And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
    Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
    Cyde Weys votetalk 15:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is, might want to fix it on the Wikipedia page. --Cyde Weys votetalk 17:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Oh hey, that's a good idea... —Wknight94 (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested by Crotalus horridus Meekohi 20:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Star-Spangled Banner, great idea! Segv11 (talk/contribs) 21:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, per existing arguments. -Rebelguys2 22:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article tells us that the band released "two full-length albums". Allmusic confirms that this is indeed the case, and I found one of the albums in stock and available to buy on Amazon. The WP:MUSIC criteria appear to be satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 01:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...two albums on a major label. The one label's web site only lists seven bands: two are dead and four aren't touring. The other label's web site has about two dozen bands, no band descriptions and a broken Site Map link on every page. Doesn't strike me as too major. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Uncle G. dryguy 13:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this the same criteria that I'm reading? "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Their labels are neither major nor important indie labels - is there anyone on either of their performer rosters that are on Wikipedia? Has anyone even heard of anyone on their rosters? Is there some other criteria I'm missing? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, the latest keep vote is from someone that only votes on my Afd's and always against. Clears it up for me. Wknight94 14:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have voted on a total of three AfD's, two of which Wknight94 created. The third one I created, pretty much at his request, and in agreement with him. I took him to task for disparaging one of my edits, and he has directed quite a number of posts to me or about me since then. I won't respond further here, as this has nothing to do with Rockets Red Glare, other than his attempt to discredit my vote. dryguy 14:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MUSIC:
Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources.
That's indisputably the case here.
Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
You can certainly debate whether the label in question is notable enough, but a case can be made that the criterion is satisfied.
Has been prominently featured in any major music media.
Chart, which is unquestionably major enough, has profiled them.
Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.
Again: you can debate whether Jim Guthrie, whose band contains former RRGer Evan Clarke, is notable enough, but a case can be made that he is. "Extremely notable" is not an objectively quantifiable criterion, at any rate; I'd suggest a much more specific and less open-to-interpretation standard be used.

So, bottom line, this is not a clear-cut delete; it's a borderline case. Passes my own personal keep line, though I suppose that may be just me. Bearcat 01:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - They are disbanded so this is not some sort of plug for the band. They have records and songs out there. Probably some floating around on the internet. The people who made the music and care for the music are still around. Why not keep? Are we running out of room? Verifyable. Encyclopedic to some. Not an ad. So keep already. WAS 4.250 01:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. They're notable because they released three albums. They are a band, they toured, they released albums, thus they are deserving of an entry. They're now part of the history of the Canadian music scene. I mean who decides whether a band is notable or not? Based on sales? Radio play? Fanbase? What? This article has to stay. --Dogbreathcanada 04:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: WP:BAND is supposed to say. Unfortunately, that just leads to discussion about what "notable" means in "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources." Some say that is indisuputable. Me? I dispute it. To answer other questions, there has been a big push here - including making WP:BAND violation a speedy deletion criteria - to stop Wikipedia from being flooded by every band that every person likes. I.e., if Rockets red glare is notable enough, then so are fifty zillion other bands until half the database is just bands, each of which is notable in one person's mind. Has anyone found any of this band's label-mates in Wikipedia? Why not? Get that new article button moving because they must all be notable too. And, if any of them were on a slightly larger label too, make articles for all of that label's bands, etc., etc... Soon, every schmuck that's ever picked up a guitar and happened to know someone with some recording equipment who happened to know someone at a CD publishing joint - they're all on Wikipedia. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Didn't know about WP:BAND before voting. Always learning here at Wikipedia. :) Based on this new criteria for "notability", I have changed my vote. Thanks Wknight94 for the heads up. --Dogbreathcanada 08:48, 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 ☎ ) 07:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Prayer Ministry Project[edit]

Very, very non-notable project - 2 google hits. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:49, 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 12:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diafana Krina[edit]

Somewhat speedyable A7 band. I actually speedied this, but the talk page claims minor notability. I disagree, so AfD and DELETE.--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep they're a legit Greek rock band, with 3 albums available at the usual places. but these albums seem to be of minor notability, not hits or anything Segv11 (talk/contribs) 21:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to defend my article here! Independent bands (currently they even realease from their own label) without the support of the industry don't get 'hits'. Despite this lack of support they have had success in a country that rock music is not as popular, which in itself is something notable. When one thinks of 90's greek rock bands , three main groups come in the mind. Two of them don't exist anymore, the third being Diafana Krina who are still going on. Many consider them as the flagship of the greek rock scene currently. I believe they are notable, of course: thus, Keep Volcan 06:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the original article talk page it is already documented why it is NOT failing WP:MUSICVolcan 19:07, 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 ☎ ) 07:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheriton Manor[edit]

Unreadable and likely copyvio about somethingorother. "In this brief paper, we argue that Alice de Cerutone is most likely..." OR, too. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsuitable for wikipedia in its current "cut+pasted" state. --Oscarthecat 15:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Impenetrable essay. Author needs to rewrite to WP standards, lay the page out according to WP standards, categorise and Wikify as a minimum. Could be moved to the sandbox in the interim if the work is to be undertaken. If left in this state, the textdump should be deleted as it is of use to neither man nor beast. -- (aeropagitica) UK 18:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - incomprehensible familyhistorycruft. See also Sir William Brockman. Tearlach 20:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research, possible copyvio from some printed source. Dlyons493 Talk 21:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and existing arguments. -Rebelguys2 22:50, 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 ☎ ) 07:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kit-of-parts theory[edit]

NN (12 unique google hits) and definite OR. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:28, 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 ☎ ) 07:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nipponization[edit]

OR and neologism (less than 70 unique google hits). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: spelling it with an s (Nipponisation) gets a few hundred more. BL kiss the lizard 23:54, 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 delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of blood vessels[edit]

Redundant with Template:BloodVessels. JFW | T@lk 12:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Arcadian 13:11, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 22:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viceboxx[edit]

NN web community. 4 google hits. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:43, 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 ☎ ) 07:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instaposting[edit]

Dicdef, neologism, no evidence of common use. I actually created this article myself when I was new to Wikipedia, before I even had an account, and wasn't aware of policy regarding dicdefs - I was pretty surprised to see it still up. Since I created as an anon I guess I can't ask for a speedy. Delete. Malthusian (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 14:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 22:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 03:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 06:20Z
  • Delete per nom. I don't think anyone would mind a dose of WP:IAR to delete this per author request, if any admin is coming by. Stifle 01:18, 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 redir to Fidchell. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish chess[edit]

Supposed pub game with no evidence that anyone plays it. This is another one of my own articles (again created under an IP, but this time because I forgot to log in), and this one I can't plead ignorance for; I hoped when creating it that either I or someone else would find references at a later date. I've tried three separate times on Google and failed to find a single mention, so I guess it's just not played by many people. Even if it can be proved that I did create it, please don't G7 speedy it as I still have a vain hope that someone will have heard of it under a different name. Malthusian (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Durova 14:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete at nominator's request --- SockpuppetSamuelson 14:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I specifically requested not to, and the article (by accident) wasn't created under my username anyway. --Malthusian (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should add that I bolded 'please don't' in my nomination only after SPS had posted. --Malthusian (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete or, if any material can be found, merge with Mornington Crescent. I've never heard of Irish Chess, but I have 'played' MC with 'pieces' like this article describes. Robin Johnson 15:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. Certainly I've never seen anything like it in an Irish pub - we take our drinking far too seriously for that sort of time-wasting distraction. Dlyons493 Talk 21:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fidchell perhaps? --AnonymousCowherd 21:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's a thought. Don't do any merging though! Dlyons493 Talk 22:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per AnonymousCowherd. I suspect people play this game somewhere in Ireland but I'm not able to find any reliable sources either. Stifle 01:17, 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 merge and redirect to Bandytown. howcheng {chat} 22:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wet banana[edit]

Delete. We open the fire hydrant in my town every July 4th. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. Lukas 14:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the Bandytown page. -Jcbarr 14:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Agreed, looks like fun, but not worth its own page. Meekohi 20:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 06:21Z
  • Delete. Or merge. At least get rid of the picture. And thank you, Fingers-of-Pyrex, for making me laugh. -- Krash 06:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Jcbarr, but BJAODN the picture. Stifle 01:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I copied the NPOV info from this article into the Bandytown page, as that should be the result whether this page is officially deleted or not. -Jcbarr 04:25, 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 keep, nomination withdrawn. Punkmorten 21:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expecting (Angel episode)[edit]

Article does not attempt to make a case for why this particular episode is notable. While marked as a stub, most of it consists of empty sections. This is more appropriate for some Buffyverse wiki. --Wrathchild (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. --Wrathchild (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We have pages for every Angel and Buffy episode, whether particularly notable or not. There is no Wikipedia policy on this. Therefore this, and all other episode, should be kept as a seperate article. --Cooksey 15:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Needs expanding. But fully expect the legions of Angel/Buffy fans to take up the torch in this respect. --Oscarthecat 15:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per precedent. 23skidoo 15:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per precedent. Policy regarding this show in particular, but all shows, are under development.
  • Keep It seems like every episode of every somewhat notable TV show gets its own article. There's nothing we can do. Cyde Weys votetalk 15:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent. Essexmutant 15:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid episode article, no reason for deletion. Why does the nom seemed surprised that a stub contains empty sections? Turnstep 16:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Other notable series such as the Star Trek franchise, have articles about their invidiual episodes. Angel is a notable Jos Whedon series and it takes time and effort to write episode synopses. -- (aeropagitica) UK 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 delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nizam (band)[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because one of your friends encouraged you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is deleted. Despite what you may have been told, it is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

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

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

Non notable band. Members are teenagers with no hits. A Google search turned up nothing relating to the band. Esprit15d 14:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete HOAX. Ivan Ilin and Alexander Kashev should also be deleted. The information in the article is completely false.  Grue  16:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Grue abakharev 04:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:54Z
  • Delete as nn or hoax Segv11 (talk/contribs) 04:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The band had a moderate success in Russia, especially in the Volga region cities, although I doubt it has sustained the positions in charts mentioned in the article. Probably should be cleaned up, but kept nevertheless, since Nizam is certainly more popular than other obscure Russian bands mentioned in Wikipedia (Nina & Lena, TEMA (band), Satarial, Severnye Vrata to name but few). Prodigal_ang 17:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean-up Should be heavily cleaned up due to some facts that aren't true. The band definitely does exist though, I heard their songs on the radio last year. The site link must be deleted too since it's old and useless. exelcior 21:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, non-notable band. Stifle 01:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe someone can translate this in Russian and keep it in that form since this might really seem nn for users living outside Russia. the beatle 9:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I cleaned the article up, now it's much closer to reality. I think the author himself should work on it, too. exelcior 10:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide at least one link to credible source that proves that this band really exists? I'm from Russia myself, and I'm absolutely certain that this band, even if it does exist, fails WP:MUSIC totally. Grue 10:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an article about them on sarbc.ru (looks like a Saratov official portal). the beatle 19:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a local website. To be in Wikipedia, band should archieve at least some level of notability outside of their locality. And I wasn't able to find anything on that site (must be that horrible design). Grue 17:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I heard about the band. Maybe it's not that big, but still. I say weak keep or merge with smth similar. Anthony Ivanoff 21:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuke from orbit, speedily if possible. FCYTravis 19:02, 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. JIP | Talk 11:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qrolle[edit]

nn project by nn people Hirudo 15:27, 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 Speedy delete. enochlau (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Manika[edit]

The last remaining Wonderfool "nihilartikel". Has survived for over a year, and I was going to leave it for ever, to see if it would stay. But then again, they are blatantly not big enough for a Wikipedia entry. Not even close to being signed, sold probs about 50 CDs in their time to friends. Sure, they're real, but not noteworty for an entry. Thanks, -Wonderfool Nightsleeper 15:27, 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 SPEEDY --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teal Marchande[edit]

nn actor. Here is her imdb profile. Esprit15d 15:31, 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 ☎ ) 07:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditz[edit]

Dicdef, already copied to Wiktionary Werdna648T/C\@ 09:23, 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. howcheng {chat} 22:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fascists in Christian Clothing: The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy[edit]

Non-notable novel from 2005. Political/religious thriller. Amazon rank of 380,000+, and no reader reviews.[33] No real assertion of notablity. (Should we speedy it?). -Will Beback 09:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC) Will Beback 09:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete though not speedy (makes claim for notability). Title is highly POV and may be an attempt to get this slogan more widely known. David | Talk 09:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can best shed light on this because I created it. I created this to make a point. Note that point is different than WP:POINT because this in no way causes disruption to wikipedia. Yet, when I saw a proliferation of anti-Islamic polemics (some found in Category:Books critical of Islam) I created a rather borderline notability book about Christianity but made sure its Amazon rank (381,306) was better than the book that inspired its (639,969). I was worried about systemic bias because when an encyclopedia has many pretty non-scholarly critical books about one religion and not about others I'm not sure that's a good thing. It should be noted that there are more critical of Christianity books and hopefully things will even out some, but since it was pretty clear to me from other articles that inclusionist tendencies were winning out in the community I realized that books on this level were not considered notable per AfD voting standards. The title also plays off of Islamofascism debates but was not an attempt to get the title into greater usage. I would also not oppose in any way adding (book) to the end of the title of that makes people feel more comfortable. gren グレン ? 14:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. So you agree that it's borderline notable, and you admit that you only created the article to make a point about an unrelated issue, yet you still insist that it should be kept? Is this really a book that is critical of Christianity? I'm not sure how it even makes your point. -Will Beback 19:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe the book is probably not encyclopedic. However, my vote for this is based on other standards that seem to have been set from my perusal of other AfDs. Similar to the subject of schools I suppose. My point about Christianity evenness was not cheap critiques. It was moreso titles since I created it during the AfD of The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism (book). My point was that what I believe has become the de facto standard for book notability has been set below this--whether it's good or bad. I was also curious about the deletion prospects for this. If this is deleted and some of the others aren't I'd want to know why. I'm not sure if I'm making sense. gren グレン ? 20:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, the title is POV but I don't see why we'd care - it's the title of a book. We can argue the importance of the book, but I doubt it would go anywhere. We have articles on individual episodes of obscure TV programs nobody's ever seen, so I'd be surprised if we got consensus to delete this. However my actual "vote" is merge to Richard J. Weisman, the author. This is simply a matter of organization- there's little point having an article on a specific book before we even have an article on the author. The author article could discuss this and his other books, and if the day comes when it's too long, we split them off again. Friday (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: for purposes of Afd, I suppose I should have said keep. The issue of turning this into an article about the author is a matter for the talk page, not for Afd. Friday (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it may be a fringe book, but it is on Amazon.com, so it meets WP:V. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a real book. Don't file AFDs just because you disagree with the POV of the original book. That's poor form. Cyde Weys votetalk 18:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not even sure what the POV of the book is. Is every single published book sufficiently notable to have an entry here? I hope not. -Will Beback 19:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all ordinary, non-notable books. Including any books that espouse whatever the hell the opposite of this book's point of view is. Lord Bob 21:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the book is published by vanity self-pub press iUniverse, and not really notable based on that. --badlydrawnjeff 14:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn book, and quite lame at that.  Grue  14:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it's a vanity publisher and it has a reasonable chance of being deleted. Nothing here to indicate particular significance of this work. Friday (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per badlydrawnjeff. Atrian 05:20, 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 Keep karmafist 18:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lovin' it[edit]

Voted for delete in Chinese [34] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.218.44.94 (talk • contribs) .

  • Keep: Notable ad campaign, at least in the U.S, I'm kind of wondering why it was up for deletion in China's Wikipedia, but regardless it should stay in the English version. Deathawk 21:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Deathawk. It could do with a bit of cleanup though. NicM 22:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per Deathawk. And also it could include more local versions in the world.--Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 06:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable ad campaign. Youngamerican 15:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just like the Subservient Chicken was kept. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as bad faith nomination - no reason given for deletion. Turnstep 16:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. If the Chinese Wikipedia wants to delete it, let them. It has relevance for the English version at least. 23skidoo 18:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep inane McDonalds advertising slogan. Cyde Weys votetalk 18:53, 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. -- Jonel | Speak 04:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iffat Rahim[edit]

well nobody knows who this is.insufficient information. also not a big icon or cultural influence. no picture,no filmography available on the net. maybe this is a person who is talking abt himself


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

The result of the debate was delete (a new improved version can always be created). -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interfed[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was WTF?. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:30, 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 ☎ ) 07:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larval stage (hacker jargon)[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this smells like something from the Jargon File; but it's been bastardized Segv11 (talk/contribs) 21:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic/POV. Yup, it's from jargon: [36]. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 06:26Z
  • Delete per Quarl. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. least of all a jargon dictionary. Stifle 01:12, 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 keep. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loco Locass[edit]

Has 89,000 google hits but someone needs to establish why they are notable. Are they? I'm not sure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blnguyen (talk • contribs)

  • Speedy keep - Loco Locass has a CRIA Gold certified record: source. --Muchness 11:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Muchness. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 06:26Z
  • Yep, Keep. I've added the citation to their page. -Colin Kimbrell 20:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They're notable because they released three albums. They are a band, they toured, they released albums, thus they are deserving of an entry. They're now part of the history of the Canadian music scene. I mean who decides whether a band is notable or not? Based on sales? Radio play? Fanbase? What? This article has to stay. Know I know about WP:BAND. My vote is still unchanged since they meet the criteria for notability. --Dogbreathcanada 04:39, 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 ☎ ) 07:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taíno Pharmacopoeia[edit]

Google shows only 3 hits for "taino pharmacopoeia", article contains no real information, and even if article did contain info, it should be included under the entry Taino Madman 03:10, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 22:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom lip[edit]

Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Only album was recorded last week, which means it probably hasn't shipped.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ☎ ) 07:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S. Jonathan Wiesen[edit]

The article does not make any claim to notability, other than the fact that he is a university professor. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Education. Aleph4 15:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep His book West German Industry and the Challenge of the Nazi Past 1945–1955. has been reviewed as This is an important book. Dlyons493 Talk 21:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His book actually won an award for excellence in business history. I've edited the article to reflect this. That makes him at least as notable as a run-of-the-mill porn star. Durova 02:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Not tenured yet. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 06:29Z
  • Keep, has a published book that won an award. Stifle 01:11, 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 Speedy Deleted by User:Mathwiz2020 under CSD G4 —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-14 01:32Z


Unlending[edit]

it's nonsense, and from the looks of it, has been deleted before. Speedy delete? Uucp 15:38, 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 ☎ ) 07:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Klesic[edit]

No definition of notoriety, although he appeared in a couple of episodes of the short-lived Space Cadets series. Delete as nn-bio Essexmutant 15:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Extensive presence on IMBD, even in the acting area, as listed on the page. JHMM13 (T | C) 16:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not exactly an A-list actor, but not exactly non-notable, either. -Rebelguys2 22:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Rebelguys2. Stifle 01:09, 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 ☎ ) 07:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magician Ramana[edit]

Delete as nn. Just another nightclub magician with a website. -- Krash 15:43, 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 deleted by Jimfbleak. Stifle 01:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shorty usa[edit]

Non-notable business - is an advert. Localzuk (talk) 16:04, 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 no consensus; editorial decision made to merge to physical linguistics. Johnleemk | Talk 11:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computational verb theory, Computational verb logic, Computational verb, Physical linguistics[edit]

Unverifiable, non-notable, spam, original research, and/or vanity. This is part of a series of articles linked ultimately to Tao Yang created in an attempt to promote his "computational verb theory" and related concepts.

Regarding lack of verifiability and original research: I challenge anyone out there to find verifiable, independent, peer-reviewed sources that seriously discuss "computational verb theory". By "independent" I mean sources that are neither (a) Wikipedia mirrors; (b) web sites published by Mr. Yang; (c) books self-published by Mr. Yang; (d) journals edited by Mr. Yang; nor anything else related directly or indirectly to Mr. Yang and/or colleagues. Keep in mind that the references cited in these articles do not meet these criteria; for example, Mr. Yang is the editor (and apparently also the publisher) of the International Journal of Computational Cognition.

Regarding vanity and lack of notability: Even if the topic of "computational verb theory" is found to be verifiable, I'll also claim that it is not sufficiently notable to warrant several articles. The present state of affairs inflates the significance of Mr. Yang's theories beyond their apparent merit.

Related nominations:

This list may be incomplete. Please expand as appropriate.


I have bundled Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computational verb logic, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computational verb, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical linguistics at this point. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 06:47Z

  • Weak keep with Merge all to the most-encompassing article on the theory, perhaps Physical lingustics or Computational verb theory. Looks very fishy indeed. However, Google Scholar shows a handful of others working on this stuff, and T. Yang has also published under Springer-Verlag. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 06:54Z
  • Merge to a single article, Physical linguistics, as per above. Lukas 14:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Physical linguistics, --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Isn't anybody bothered by the fact that "physical linguistics" receives virtually no independent citations or even Google hits? There is little more than a series of articles by a single person, most of them self-published without peer review. --MarkSweep 20:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with MarkSweep. Merge to Yang's Scientific Research Institute. Melchoir 20:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into Tao Yang(I). It odd many books by big publishers but very few citations. The term "physical linguistics" is used by another author in a different field (education). --Pfafrich 23:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep and merge with physical linguistics. Delete. This all seems very fishy. I tagged all related pages as a hoax until someone can produce solid evidence that it is not. —Ruud 21:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge; barring that, delete. Matt Yeager 00:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Results from the ISI citation index[edit]

I've done a little checking through the ISI Web of Knowledge, my results are appended below. Articles by Yang dealing with the 'computational verb' have appeared in at least two reputable peer-reviewed journals, the International Journal of Intelligent Systems and the International Journal of General Systems. However, the only time any of these papers has ever been cited is by Yang himself in other papers. So it's verifiable as a published theory, but it's not exactly setting the cognitive science world alight. --Nick Boalch ?!? 23:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

FN ISI Export Format
VR 1.0
PT S
AU Yang, T
TI Impulsive control theory - Preface
SO IMPULSIVE CONTROL THEORY
SE LECTURE NOTES IN CONTROL AND INFORMATION SCIENCES
PY 2001
VL 272
BP VII
EP +
UT ISI:000171868300001
ER

PT S
AU [Anon]
TI Impulsive computational verb control
SO IMPULSIVE CONTROL THEORY
SE LECTURE NOTES IN CONTROL AND INFORMATION SCIENCES
PY 2001
VL 272
BP 219
EP 235
UT ISI:000171868300009
ER

PT J
AU Yang, T
TI Computational verb systems: The paradox of the liar
SO INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS
PD SEP
PY 2001
VL 16
IS 9
BP 1053
EP 1067
UT ISI:000170524300003
ER

PT J
AU Yang, T
TI Computational verb systems: computing with perceptions of dynamics
SO INFORMATION SCIENCES
PD MAY
PY 2001
VL 134
IS 1-4
BP 167
EP 248
UT ISI:000169100900007
ER

PT J
AU Yang, T
TI Computational verb systems: Verb numbers
SO INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS
PD MAY
PY 2001
VL 16
IS 5
BP 655
EP 678
UT ISI:000168174500005
ER

PT J
AU Yang, T
TI Computational verb systems: Verb sets
SO INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GENERAL SYSTEMS
PY 2000
VL 29
IS 6
BP 941
EP 964
UT ISI:000165902200006
ER

PT J
AU Yang, T
TI Computational verb systems: Verb predictions and their applications
SO INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS
PD NOV
PY 2000
VL 15
IS 11
BP 1087
EP 1102
UT ISI:000165237900006
ER

PT J
AU Yang, T
TI Computational verb systems: a new paradigm for artificial intelligence
SO INFORMATION SCIENCES
PD MAY
PY 2000
VL 124
IS 1-4
BP 103
EP 123
UT ISI:000085768800005
ER

PT J
AU Yang, T
TI Computational verb systems: averbs and adverbials as modifiers of verbs
SO INFORMATION SCIENCES
PD DEC
PY 1999
VL 121
IS 1-2
BP 39
EP 60
UT ISI:000084329600003
ER

PT J
AU Yang, T
TI Computational verb systems: Verb logic
SO INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS
PD NOV
PY 1999
VL 14
IS 11
BP 1071
EP 1087
UT ISI:000083405400001
ER


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 11:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Computational Cognition[edit]

Unverifiable, non-notable, spam, original research, and/or vanity. This is part of a series of articles linked ultimately to Tao Yang created in an attempt to promote his "computational verb theory" and related concepts.

Regarding lack of verifiability and original research: I challenge anyone out there to find verifiable, independent, peer-reviewed sources that seriously discuss "computational verb theory". By "independent" I mean sources that are neither (a) Wikipedia mirrors; (b) web sites published by Mr. Yang; (c) books self-published by Mr. Yang; (d) journals edited by Mr. Yang; nor anything else related directly or indirectly to Mr. Yang and/or colleagues. Keep in mind that the references cited in these articles do not meet these criteria; for example, Mr. Yang is the editor (and apparently also the publisher) of the International Journal of Computational Cognition.

Regarding vanity and lack of notability: Even if the topic of "computational verb theory" is found to be verifiable, I'll also claim that it is not sufficiently notable to warrant several articles. The present state of affairs inflates the significance of Mr. Yang's theories beyond their apparent merit.

Related nominations:

This list may be incomplete. Please expand as appropriate.

  • Nominate and endorse deletion. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 16:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I haven't checked up on the "computational verb theory" yet (that one does sound fishy to me), but the journal seems a serious scholarly outlet alright. Many of its articles seem to be invited articles, hence probably not peer-reviewed, but they come from bona fide researchers in bona fide academic disciplines. Lukas 18:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you not bothered a bit by the fact that the journal's editor-in-chief is also its publisher, or that most issues consist of a mixture of invited papers and articles by its editor and his friends? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The journal is kept by the NationalLibrary of Medicine [37]. Its editorial policies may be questionable (for all I know) but the content seems very typical for its field. Dlyons493 Talk 21:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And we have no idea how it got there. For all we know, Mr. Yang could have donated a free subscription to the NLM. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Yang's article. I say merge because it looks like the journal hasn't moved out from under Yang's shadow as it looks to be dedicated to his ideas and run by him. In these sort of circumstances, it is more interesting in context with Yang than by itself. --maru (talk) Contribs 23:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Yang's Scientific Research Institute, reasoning provided under that article nomination. Durova 01:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep. Delete. This all seems very fishy. I tagged all related pages as a hoax until someone can produce solid evidence that it is not. —Ruud 21:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Hoax"? That doesn't seem likely, for a hoax it's just too elaborate. The journal exists and is verifiable enough, and it's filled with lots and lots and lots of scholarly work. The only thing we don't know for certain is its quality. But it's not the kind of material somebody could just invent out of thin air to have a laugh at us, is it? Lukas 21:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's definitely not a hoax: you can actually go to the website of the journal and download the articles published in it. However, it's not really a scientific journal, more of a scam: the editor-in-chief, the founder, the publisher, and the author who publishes the most papers in this journal are all the same person. There is no indication that published articles have undergone any form of peer review. (So for purposes of Wikipedia, it's not a reliable source.) Its main function is as an outlet for Mr. Yang's theories. I'll assert that nothing notable has been published in this journal, which makes the journal itself non-notable. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scam would indeed be a better description. But we don't have a template for that and do for hoax. —Ruud 01:29, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 11:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yang's Scientific Research Institute[edit]

Unverifiable, non-notable, spam, original research, and/or vanity. This is part of a series of articles linked ultimately to Tao Yang created in an attempt to promote his "computational verb theory" and related concepts.

Regarding lack of verifiability and original research: I challenge anyone out there to find verifiable, independent, peer-reviewed sources that seriously discuss "computational verb theory". By "independent" I mean sources that are neither (a) Wikipedia mirrors; (b) web sites published by Mr. Yang; (c) books self-published by Mr. Yang; (d) journals edited by Mr. Yang; nor anything else related directly or indirectly to Mr. Yang and/or colleagues. Keep in mind that the references cited in these articles do not meet these criteria; for example, Mr. Yang is the editor (and apparently also the publisher) of the International Journal of Computational Cognition.

Regarding vanity and lack of notability: Even if the topic of "computational verb theory" is found to be verifiable, I'll also claim that it is not sufficiently notable to warrant several articles. The present state of affairs inflates the significance of Mr. Yang's theories beyond their apparent merit.

Related nominations:

This list may be incomplete. Please expand as appropriate.

Additional information: The address of this institute is "Yang's Scientific Research Institute, 1303 East University Blvd. # 20882, Tucson, Arizona 85719-0521, USA". That may give the appearance that the institute is somehow affiliated with the University of Arizona, but that appearance is misleading: in reality, the address is associated with the campus post office, and presumably resolves to a PO box.

  • Question: why does CNN list a book from this organization as the top seller among books on CNN at Amazon.com? [38] It has 547 Google results. I'm not sure I understand their research and products but this looks like a legitimate technology firm whose theories have gained some attention. Keep unless the nominator makes a better case. Durova 19:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand what you mean by "CNN ... list[ing] a book". In the context of the book you mention, "CNN" expands to "cellular neural networks". The book "Handbook of CNN Image Processing: All You Need to Know about Cellular Neural Networks" is published by Yang's Scientific Research Institute a.k.a. YangSky and written by Tao Yang, who happens to be the founder, chief research scientist, and apparently only employee of YangSky. In other words, this is a self-published book. It's not a "top seller" at all: its Amazon sales rank is #1,423,430. There is no evidence that it has "gained some attention", other than by blatant self-promotion and piggy-backing on the "CNN" acronym. There is no evidence that Yang's Scientific Research Institute has any assets in addition to their web site and PO box, and any employees besides Mr. Yang himself. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, this is making more sense now. It looks like this is a bit more legit than what you see but not as big a deal as what the firm claims. The place has several products, mostly webcam-based applications such as optical scanners for barcodes. They conduct some basic research into other fields. I'd keep the company article and merge all related articles into it. Durova 01:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • abstain. Delete. This all seems very fishy. I tagged all related pages as a hoax until someone can produce solid evidence that it is not. —Ruud 21:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. Incognito 04:46, 18 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. Johnleemk | Talk 11:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unicogse[edit]

Unverifiable, non-notable, spam, original research, and/or vanity. This is part of a series of articles linked ultimately to Tao Yang created in an attempt to promote his "computational verb theory" and related concepts.

Regarding lack of verifiability and original research: I challenge anyone out there to find verifiable, independent, peer-reviewed sources that seriously discuss "computational verb theory". By "independent" I mean sources that are neither (a) Wikipedia mirrors; (b) web sites published by Mr. Yang; (c) books self-published by Mr. Yang; (d) journals edited by Mr. Yang; nor anything else related directly or indirectly to Mr. Yang and/or colleagues. Keep in mind that the references cited in these articles do not meet these criteria; for example, Mr. Yang is the editor (and apparently also the publisher) of the International Journal of Computational Cognition.

Regarding vanity and lack of notability: Even if the topic of "computational verb theory" is found to be verifiable, I'll also claim that it is not sufficiently notable to warrant several articles. The present state of affairs inflates the significance of Mr. Yang's theories beyond their apparent merit.

Related nominations:

This list may be incomplete. Please expand as appropriate.

  • Nominate and endorse deletion. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 16:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Yang's Scientific Research Institute, reasoning provided under that article nomination. Durova 01:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)a[reply]
  • Strong Delete All. This is timecube-level crankery: "Human brains open windows from the side of the Universe towards the Cognition by using natural languages." This is the kind of stuff that wastes the time of many an academic department. Ai yi yi. rodii 04:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Timecube? I think it's more like Harmonics Theory. —Ruud 01:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pure weapons-grade balonium. Violation of original research at best; wikispam at worse. --DV8 2XL 03:29, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 11:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuchel heath[edit]

Bogus article with bogus name, there was no such battle. Probably taken from some strategy game scenario. --Lysytalk 16:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Tuchel heath" is a translation of "Tucheler Heide", which is the German name of Tuchola Forest. That's why I think Tuchel Heath should redirect to Tuchola Forest, and that article should have a link to the Battle of Krojanty. Since the myth is already discussed at Polish Cavalry and at Battle of Krojanty, I don't think it best to discuss it in depth a third time at a separate myth page. Olessi 03:52, 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 delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animorganimation[edit]

Random word someone made up. 0 google hits. - Bobet 16:40, 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 keep. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin's Magic[edit]

Delete -looks like an advert [email protected] 17:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep and cleanup. Googling "Marvin's magic" yields nearly 75,000 results. Extraordinary Machine 17:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and cleanup as per Extraordinary Machine, although there are only 301 unique results and only 4 sites linking to http://www.marvinsmagic.com. The main focus of cleanup should be to make it less advert. Confusing Manifestation 18:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's cuz it IS an advert. Revert to this version. -- Krash 19:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert per Krash. That earlier version is not advertising. --Thunk 23:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boldly reverted. --Malthusian (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the current version. Stifle 01:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry about forgetting to reinsert the AfD tag after reverting :-) --Malthusian (talk) 01:07, 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 ☎ ) 07:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bellum inferno[edit]

Unverifiable/original research. 2 google hits for "Bellum inferno", none are about this as far as I could tell. - Bobet 17:02, 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 ☎ ) 07:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gwenn ha Du (newspaper)[edit]

This looks like one of the unfound Wonderfool nihilartikels to me. The google searches I ran for it found nothing relevant, other than this article. Therefore, I believe that this either does not exist, or isn't notable. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 17:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:20, Jan. 12, 2006
  • Delete pre nom. Also I'd like to note this "article" is a sub stub. Not informative and certainly unencyclopedic, more likely a prank. --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gwenn ha Du (literally Black and White) is the Breton flag, or a terrorist organisation. According to the article they have a 95 year old journalist on the newspaper (Yann Fouéré)....cant be accused of ageism at any rate! Jcuk 21:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 22:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable unverifiable substub. Stifle 01:04, 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 ☎ ) 07:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manic Mascot Melee[edit]

Fancruft. Imaginary console game featuring Indiana Jones, Mario, Sonic, Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker, etc. No Google hits. I could not find a suitable speedy criteria for this one. -- ReyBrujo 17:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and invent a new speedy delete criteria for fan-fiction. Cyde Weys votetalk 18:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 22:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 01:03, 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 ☎ ) 07:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 second comics[edit]

Google gets you 271 hits, none of which are reliable sources upon which to base an article, it's first sentence denotes it's non-notability, a relatively new webcomic started by an unknown group, and it fails the guidelines at WP:WEB. Delete, until the required level of notability is gained. Hiding talk 17:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. wikipediatrix 17:38, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 11:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No the result is 8 Keep to 8 Merge .. this is a clear No consensus vote, as such it should be immediately relisted.  ALKIVAR™ 16:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tinkerbell (dog)[edit]

Delete: Tinkerbell the dog is not a notable figure. dryguy 17:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Paris Hilton. Tinkerbell is not a notable enough individual in and of herself. Extraordinary Machine 17:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Paris Hilton. And no creating an article for Britney Spears's dog Bitbit either! --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 18:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Paris Hilton. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • mg with Paris Hilton or Butters Stotch Sceptre (Talk) 19:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Much as I despise myself for this, see the Talk:Tinkerbell (dog) page, plus the fact that this animal has a bigger IMDB entry than many actors on wikipedia. MNewnham 20:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Paris Hilton as per Extraordinary Machine. Sliggy 21:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I want to cut myself for keeping something like this. I feel, however, that the dog is notable enough to merit its own article, seeing as articles do exist for a number of "celebrity" animals and, either way, there's more information on this dog than many actors and actresses themselves. -Rebelguys2 22:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with paris hilton... look this is not Lassie, Mister Ed or Flipper we're talking about here... there is no television series to which this dog is a star... this dog merely was with paris hilton frequently. Would a pair of Paris Hilton's shoes be given an article? They've been just as photographed/filmed.  ALKIVAR™ 23:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That depends: Did she keep her shoes on while filming the sex tapes? Barno 17:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per discussion at Talk:Tinkerbell (dog). --Malthusian (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Paris Hilton. --Terence Ong Talk 14:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep alone notable dog.  Grue  20:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I figure this way, the cosmos will allow me to vote delete on the next million articles I see. (Seriously though, keep.) Melchoir 20:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Paris Hilton. I have much to say on the matter, but corporate NDAs keep me from talking specifically about this dog. --Paraphelion 01:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why merge to Paris Hilton, Paris Hilton is not Tinkerbell.--Hotwiki 07:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dog has published a book, made ph famous for being a bad dog owner, appeared in South Park for pete's sake, this dog seems to be pretty close to as worthy of an article as, say, Millie. I was doubtful when I first saw this, but I went browsing and sure enough she's everywhere. Elf | Talk 00:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for now. May become less notable over time. --SarekOfVulcan 19:05, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mip[edit]

NN Neologism/nonsense Fang Aili 17:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, patent nonsense. Lukas 17:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to MIPS. bikeable (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense or silly vandalism. PJM 18:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete don't think this qualifies for speedy as CSD G1. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 21:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense. Recreate redirect to MIPS to prevent recreation. -Rebelguys2 22:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense word. -- (aeropagitica) UK 23:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Where I come from, MIP is short for "Minor in Possession" (of alcohol). --KJPurscell 16:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not patent nonsense, and possibly not nonsense at all... but BJAODN it just to be on the safe side. Stifle 00:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari 00:59, 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.

This article seems to be some sort of slang, but is otherwise irrelevant.Snorgenhorpher 18:06, 12 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. – Robert 01:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit loomba[edit]

NN music journalist. Might be a vanity page, as it was created by Hiphophead. 218 Google hits for "Rohit loomba". Fang Aili 18:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable vanity biography. Recommend the user see WikiMe for writing autobiographies. Stifle 00:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, borderline nn-bio speedy. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:30, 18 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, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-verdict[edit]

Basically an advertisement for http://www.e-verdict.com, contributed by the suggestively named editor User:Everdictorg. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Alexa ranking: 715,032, must go. --DelftUser 18:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Fang Aili 20:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 22:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep or merge, Yes, I agree, no advertisment! But keep an article! Don't you think that then e-mail, E-Services, e-democracy, e-government and other "e-" type of articles should be deleted? I agree that an article is a stub, but the main definitions are done correctly, right? Go to SEs and check that. I do not think advertisment (which I have removed and it would not be added again) is the right motivation for article deletion Everdictorg 14:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --kingboyk 21:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DelftUser. Stifle 00:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible still to vote for "per nom." even though the article could not be nominated for the same reason anymore: advertisment? Is isn't it enough evidence proving the absence of advertisment and the need for an article I brought up in my above comment? I would also be very thankful to hear other voters and commenters MOTIVATIONS, like Mr. jpgordon∇∆∇∆'s etc. I hope admin will consider analyzing people's motivations before deleting this page. Sincerely, Everdictorg 11:28, 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 ☎ ) 07:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Roar[edit]

This is a stub about a NN high school newspaper (are any HS newpapers notable?). "Rebel Roar" itself got 194 Google hits, and "Rebel Roar" Fairfax has one. Fang Aili 18:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable vanity. Gazpacho 18:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is completely relevant.

  • Delete as completely irrelevant. Cyde Weys votetalk 18:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. -Rebelguys2 22:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect but Don't Merge to Rebel Yell. The two are used interchangebly(at least for the battle cry, no clue about the aper) Dragoonmac 01:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A merge ALWAYS imply a redirect, but "redirect" doens't imply merge by default -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rebel Roar has to do with our mascot being a pride of lions or the like. So Rebel Roar has nothing to do with the Confederates, because people in the South take offense to it.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 ☎ ) 07:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between iTap and T9[edit]

Product review, original research.

  • Delete. Gazpacho 18:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Fang Aili 20:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep legitimate comparison of different Predictive text on mobile phones. Perhaps merge into Predictive text? Segv11 (talk/contribs) 21:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Merge, per Segv11, at the very least. -Rebelguys2 22:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and then delete Lukas 23:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This is not a valid vote. To comply with the GFDL, a merge must be followed by a redirect to preserve author history. Stifle 00:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research and unencyclopedic. Stifle 00:51, 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 ☎ ) 07:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VGDC[edit]

The alexa ranking (71,243) is too low, Websites should have a ranking higher than 10,000 to be listed on Wikipedia (guideline for websites) --DelftUser 18:42, 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 Speedily deleted by Master Thief Garrett as nn-bio. Stifle 00:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve kaiser[edit]

Hoax/unverifiable, completely ridiculous information that in my opinion only just misses qualifying as nn-bio (does claim notability even if it is ludicrous) and patent nonsense (nonsense but not patent). Amazingly there are a few Steve Kaisers out there, including two in New Jersey, but none I saw as being notable enough to make this article for. Confusing Manifestation 18:43, 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 deleted as per CSD A7. --M@thwiz2020 02:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage eyeglass[edit]

NN school band. Creator of this article also created a string of nonsense articles about the members. The bandmember articles were speedied, but the main article has a bit more content so I decided to AFD this instead 23skidoo 18:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I could find no relevant Google hits. --Fang Aili 20:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 22:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 14:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nn-band. Stifle 00:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily deleted per CSD A7. --M@thwiz2020 01:28, 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 keep as rewritten. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bunda[edit]

Cant find any reference to this animal, although I'm not big on zoology. Suspect entry is placeholder to NN 'bunda studios' (1 google hit) MNewnham 18:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I couldn't find a reference either, and Wikispecies does not have such an animal on record. --Fang Aili 20:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and Fang Aili. -Rebelguys2 22:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep, I found one reference ... Bunda is one of the 5 districts of Mara region in the United Republic of Tanzania.. but not an animal as suggested


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 ☎ ) 07:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank and teds greatest hits[edit]

Non-notable video, 3 search results. Zero search results when correctly punctuated [40]. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:56, Jan. 12, 2006

Admittedly, many of the details in this article fail the verification test. I'd feel more comfortable about deleting this article if a search thru the relevant magazines on this article had also been done. (The websites for the few skateboard mags I found all had suboptimal search features, so even if this movie was the subject of a featured profile this would be hard to determine short of reading the table of contents for every issue.) -- llywrch 17:38, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs that feature a vocoder[edit]

Delete. Pointless list. Unmanageable and impossible to ever attempt to be comprehensive or useful. -- Krash 19:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Was split off from vocoder to stop ongoing edit wars regarding which songs warranted inclusion. It worked. violet/riga (t) 19:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tautology. What's next, List of songs that feature a guitar or List of songs that feature someone playing a musical instrument? Some things don't belong in an encyclopedia. -- Krash 19:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Umm, tautology? The use of a vocoder is rare enough to warrant an article, I feel. violet/riga (t) 20:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not here to argue syntax and literal definitions. By tautology I meant your statement is true, but it does not support keeping the article. "The use of a vocoder is rare enough to warrant an article..." is, I feel, a perfectly valid argument to save the page. (Though I disagree with it.) Starting a new article "to stop ongoing edit wars regarding which songs [warrant] inclusion" is not. I don't agree with starting new pages to appease users who wish to add trivial, unencyclopedic content to existing articles.-- Krash 21:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It lasted in that article for years without opposing comment and with numerous editors amending it. I believe it does have some place in an encyclopedia, but my motivation for it was to end the edit wars - my initial comment was not intended to be a reason, but an explanation. violet/riga (t) 21:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless list. Lincolnite 19:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I don't think there needs to be a list of this here or on the vocoder page. A good article about a musical instrument doesn't need to validate itself by proving the instrument is actually used. Meekohi 20:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's possible to make a list for pretty much anything, but I think that something like this is non-notable. -Rebelguys2 22:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 00:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems impossible to verify and to keep up-to-date. I also question how unique the instrument is to warrant such a list. Crunch 02:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as serious listcruft. (Listcruft being a list that appears to have been created for the sake of having a list, or a list of little interest or relevance to anyone other than serious devotees of the list subject.) Stifle 00:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. List of songs featuring cowbells survived AfD not once but twice. I have to wonder, based on precedence, if this should be withdrawn? Not that I agree with keeping either. Thoughts? -- Krash 16:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, users should be able to find examples of songs which use vocoders. Kappa 16:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the disturbing reason of its creation, if nothing else. I'm just loving the logic here. If several editors think that it doesn't merit inclusion in an article, simply stick "List of" in front and and it's immune to deletion. But barring that, delete as unencyclopedic, not notable, etc. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're incorrect about the reason for creation - the edit war was regarding which songs to include, not whether to include the list or not. violet/riga (t) 23:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, that's exactly what I thought I was saying. Pushing something off into a list as a method of venue shopping is unacceptable. It's woth asking why the songs in question don't get argued over when in "list" form. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:14, 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 Speedy delete as nonsense/promo/hoax/spam/llama/etc. GarrettTalk 01:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold and the Brady bunch[edit]

Spam? Hoax? No NPOV? NN movie? Pick you poison. Esprit15d 19:29, 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 ☎ ) 07:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Business process redesign[edit]

Original research, an end of term paper, delete and redirect to Business process reengineering MNewnham 19:32, 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 was delete. Sr13 03:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in the Harry Potter series[edit]

Old debate here.

Original research and trivia. >Radiant< 16:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as Radiant! said, it's original research. Also, some of the deaths aren't even notable anyway, such as the Flobberworms. On top of it all, it's unsourced. I see no reason to keep this article. Acalamari 18:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oy. What can I say? I know Harry Potter has taken over the world of Muggles, but this list is just beyond excessive. YechielMan 18:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Each of the individual book articles have their own plot summaries which should cover most deaths in the series, making the usefulness of this article very limited to a general audience. A lot of the deaths listed are not notable/important anyway. Camaron1 | Chris 19:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 20:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can only add my agreement to the good points already made above. JdeJ 21:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the appropriate articles - although I may suspect that it is mentionned in the plot section.--JForget 22:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This edges toward plot summary, which is a violation of copyright. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft. Useight 01:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FICT, WP:N, and as fancruft. One could also cite WP is not a memorial, but that would overly dignify these fictional characters. Carlossuarez46 22:11, 21 June 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 was keep. A fairly confusing situation here. Discussion as to whether this article should be about the business or a redirect to the category seems to be what's happened here and less on the merits of the company. I will take no action except to close this discussion, and further talk regarding where to put what can continue on talk pages. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama Software[edit]

Panorama Software (BI) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This business listing page conflicts with the Panorama Software category and should be deleted John Spikowski 03:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Previous Removal History
  • Keep This doesn't appear to be a criterion for deletion, a disambiguation note on the top of the article may be needed, or at most a new, clearer title such as Panorama Software (Company) CitiCat 03:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but article should be properly sourced. Panorama has a presence as a global business software vendor/consultant and developed a key Microsoft component. The article should be named Panorama Software as there is no other "Panorama Software" company on Wikipedia. The category should be titled Panorama software per category naming conventions and any confusion can be handled with a hatnote. Don't disambiguate where unnecessary. --Dhartung | Talk 07:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused. Well, more so than usual.

    The page being nominated for deletion is a blank page that used to be a redirect. Whatever happens to it is fine with me.

    Panorama Software (BI), by contrast, is a page that should be deleted unless thoroughly rewritten, on account of its promotional tone, excessive vagueness, and general unintelligibility: Panorama Software is a software company specializing in MDX based Business Intelligence solutions. . . Panorama's NovaView product suite includes Analytics, reporting, scorecarding, dashboarding, visualization and modeling applications. No opinion as to whether this business meets WP:CORP, but even if it does, the style of this article is quite inappropriate. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The goal for the "Panorama Software" page was to move the software company with the same name to a business listing page.(Done) and delete the page. (TODO) When someone enters "panorama software" in the search box, the category "Panorama software" page would show. I'm not an administrator/sysop so someone else with these powers will have to remove the page. I'm not up to speed on all the procedures yet but I'm learning from the seasoned editors I run into on the pages I'm involved with. John Spikowski 05:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the situation at the current moment is utterly bizarre and only serves to make navigation far more difficult than it needs to be. It does not matter if a category and an article have the same name.
  1. Panorama Software should be an article about the company of that name.
  2. Since a user may be looking for information about software for creating photographic panoramas, Panorama Software should have have a hatnote that there is a also a category with that name. This solution allows for easy navigation to relevant information.
  3. The only potential problem occurs if we are concerned that a user looking for generic panorama software would encounter as his/her first point of navigation the proprietary Panorama Software. That would be a concern if we were a business directory wanting to give exactly equal exposure but, happily, we're an encyclopedia and so we do not care. CIreland 06:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, CIreland. I'll elaborate on a comment on my Talk page. First, let me address the search issue. The reason that the category doesn't come up first is that categories are checked off by default on the Wikipedia search page. This may not be ideal but it's the way it is -- the feature is there to direct people to articles. As such "Search" or "Go" (go to the first result) will bring up the article Panorama Software first. It will not bring up the category at all unless the box is checked and the user searches again. This appears to be the original source of contention, as there are editors working on articles in Category:Panorama software. This is why it isn't showing up in searches.
Second, there is a manual of style preference for generic article or category names to avoid using proper nouns. Thus, the generic category should be named Panorama software, not Panorama Software. The proper noun should be used for something with that name. If there is to be an article on software for making panoramas, it should also be named Panorama software, uncapitalized. (The first letter may be capitalized or not; it's the same article. This is the way MediaWiki works.)
Third, this seems like it was never intended as a deletion proposal. It seems like the editors of the category wanted to move the business out of the way of their (miscapitalized) category. As they are not in the same namespace there was no actual collision even if they were capitalized the same way. There could be confusion. Confusion is what hatnotes are designed for.
Fourth, the editors may have intended to re-use Panorama Software as the head article for the category. Again, the capitalization is incorrect per naming conventions. My second question is why image stitching is insufficient to cover this topic; panorama "software" is just a special type of image stitching, and not remarkably or technically different. This is a problem outside the scope of this AFD, though. The category Category:Panorama software ends up almost identical to its parent Category:Photo stitching software, which makes the need for a separate category very questionable. I suspect that if it were brought up at categories for deletion, the result would be skeptical. Sometimes a little fine-combed differentiation is simply too much to be really useful.
Finally, I wonder why this was approached the way it was. Somebody should have asked some questions before doing the moves and naming the categories, to begin with. --Dhartung | Talk 08:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Stitching assumes creating a panorama. (merging two or more images) Folks looking for panorama solutions will more then likely type in "panorama software" (looking for Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities software) and "panorama hardware" looking for panoramic tripod heads, wide angle lenses and other assessories. I think Category:Photo stitching software limits topic scope. You need to provide a panorama viewer to display the special projection the sitiching software creates. John Spikowski 08:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry if I bore those who are more interested in that company but John Spikowski tends to spread wrong information about a subject he doesn't understand well enough. Several images from a camera rotated around a special point of the lens can be stitched to get a panorama. That is only one panorama technique, though a popular one. Other cameras directly output a panoramic strip that doesn't have to be stitched at all but can be corrected (e.g. wavy image due to a badly levelled camera) with the same type of software. Also mosaics can be stitched with panoramic software (think of several overlapping microscopic images from a big object that couldn't be recorded in one go. Stitching those images of a sample would hardly result in a panorama. IMHO the Category:Photo stitching software and an article about image stitching is enough, such a more general naming is to be preferred. Other panorama related software (viewers, conversion and optimization tools, basic technology like QTVR,...) can be easily mentioned and linked from articles like Panoramic photography. Those articles that John Spikowski didn't manage to delete yet (and he is very busy with reorganising the wikipedia) can also link to one another. So my suggestion would be to let go of that Category:Panorama software and the article Panorama Software can live on. Yes, I'm biased, therefore I don't "vote" here. I just wanted to answer some disinformation with facts. --Einemnet 20:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as there is no criteria given for any deletion. Nuttah68 16:28, 22 May 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 ☎ ) 07:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koalaology[edit]

Neologism. Delete. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 19:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Circeus 19:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dictdef and neologism; not speedyable though Segv11 (talk/contribs) 20:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 22:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this is a real word, cite several usages and transfer the definition to Wiktionary. -- (aeropagitica) UK 23:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The scientific name for the Koala family is Phascolarctidae. If there is an -ology of it then it presumably uses that word and not "koala." Just as "ornithology" isn't called "birdology" for example. Although from what I can tell the study of Koalas is simply called "koala research"[41] rather than "Koalaology" or "Phascolarcology."--T. Anthony 00:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per T. Anthony -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong Talk 14:54, 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 12:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovps[edit]

Reads to me like an advertisement. Is this a particularly notable ISP? · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 19:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, looks notable. I've cleaned it up. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-12 19:59Z
  • Delete, no links. --DelftUser 20:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean by "no links"? No external links? I added one. I don't see how that is at all a reason for deletion however. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-12 20:24Z
      • I am sorry, I meant no other articles link to this one. --DelftUser 20:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, okay, that makes sense. It's pretty normal for new articles to have no incoming links though. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 11:27Z
          • I like checking links before voting, so I thought I would save others the bother. Plus I was trying to answer the question in the nomination. --DelftUser 18:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quarl's verision. bikeable (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but expand - this is a very bare stub Segv11 (talk/contribs) 20:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As far as I can tell, this is non-notable. -Rebelguys2 22:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as orphaned substub, without prejudice to recreation later. Stifle 00:43, 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 ☎ ) 07:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashfordman[edit]

This would be spam. Esprit15d 19:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Lincolnite 19:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, maybe it could be speedied. --Fang Aili 20:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yes it would be spam; but it doesn't smell speedyable Segv11 (talk/contribs) 20:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 22:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. Possibly tenuous speedy as a reverse A3 (contact attempt)? ;) Stifle 00:39, 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 ☎ ) 07:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CCNP/Temp[edit]

Not sure why this was historically created, but it's obsolete now. Nothing links to it, no content. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-12 19:46Z

  • Delete --Terence Ong Talk 15:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably arose when the main article was tagged as a copyvio, the instructions say to create a new temp subpage then. Stifle 00:38, 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 keep. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pms clan[edit]

Was speedy deleted under WP:CSD A7 (non-notable gorup of people), and undelted as per a discussion at Deletion review. Completing nomination as per consensus on Deletion Review. DES (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that none of these sources are within the mainstream gaming community, this would seem to indicate notability extending to the general population. --Allen3 talk 23:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Allen3. Unsure overall, and I don't like the idea of gaming clans getting articles, but media exposure is a good thing. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yet another gaming clan article. News stories above mainly comment on the novelty of female gamers, rather than anything warranting an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You could walk into any IT department, or anywhere with people who play video games and you find find people who have heard of 'PMS Clan' they are world famous, and deserve a mention. C Johnson - 00:42, 13 January 2006 (GMT)
Previous comment actually by 82.47.27.171 (talk · contribs) --Allen3 talk 01:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mainstream media coverage establishes notability. Durova 01:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep per Allen3 - though I play games and I've never heard of them -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable per the links above. Turnstep 03:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability established. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. First clan article I've seen on here with references from non-gaming publications. "World famous?" I don't know about that, but certainly notable enough for Wikipedia. --Wrathchild (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with cleanup. --Terence Ong Talk 15:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. The media coverage seems sufficient. - Haukur 16:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep media references establish notablity. maybe a merge would be better though. I'm going to tag this with the ad sticker too for the overly promotional writing. WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Girl gamer. PMS clan site has Alexa rank >100,000 and only about 2000 inbound links, but seems significant enough to be covered somewhere. Combining the two would, in my view, make for a better understanding of why the subject of girl gamers is notable. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No merge I've already voted 'keep', so I won't re-add that. But I just wanted to say that I'm not keen on the idea of merging the page with 'girl gamers' or 'female gamers'. As I fail to see the significance of a page about female gamers in general. I find the term 'girl gamer' condescending - and as for a page about 'female gamers' what next, a page called 'female mechanics: mechanics who are female' or 'female welders: welders who are female'. Sorry to moan, but apparently, for what it is worth, I feel strongly against a merger with that page, nor indeed see the point of a 'female gamer' page at all as it is too general. The concept of such a page is a bit to bizarre for me - and yes i did read the page too. 18:22, 14 January 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep. Perfectly encyclopedic. May benefit from further cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:08, 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. howcheng {chat} 22:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S.C. European Society of Oxford University[edit]

non notable, short lived, long dead student society largely restricted to a single college of Oxford University. Lincolnite 19:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nomination. Lincolnite 19:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a feeling this has been up for deletion before, although I can't remember/find details. Anyway, delete per nom. Stifle 00:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: There's no record of a previous deletion vote on the article's history page. Lincolnite 02:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the reasons already given. Seems reasonable to me. Terraxos, 22:44, 15 January 2006.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CPAK 2005 Conference on Precession and Ancient Knowledge[edit]

Original research, Conference writeup, flame warning, has already had {{encyclopedic}} tag removed by author without discussion and contains phrase 'intelligent design' MNewnham 19:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. per nom. Meekohi 20:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research is the official reason. Wikipedia is not a free web host. This belongs on the creator's own website. Stifle 00:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not respond to the discussion on this topic?


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

The result of the debate was delete. — Feb. 28, '06 [10:49] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Lust Treasure[edit]

Films notability cannot be verified. Furthermore, a Google search using the term "Lust Treasure" produces 700 hits. Not only this, but the first hit is the Wikipedia article (and the mirror from Answers.com). Thus, delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 03:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - good candidate for {{prod}}, too. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no context for a start. Stifle 15:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CQ Innova[edit]

Apparently non-existent multibillion dollar corp (3 google hits) see List of the world's largest companies invented by User:Skrishna who has a history of vandalism MNewnham 20:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Melchoir 20:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax, off you go. Stifle 00:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom RexNL 15:16, 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 ☎ ) 07:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nallu Koras[edit]

This appears to be the lengthy bio of a player character from the Star Wars Galaxies game [42]. Perhaps adding some context may help but I doubt this can meet WP:V. W.marsh 20:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Roleplaying characters have to do spme pretty spectacular stuff to pass WP:BIO or WP:V. I don;t see any here. Delete. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable RPGcruft. Stifle 00:29, 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 'speedily deleted'. --M@thwiz2020 02:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W2N, Swagato Gangopadhyay, Rozaleenda[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:WEB [43], [44]. WP:VANITY, see Special:Contributions/Rozaleenda. W2N may be a recreation of a deleted page, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W2N. Interiot 20:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete the first one as repost, second one's a copyvio, and the third redirects to the first so speedy delete it too because it's going to soon be a redir to a non-existent article. Stifle 00:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily deleted. --M@thwiz2020 01:29, 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 nomination withdrawn. Mindmatrix 17:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future Problem Solving[edit]

is this notable? abstain Segv11 (talk/contribs) 20:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've added some content to the article which should explain its importance. --W.marsh 21:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep comparable to Destination Imagination MNewnham 21:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean it's not notable. --Myles Long/cDc 21:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that's why I phrased the nomination as a question, and abstained as nominator. The article did not explain its importance. If nobody votes delete in the next few hours I would be willing to retract the nomination. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 22:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This appears to be a legitimate academic competition. 250k+ participants across international boundaries makes it notable in scope too. -- (aeropagitica) UK 23:41, 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 ☎ ) 07:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castle chicken house[edit]

Advert for a n/n U.K. chicken restaurant Paul 20:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom MNewnham 21:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 22:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we've seen a lot of local-interest restaurants on AfD lately. Some of them (barely) survived, but most of them seem totally NN. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 02:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 12:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete utterly NN and probably advert. David | Talk 13:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 00:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletus per nom. Jdcooper 15:06, 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 ☎ ) 07:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Free Software packages[edit]

Delete: an empty list, started by an anonymous user, that hasn't grown in several months Karnesky 20:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 22:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even filled it would be unmaintainable. Wikipedia isn't Freshmeat. Pavel Vozenilek
  • Delete it's empty anyways. If someone wants to start this from scratch they won't be missing much. And maybe the'll get smart and use a category. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 02:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 00:06, 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. howcheng {chat} 22:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Texajovi[edit]

Neologism. I think this quote (from the article) says it all: "Texajovi, still in its infancy, will surely find a niche in the constantly evolving slang dialectics of the younger Seattle metropolitan generation." Esprit15d 21:11, 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 ☎ ) 07:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PhpSuperMarketTycoon[edit]

Doesn't seem notable yet. Maybe once the project gets going, then it could be notable if it turns out to be influencial. --Spring Rubber 21:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Ongoing project with a pending general release. Already in selected alpha release. Also please note that "being notable" and "being influencial" are not a reasons for deleting an article from Wikipedia. (At least I don't see them with the Deletion policy article.) If anything it needs to be expanded I was planning on doing when the docs were done. --Drmike 12:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC) (Note that I am the author of said article and the main programer for the project in question as well. I am also an active writer here and have seen a lot worse articles within Wikipedia.)[reply]
  • If you've seen worse articles please nominate them for deletion. We're trying to build a quality encyclopedia, not a classified section. --kingboyk 21:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An independently developed game that's not even in development is not notable enough for an article here. Once it's released and takes the gaming world by storm, then an article here will be appropriate. --Wrathchild (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wrathchild-K --kingboyk 22:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vaporware. Stifle 00:06, 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 speedied. r3m0t talk 14:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palpatining[edit]

Neologism. Google search produced 6 results, and everyone was a mispelling of palpitating Esprit15d 21:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as vandal hoax/joke. Postdlf 21:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, nonsense. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 22:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can it still be a joke if it isn't funny? --Thunk 22:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's nonsense, but it's not patent nonsense so no speedy :( Segv11 (talk/contribs) 02:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense, etc. Stifle 00:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dangerous, because it's almost convincing. RebelTLF 00:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete This is pure and total BS. Lets get rid of it Aeon 14:45, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 11:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Deal and economic fascism[edit]

Disruptive POV fork. In addition to being original research, it violates the WP:NPOV principle that disproportionate amounts of space should not be given to fringe viewpoints. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a notable issue and popular position among free market economists, historians, and others. It's hardly "fringe." Even if it were, it's still notable and therefore needs a place where it can be discussed. There is little or no "original research" there. Most everything is sourced. RJII 21:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: RJII is the article's creator. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Creator of article RJII has a long history of disruptive behaviour on Wikipedia and POV forks is one of his tactics (see Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point). It's getting pretty clear that he is also probably a racist entryist from stormfront.org. he seems to have a interest in creating articles like these and then abuses and provocates Wikipedians. Calling state intervention and the new deal part of a practice called 'economic fascism' is simply inaccurate, POV and not taken seriously by most historians or economists. This is about the 7th highly contentious article of his put up for deletion. On his talkpage I have asked him about his edits being those of an Agent provocateur but has refused to confirm or deny or comment on my questions. -- max rspct leave a message 22:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes it probably is about the 7th article of mine put up for deletion. The previous was economic fascism and the vote was overwhelmingly to keep. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think every article I've created has survived a deletion vote. So, I must be doing something valuable. If this one doesn't survive, oh well; you can't win 'em all. But, I'm hopeful others will see the value in the existence of this article. RJII 04:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Aside from your paranoia about me being a secret agent, on what basis are you calling me a racist? How dare you accuse me of being a white nationalist from stormfront.org. It was me that even created the black anarchism article, in order to give black anarchists a voice. RJII 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you asked RJII if he was still beating his wife and he refused to answer? Color me surprised. There's no rule against editors having a POV, and if your only basis for calling RJII a racist is his libertarian viewpoint then you should be ashamed. Gazpacho 00:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Thanks for that. Sounds like he's off his meds. RJII 04:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into New Deal. This is sufficiently founded to keep it from being POV-pushing or OR, but it is a division of the article according to POV. I've trimmed redundant material from New Deal and placed both the Keynesian and the libertarian view under a single heading. Gazpacho 00:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would support a merge, but it's inevitable that the article would be chopped down and information would be lost. I think it needs its own article so the topic can really be explored in depth. Was the New Deal really modeled on Mussolini's system? Let's explore it. If not, great. I don't understand what the POV'ers are worried about --are they afraid that it actually was modeled on fascism and don't want that revealed? If so, that's a horrible anti-intellectual reason to oppose the article. Don't fear the truth. RJII 04:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could support a subsequent split to "Interpretation of the New Deal." For now, merge is a simpler vote.
  • Weak merge, leaning toward delete. Durova 01:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (back) into New Deal - the title of this fork is inherently POV. CDC (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork. Stifle 00:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork. Nothing here that couldn't go into New Deal Pilatus 19:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You can't fit it in the New Deal article. That's why I made a seperate article. It would make the New Deal article too lengthy and be out of proportion with the rest of that article. It needs a seperate article. RJII 21:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article on the New Deal has got a section "Interpretation of the New Deal" and another section "Legacies of the New Deal". There is more than enough space in the main article to discuss its policies and its historical context, impact and legacy. No need to start another article for what is a fringe interpretation of history. 82.26.161.248 22:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • All that information won't fit. It would be too large for the article. And, the view in not "fringe." It's mainstream.Most economists and historians know that the New Deal was modeled on, or at least strongly resembles, Mussolini's system. RJII 23:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This POV fork is an extension of the continued content dispute at Economics of fascism. There is nothing here that would not be better said there or in New Deal. The Land 15:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV fork, POV title, fringe view being given undue attention. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 15:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With prejudice. The page is nothing but WP:POINT. 172 23:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Comparison of the proposed New Deal with actually existing forms of economic planning, including the Soviet Union, was a commonplace of the early thirties. It did not, except among the kooks and hysterics, imply any non-economic similarity; and it should be remembered that Mussolini, in particular, was being mildly praised even by Winston Churchill. The attribution to Hayek is unsourced, and unlikely. (If it is an interpretation of Road to Serfdom, it is original research.) Most of the rest of the aources are either out-of-context partisan comments, or obscure rightwing flakes. A PoV screed. There may be something to be said on this topic, but this is not it -therefore no vote yet. Septentrionalis 04:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to New Deal or keep, cleanup, add references and expand. If length of article is problem, then move this and sections from New Deal to under a neutral title like Critisism of New Deal. jni 10:51, 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.
Delete. It certainly does not fit into the New Deal article which is much more sophisticated and complex than this. (and which goves the fascism article the three sentences it deserves. The problem is that people use "fascism" today in a highly negative sense referring to wartime atrocities, but in the 1930s it had a very different technical meaning (re government control of industry). Rjensen 23:03, 3 March 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 keep. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Cicierega[edit]

Non-notable biography, self-promotional. This has been nominated twice before, once in December of 2004 (kept with three opinions), and again in November of 2005 (result was tainted by massive sockpuppet presence and by the subject of the article advertising the AFD on his blog; no consensus keep). The name turns up a hair over 800 hits on Google. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.' Lack of notability, whether as an internet fad or a musician (see WP:MUSIC). --Madchester 21:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable artist. --Billpg 21:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some very specific evidence of notability/popularity/influence is provided - all that's there now are unsourced assertions. CDC (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable for his animation work on the Internet, as I voted previously. I don't get why people seem to have it in for this guy having an article here. 23skidoo 01:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup - he is admittedly notable, however most of the crud in the article really shouldn't be there -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [User:Erinwolfrus] Indie band, but nontheless popular. If kept, best cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.142.25 (talk • contribs) 05:04, January 13, 2006
  • Keep. I found this article very useful when I was looking for information about several different flash animations. Ralphael 06:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC) (Copied from Talk page.)[reply]
  • Keep. Has made significant contributions to the Internet meme-sphere: animutations with 15,300 hits (not all by him, of course), Potter Puppet Pals with 76,500 and his one-man-band Lemon Demon with 33,000. Though his own site may not have a particularly high Alexa ranking, his work is often on other sites - potterpuppetpals.com has ranking 104,185, and material is hosted on other sites such as Newgrounds. In addition, his name may match in fewer places due to pseudonyms (Trapezoid, Lemon Demon). -- Mithent 11:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Other flash toons are on Wiki, why not this guy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pechark (talk • contribs) 15:57, January 13, 2006
  • Strong keep not for his music but for his invention of Animutation. I think that's pretty notable. — flamingspinach | (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He invented a whole new style of animation; in my books that's quite the achievement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady BlahDeBlah (talk • contribs)
  • Keep as notable, esp. the article in Salon. Turnstep 23:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While his former name may not appear in Google searches, his aliases definately do. -- Chupon 00:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say Keep. His work is notable enough and he's still very much active. --Antrophica 00:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being that I am the subject of this article, I figured I might throw in my opinion-- though I have no editing history so I won't bother with an official vote. I think that I have enough nearly-famous projects which, added up, do warrant an article. However, it needs to be shorter and simpler than this. Currently it's a little jerkoff-ish, with needless details about my history and smaller projects. All it should be is basic list tying together my most popular projects (Animutations, Potter Puppet Pals, and Lemon Demon's involvement in the "Ebaums World Dot Com" and "The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny" flash animations) with a basic description of each. -- Trapezzoid 02:34, 14 January 2006
  • Keep, one of the internets most notable contributors in the flash community. Anyone with SEVERAL news articles about them deserves to be in here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.249.145 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Notable both as a Flash artist and a musician. --Breathstealer 06:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Ashibaka tock 23:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Neil Cicierega is one of the most talented young composers of "funny music" today. His song "The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny" is a hit. -Dr Demento, host of the syndicated Dr. Demento radio show since 1970 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.55.116 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep A significant Flash animator and musician.--Sporkot 05:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If Joseph Blanchette and SamBakZa can have articles, then Neil should get one too. All have top flashes on Newgrounds.com.--Dwedit 11:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough to warrant the article. Futility 15:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Above. --Depakote 18:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: just like everyone else has said...Dr. Demento as someone pointed as said as suchCelestialaly12 22:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Is relevant in the world today — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.220.220 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep I specifically came to Wikipedia to find info on him and I'm not even involved in the Flash community.D'Iberville 23:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Numa Numa and American Idle are on here. There's no reason this shouldn't be kep't. --Nate3000 06:42, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Blatter[edit]

Article is not even a Bio, mostly a legal brief and link to external site  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    21:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC) NB This "article" had already been speedy deleted before on 5 January 2006[reply]

  • Appears to be a candidate for mayorshit for a Canadian town. The article's a voting form forthe town becoming a micronation. Delete. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not even WP:BIO material, more nonsense. Not notable. -- (aeropagitica) UK 23:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as boules completes :). Laval is a suburb of Montreal, and this article is a bullshit referendum for secession... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 02:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an article in progress. Your FOUL LANGUAGE and your child-like comments are not only against WIKIPEDIA POLICY, but swearing and indecency is also against international internet protocol and policy. In addition to being ILLEGAL! If you would like to be shut down then keep it up.
You are WELCOME TO DISAGREE as vehemently as you want, that is FREEDOM! But you are not allowed to censor, you are not the SS. Freedom of speech is for everyone... even if YOU do not agree with it.
Please use civilized, intelligent language and DEBATE the issues. You are WELCOME to make intelligent, contructive comments... but don't make me report you. Unsigned comment by User:24.203.134.111; moved from top of article by CLW
  • The language in question (WP:BALLS and bullshit) appear quite a lot on AfD, this is not special abuse reserved for this article :). The anon may be right that the're not very WP:CIVIL discussion, but the are not usually meant to be inflamatory. The anon is not correct about foul language (per se, as opposed to incivil discussion) being against WIkipedia Policy... and is certainly incorrect about foul language being against internet policy or the law. Legal threats, however are against Wikipedia policy. See my comment below for more detail on why I voted delete. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 01:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic soap box. CLW 15:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think I remember this being deleted once before, except the message was repeated on the bottom in French. -Colin Kimbrell 20:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment you are correct [45]  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    21:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: that would make this eligible for {{db-repost}}; saince even without the French text, this would still be "substantially the same" content. But I think this should run its course in AfD rather than speedy G4, since someone is debating the deletion. Frankly, I sympathise with Canadian cities that want to get out from under the yoke of their provincial governments. (Provincial governments in Canada have a habit of interfering in the municipal politics of their larger cities, and because of the governmental structure, the cities have little power to resist this interference...) Still, this is not a real referendum on a secession that has any chance of being on any ballot in the forseeable future. It just doesn't belong on Wikipedia, at least not in its current form. If Laval, Quebec (or Monreal, or Toronto for that matter) ever manage a secession, even from Provincial control, and cease being "creatures of the Province" then I'll eat my words, and we can have an article on Municipal secession in Canada... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 01:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CLW --kingboyk 22:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Stifle 00:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since it's all been said above, i'll echo Segv11 and the anon IP in my reasoning for why this should be deleted -- "Bullshit, Balls, Bullshit, Balls, Bullshit Balls! IN ADDITION TO BEING ILLEGAL! RARRRRRRRR!!!!!!!"  :-) Karmafist 01:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please delete. If it were written in an encyclopedic style, or made sense—I might think differently. However, it's not. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 04:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per CLW Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 11:10, 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 ☎ ) 07:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foamy banana anthem and Munched, You've Been[edit]

Combining the two nominations. Below is solely for Foamy banana anthem

Non-notable anthem by non-notable band. Not one google hit. Delete LordViD 21:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get out! If you want verification of the song I can send it to you if you whip me your email address. Visit www.munched.tk for proof of the band's existence.

DELETE - It's not a question of their existance. It's a question of 'are they really important enough to have their own page?' (including ones for each of their songs. The answer is no. Also, putting telephone numbers in pages doesn't help. The following two should be considered for deletion also.
Myrtle_the_Fertile_Turtle
Munched, You've Been --Dan (Talk)|@ 22:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amen. Thanks, Dan. LordViD 22:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per existing arguments. -Rebelguys2 22:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OBJECTION: (Gay)LordViD has spelt 'existence' incorrectly and therefore cannot be trusted.


You bunch of geeks, don't you have anything better to do? Anyway the point of Wikipedia is to inform, and several people already know the Foamy Banana Anthem and agree the word should be spread further, as for You've Been Munched. Do not bother me again. Archdeacon Screameryhoof

Also, we DO qualify for the WP:music thing, because Munched "Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre." The genre being rock.

'Below is solely for Munched, you've been


Nominations are now combined
  • Delete both as songs produced by a WP:MUSIC-failing band. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete both per Saberwyn  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    23:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both crap, these articles are. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 02:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both per saberwyn -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as nn, possibly vanity. Batmanand 20:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - made vote for the first and am now adding my vote for both. Actions by the groupies to preserve the articles in question (edits seen in the history) make the case that much stronger also.--Dan (Talk)|@ 22:28, 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 redirect to Cosmos (disambiguation). -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic[edit]

Delete A poorly written, poorly thought out dictionary entry. Nothing encyclopedic here, or conceivable in the future. Uucp 21:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a British puzzle comic with the name of Cosmic, though I haven't seen hide nor hair of it for years. Lady BlahDeBlah 21:55, 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, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Legacy of the Sith[edit]

I'd be surprised if the book even exists. First of all, Galactic Standard Time is measured relative to the Battle of Yavin, not Anakin's death. Secondly, the most current books take place about 30 years ABY; I highly doubt something taking place some 3000 years after that would be approved. Delete. Firestorm 21:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Pretty much no information on the subject in question other than the book is going to be written....No other information on it. G2 Wolf 22:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find information on this book, unlike most upcoming Star Wars novels. In addition, things often change; for example, Michael Stackpole's Dark Tide series was supposed to be a trilogy but became a duology instead. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, yadda yadda :) -Rebelguys2 22:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable speculation. Re-create if/when it's published. -Colin Kimbrell 22:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a Legacy of the Force series, set about 37 ABY. There's a Legacy of the Jedi novel, set in Count Dooku's youth. There's no evidence on StarWars.com concerning a "... Sith" novel, no novel yet has been set that far forward in the 'history', and a brief Google search for the author comes up mostly with a thirteen year old peace 'activist'. Unverifiable at best, fan-fic more likely. Delete. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 22:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speculation. WP is not a crystal ball. -- (aeropagitica) UK 23:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Premature. Wait till a publishing date has been announced. Looks like others have been unable to verify such a book is in progress, otherwise I'd suggest adding a line to whatever article covers licensed Star Wars fiction, but by the look of Saberwyn's comments, appears to be unverifiable right now. 23skidoo 01:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost certainly untrue. If it's verified, than it can stay. -LtNOWIS 02:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 12:24Z


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senators Third Jersey[edit]

I would like to recommend that this article be deleted, and its contents added to the Ottawa Senators article. I don't think an article about a jersey such as this is needed or encyclopedic standing alone by itself. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't know enough about hockey to know if this is at all significant, but the picture is already in the other article. Why not just go ahead and make this page a redirect? -Jcbarr 22:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this seems like a clear merge Segv11 (talk/contribs) 22:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge on second thought I agree with Segv11. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 22:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per existing arguments. -Rebelguys2 23:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to review the parent article Third Jersey. Specifically, scroll down to the "Descriptions" section — every single team in the NHL already has an article on its third jersey. I'd favour the merge, but it has to be done to all of those articles equally; it can't just be done in this particular case while otherwise leaving the other 25 "third jersey" articles alone. If those are kept as is, then this has to be kept too. Bearcat 17:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Segv11. To the nominator: you can be bold and merge/redirect articles yourself, they don't need to come here. Stifle 23:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Merge if that exists. As a prominent hockey editor there is no reason as to why this should have its own article. Croat Canuck 06:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. -- JamesTeterenko 01:33, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zombiecore[edit]

Delete Made up genre. No scene at all to support this supposed genre of music. Coining a term both to advertise two bands from one city. It gives no musical defination as to seen, and claims Metalcore bands are something they are not. It should be deleted as it violates several policys including 'Adversting', 'Coining a Term', and articles with no information of value. Leyasu 22:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks any references and seems to have been made up (no outside sources can be found). - DNewhall

  • Delete per nom. Yet another Foocore genre. Parasti 21:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and unreferenced. Stifle 22:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete made up genre. Incognito 04:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not just made up by a random person. All genres can be called made up. Notable but needs to be expanded--Slogankid 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maxenger[edit]

Completing nomination for User:192.117.101.59 who appears to be incapable of creating this deletion subpage, per all-anon vandal pagecreation block. Looks like a piece of Linux software, and does little more than list the features of said software. No vote at this time -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, maybe I'm wrong but I don't see anything inherently notable on a piece of software. 194 google hits for maxenger would seem to indicate that this one isn't that widely used. Furthermore, the content is mostly cut and pasted from here (I don't know if lists of features are copyrightable, but they really aren't very useful for an encyclopedia). - Bobet 05:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable software. 200 Ghits is pitiful for a mail server. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 12:23Z
  • Delete advert. Stifle 22:51, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyber Crystal[edit]

This is either fanfic or an outright hoax; certainly it's not something that actually appears in Star Wars. —Kirill Lokshin 22:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As a former Star Wars fan, the term is very vaguely familiar to me, though it's definitely not from the movies. There probably aren't any factual inaccuracies in the article; however, it's still overly detailed fancruft. Delete. -Rebelguys2 23:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the term is from Splinter of the Mind's Eye (properly spelled as "Kaiburr", I believe), but I'm pretty sure all the rest is garbage. —Kirill Lokshin 23:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this ain't StarWars-fancruft-bullshit, I dont know what is. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, cheap fanfic copycat of the Kaiburr crystal (I thought it sounded familiar). Still delete-worthy for being fanfic bullshit. At the absolute most, redirect to correct spelling of name. Strong Delete all supershadow-cruft. -- Saberwyn
  • Redirect redirects are cheap, and don't take 5 days to do, and don't require an admin Segv11 (talk/contribs) 02:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete StarWarscruft, redirecting will merely encourage more -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable fan fiction. THe Kaiburr article needs a "too many pastel boxes" tag :). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 12:22Z
  • Delete. Not only is this straight from the infamous fanfic lier Supershadow, they cite his website on the bottom. IMO this is not a close enough spelling for a redirect. -LtNOWIS 20:26, 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 and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 12:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Colvin[edit]

Delete. This article is supposedly on Monty Colvin, bass player and writer for the Galactic Cowboys. However, this article does not tell us anything about him that could not easily be explained in a "Side Projects" section or otherwise in the appropiate articles. Also, it is an alomst exact copy of the article Crunchy, which is a much better place for it. Further, the link listed (Website for Crunchy) is now a get-rick-quick advertisement. Dan, the CowMan 22:34, 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 delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reckron bandiwolf[edit]

Google shows exactly one hit (at deviantart.com). IMDB shows no such film, starring Jim Carrey or anyone else. Fan hoax? -- Curps 22:40, 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 speedy deleted (if we voted to delete the full list, why would we keep a stub in its place? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:56, Jan. 12, 2006

List of locations in Teen Titans (animated series)[edit]

Recreated deleted page. Can't be speedy deleted as content is different from previous version. Hasn't improved in the slightest. See previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in Teen Titans (animated series). ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 22:54, 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 delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milky Dragon[edit]

No relevant google hits, probably wouldn't merit its own article even if it were a real urban legend. Vary | Talk 23:04, 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 speedy delete - fiction. -- RHaworth 06:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy wars[edit]

See Image:Intro_pictures.jpg made by same author. -- Perfecto 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 redirect to Science education. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science class[edit]

Non-encyclopedic topic, leaning towards non-sense, for the English text. As for the Hebrew text, I have listed the page on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English and got confirmation that there was nothing interesting in there either. Schutz 23:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article has been changed after listing here; no more Hebrew or non-sense text; however, I still don't see the topic becoming a real article. Schutz 23:13, 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 no consensus; main complaint was verifiability, but Quarl indicated article is easily verifiable. Johnleemk | Talk 11:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Sterling[edit]

Unverifiable vanity article. Asserts notability so avoids a speedy deletion. Stifle 23:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    23:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 02:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Verifiable via Google, AMG. Might be notable; unsure. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 12:08Z
  • Keep. Needs references. Give them a chance to add refernces. Seems more notable than the average teenage band that shows up here. Crunch 14:28, 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 ☎ ) 07:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunchback of Caldecott[edit]

Unreferenced and unverified legend, possibly something someone made up in school. Stifle 23:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Googling for the phrase and variations on it turns up nothing. The name "Caldecott" should also ring a bell or 2... 68.39.174.238 23:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poorly-spelt, unreferenced rubbish. If a citation can be provided and the text cleaned up it may be worth keeping. As it is, delete. -- (aeropagitica) UK 00:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This is a LOCAL rural legend. Find yourselves some books about legends of Rutland + Leicestershire and you'll see it. Just because something is not on google (or the internet as a whole) doesn't mean it isn't true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snivellus (talk • contribs) 2006-01-13 00:52:22 UTC
    • That's at variance with what you wrote in the article, Snivellus, which was "Lots of book have been written about The Hunchback, but all were destroyed in a fire.". Uncle G 02:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry I didn't know how to do the signature thing. I said books all about it, which were made in the 1800's were destroyed, not new books containing bits of information. --Snivellus 10:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP I myself have seen The Hunchback, and took a photo, which was unfortunately lost after my camera broke. The Hunchback is not a social person, and it is advised you approach him with caution.- Robert Smythe
  • Delete as unverifiable, possible hoax. No google hits. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 12:05Z
  • Delete as hoax. Quote from the alleged sighter's web diary: "Exams are looming, and the campaign the bring the legend of The Hunchback of Caldecott is gathering pace. Please search for 'The Hunchback of Caldecott' on Wikipedia [...]" ([46]). Not even the 17th-century bishop allegedly involved in a royal assassination plot is verifiable. Obviously just a trick being played on some poor local individual of that name "jamesl" wants to make fun of. Lukas 12:21, 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.

Please be civil. Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 12:03Z
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 ☎ ) 07:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightspitting[edit]

Possible hoax, not verifiable  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    23:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; even if it is not a hoax, it looks nn. Schutz 23:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Practically the definition of nn. Wisco 23:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if it could be verified, it is extremely nn. ManoaChild 00:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Reverted to undo vote tampering by User:67.186.72.36. Restoring his deleted comment here. ManoaChild 01:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't delete it I'm Tim Valenta, it's all true. Steve Nawara's sn is robotshiitcamel, he'll tell you it's all true. C'mon fellas.

      Notability is in the eye of the beholder. There's plenty of kids on the south side of Chicago who care about lightspitting. I could find a less notable article in five minutes. Like anything relating to Jackson Pollak.

      I care about lightspitting. I'm practically from California.

      -Greg Hunt

  • DON'T DELETE; This is Benjamin of the South Side. Lightspitting is indeed very true and very fun. This should be known to everyone. Please, understand while it seems alien to most who read this it is used in places such as Norfolk, the far west of Japan, and even the Brixton underground.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.162.118.150 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 12 January 2006.
  • Delete per Wisco. Crunch 02:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's NN in any case Segv11 (talk/contribs) 02:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wisco. Also - I moved the "vote" by anon user who placed his vote before the nomination text. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many people have to vouch for lightspitting before you leave my article alone. You have an entry for "beasting it" but this doesn't fly? Give me a break. The article will be expanded upon later, like every other article. If there is some type of vote, how do I cast my vote?

    Really, I'm practically from California.

    At least culture-wise

    • Only a few, but they need to vouch for it in print in a reputable publication such as an academic journal. Thank you for pointing out another article that does not belong here. Uncle G 07:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is original research, being primary source material describing a previously undocumented practice. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, which is what this article strongly resembles. Delete. Uncle G 07:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Or keep, as effective anti-drug propaganda. -- Krash 07:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Uncle G, what the fuck are you, the deletion police? I click on your name and all I see are four thousand articles for deletion that you support. Moreover, please explain to me why entries for every other piece-of-shit chatch phrase on the Internet gets popped into this oh-so-intelligent "people's encyclopedia" but this one, for some ridiculous reason, doesn't qualify? Do you waste all your time on this garbage, or do you spend an equal amount of time masturbating to Asian transexual amputee porn?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.111.48 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 13 January 2006

Wow, "Uncle G" that's some good condescending talk. You must be a scientist or British, or a British scientist who shits ice cream. Believe it or not, not a lot of publications are willing to take on the subject of Lightspitting, so word of mouth is all we got. Oh, and "Krash" clever and original, really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.72.36 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 13 January 2006

Believe it or not but I believe it easily... Schutz 12:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G is unsupportive of small town culture and a communist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.251.28 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 13 January 2006

That little warning up there is cute, but the first personal attack was made by "Uncle G" so maybe you should scrutinize yourselves first. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 67.186.72.36 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Does it, indeed, fall under that? Crazy how you know since I have no fucking idea who you are. Dick. And don't put that "unsigned" bullshit under this. My name is Tim Valenta and I'm from the South Side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.72.36 (talk • contribs)

I hope that happens automatically and you wikipedia nerds aren't just antagonizing me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.72.36 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 15 January 2006


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise Thesis[edit]

If it is not non-sense, it it probably original "research". No Sunrise Thesis on Google, and the only Nicholas Scott seem to be real estate agents or politician. Delete Schutz 23:39, 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 ☎ ) 07:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard bryant[edit]

I thought it as {{unverified}} at first, then I saw this edit from the author. -- Perfecto 23:47, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 03:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Library People[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 22:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

clerotarchy[edit]

See also Lottocracy (AfD discussion).

The article tells us that this is another name for lottocracy. If that were not original research itself, this would at best be a redirect there, given that it would be the same single concept. But as with "lottocracy", this is original research too. The article discusses the coinage of a made-up word for what is actually known as sortition. A redirect to either sortition or demarchy is inappropriate, because this word simply doesn't exist. A Google Web search, furthermore, turns up solely the web site of Ad van der Ven, the very Ad van der Ven (talk · contribs) who created this article. Uncle G 23:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Do NOT delete this contribution. It has been argued by Uncle G and Bobet, that lottocracy is original research. This is simply NOT true.

The idea of lottocracy has been described in detail in the chapter A Concept for Government of the book The World Solution for World Problems (ISBN 90-9002592-8). The book is officially published in 1988, which is, according to present standards, long ago. I cannot help it when the general public is not informed. Since the time of it's publication the book has been available, though, as a hard copy in the Library of Congress (Washington DC), the British Library (London) and, among others, in the Library of the University of Princeton (Princeton, USA). One can also find the book at PiCarta.

To Uncle G and Bobet: be a little more carefull next time and do not decide too fast. Respect the work (time and effort) of others and do not recommend deletion to easy. Suppose I would suggest so easily the delition of your contributions.

  • Delete, as by nomination. And unsigned repetitive comments (by page creator?) won't help its cause much. Lukas 22:55, 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 ☎ ) 06:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Fulton[edit]

This is obiously a hoax Montesquieu 00:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious patent nonsense, bordering on personal attack. 131.111.8.97 01:34, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elicit[edit]

spam about a non-notable blog client. 243 googles for "Elicit blog client", 209,000 or so alexa, and around 400 googles for "bingobangosoftware.com" the top of which is basically the website itself or spam. Timecop 00:23, 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. howcheng {chat} 22:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hikersblog[edit]

non-notable, non-english blog. 90 unique google hits, 62k alexa (probably due to idiocy such as blogrolling/linkspam), 45 links to results. If someone wants to transwiki this to zh.wikipedia, thats great, otherwise, delete. Timecop 00:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki per nom - not convinced it isn't notable but either way is probably better over there. WhiteNight T | @ | C 00:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. -- Femmina 07:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable weblog. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 11:53Z
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. Incognito 16:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki - Appears to be notable within field in country, but there doesn't appear to be enough information available in English to write a proper article. FCYTravis 21:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Chinese wikipedia. Stifle 22:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 08:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete, if it's not good enough for us then Chinese wikipedia doesn't need it either. Ashibaka tock 23:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable weblog. Hosterweis 09:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Eusebeus 20:33, 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_12&oldid=1116878904"