Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 12 January 14 >

Purge server cache

January 13[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 no consensus default to keep. - ulayiti (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Collections[edit]

nn flash animations r3m0t talk 22:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 06:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, important part of flash animations phenomenon. Kappa 06:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll withdraw my vote in the light of Aaron's homework, although it googles better without the definite article. Kappa 07:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not encyclopedic. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Homework I apologise for not providing this before. Almost nonexistant Google, even when too broad a search is used. Nothing on news either way. As I see the recomendation to date, we have a three naked votes without any backing rational, one "important" and one "helpful". As always, I would be happy to see this included if any evidence of notability is presented. WP:WEB has further notes on how to demonstrate this for websites. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's "Daily Collections", not "The Daily Collections" - try this search instead ("daily collections" newgrounds → 180 results). r3m0t talk 15:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please be more specific about which votes you consider to be "naked". As far as I can see, almost all the votes are longer than the nom. -- JJay 07:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've already given the nominator a poke about that. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as not notable enough. If they were more well known and/or existed for longer, perhaps. -- Kjkolb 12:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge as per Liface B.ellis 16:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or userfy. A large amount of work seems to have gone into this--which is by itself insufficient reason for a keep. However, this article is helpful in identifying a "genre" (if you will) of online media creation.--eleuthero 20:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments above. -- JJay 00:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even the article states that the 'animations are of extremely poor quality'. Nothing in the intro points to encylopedic. The amount of work does not equal encylopedic. Vegaswikian 05:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 19:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge about 5% of this with Newgrounds, then Redirect. -Colin Kimbrell 14:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:34, 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 no consensus default to keep. - ulayiti (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farm_cove_observatory[edit]

WP:NOT There may be some notability, but the article was originally nominated for expansion back on 4 Dec 2005, and there's been no activity since then. It's been asserted that the article was originally created as part of a wiki-war. I'm wondering if there's anything here worth keeping. Justin Eiler 13:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete nothing on google (112 hits) indicates notability MNewnham 17:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — Actually slightly notable for assisting with the discovery of a planet by means of microlensing.[1] But I think it can be merged into the Stardome Observatory article, where Jennie McCormick works as an educator. — RJH 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge per above. -- JJay 23:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 02:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it may be somewhat notable but I doubt it will get expanded. Themusicking 04:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — if it's somewhat notable, then it can be merged with something later. —Cleared as filed. 06:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge Someone sets up a private amatuar observatory and it is here? This needs to be either deleted or merged - there is no references for this either. WhiteNight T | @ | C 06:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Just because it isn't a three-volume novel doesn't mena it's too short to be an entry. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 08:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified and no notability asstered. Zunaid 10:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong Talk 15:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified Pintele Yid 22:56, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 08:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad Tepes (band)[edit]

Though the article states the band has 10 releases, most appear to be demos[2]. Abstain. PJM 13:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Unless proof of at least a minor label signing, non-notable B.ellis 16:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1) I've heard of these guys and I don't know #@%! about death metal 2) "Vlad Tepes" metal gets 43,600 hits on Google, most of which seem to mention the band. Wisco 04:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete currently rather unverifiable. Stifle 01:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Black Legions Metal was released on France's Drakkar Productions in 1996. They are a very important band as far as The Black Legions are concerned. Skuspar 22:08, 8 January 2006
  • Keep Many of these albums have in fact been put out by End All Life and Drakkar, so they have had "at least minor label" consideration. skullfission 22:08, 8 January 2006
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:43, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire and Steel[edit]

Vanity. (Author's only work. Only one author, except one edit. Non-notable.) Skyscrap27 14:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ther are at least 144 unique google hits on ("Fire and Steel"+ reenactment). The organization is apparently invloiced in rtegional and some wider activities. Re-enactment and living histroy in general are very notable activities, adn this socitiey seems to be ate least soemwhat notable in those fields. Weak keep. DES (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep per DES or redirect to Australian Men Without Girlfriends MNewnham 19:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 01:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete I am curious exactly how many people are involved. I'm not yet convinced whether this is more notable than my good friend's mother's bridge club, which has 40 or 50 members, yet is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. I don't know that 144 google hits is notable. --Habap 13:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. The article itself describes this as a "local club." --Thunk 19:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete local, small, nn vanity WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 21:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity Pintele Yid 22:57, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 08:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arena51[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is not notable enough to even merge with Skynet. Themusicking 04:15, 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 (should of closed it at that yesterday since there were 13 votes). Ichiro 15:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of firearms in first-person shooters[edit]

Listcruft, list of some weapons in some first-person shooters, with links to articles on the real weapons. Wikipedia is not gamefaqs.com WP:NOT (half of them from WWII themed shooters and the other half pretty much made up of various MP5 variants etc). Scoo 15:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It can be a useful list in giving a user who knows nothing about games a taster on the types of weaponary in games. It also looks like quite a bit of work has gone into research and creating the list, which is a shame to go to waste. Roger Dangerfields 16:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: this user account was created on Jan 5 2006, edits consisted mostly of vandalism and was subsequently blocked on Jan 6 2006 (Block log), note by Scoo 21:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of considerable interest to gamers and firearms enthusiasts. The fact that we have articles on most of them confirms both the interest in them and the need for useful lists and cross-referencing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what this list provide is a selection of weapons in 17 computer/video games (and 2 computer game mods). User Just zis Guy, you know? say it very well here why some lists fit wery well on Wikipedia, while others do not. Some of the content in the list might be summarized in a proper article on first-person shooter weapons, provided that it is backed up by facts & findings from sources such as www.gamestudies.org and similar. On a sidenote, today most games can be modded or receive expansion packs etc. that add new content to games. Thus, a list such as this serve little purpose on Wikipedia. Scoo 19:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I say it's a nice comprehensive list, however several game articles have a weapons list that should be put into this article. Also, I've put a LOT of work into the article, and to see it removed would make me disappointed. Maybe a rename such as List of real-life weapons in video games could work? Because then we don't have to limit it to just first-person shooters, and maybe third-person shooter games (and certain other games such as Resident Evil) could be listed as well. TonicBH 20:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since I didn't want the work to be wasted, some of the pages that didn't have weapon lists or had partial/incomplete ones now have complete weapons lists (see Nightfire, Soldier of Fortune II: Double Helix, Urban Terror). If anyone wishes to add other ones (like for the Call of Duty games, for example), that would help. TonicBH 12:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Close call and subjective: if this list had been created with less care then I would have deleted and possibly speedied. It's organized and developed enough to serve as a reference for gaming and firearms enthusiasts. To the list creator: I suggest conversion into table format. Durova 21:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in current form. Some info could be merged into an encylopaedic article on Weapons in first-person shooters or similar. If this was to continue as is we'd end up with a humongous list. Scoo 21:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the well reasoned comments above. It's useful to know what guns are used in these games. -- JJay 23:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all delete votes above. The analysis in this article is backwards; under each game it lists the weapons used in that game. That information, if it belongs anywhere in Wikipedia, should appear in the article about the game itself. If this article were to be useful to anyone, it would be organized by types of weapons and for each type, the games in which that weapon could be found. --Metropolitan90 03:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Metropolitan90. The guns should be listed on the articles of the game its used in. NeoJustin 18:38, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Either way, by games or by arms, the list is likely to be too long. JoaoRicardotalk 19:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as valid, interesting, verifiable list. Turnstep 00:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Huh? 13 votes, no consensus = keep (normally). Durova 01:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've asked Ichiro to stop these relistings and discuss it on the talk page. The intentions may be good, but it certainly is easy to construe the relistings as an attempt to extend the normal discussion time to reach a desired result (e.g. a clear delete consensus). Turnstep 14:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this should be covered by the indivdual FPS's pages --Pboyd04 02:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unmaintainable list. information should be in individual game articles or maybe in the weapon articles -- Astrokey44|talk 04:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all delete votes. Themusicking 04:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as silly gamecruft, unencyclopedic. —Cleared as filed. 06:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I can imagine someone being able to present info in a list in a remotely similar way, but not this way. WhiteNight T | @ | C 06:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Starblind, and I agree with Durova that this should have been closed as a "no consensus" rather than a "relist" when there are 13 votes already. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- listcruft. Reyk 07:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair 07:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, having interest in firearms myself, I find nothing constructive nor informative in this list. -- Phædriel *whistle* 10:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC
  • Delete arbitrary list of arbitrary class of object in arbitrary subgenre of games (i.e. not even real life). JzG 13:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm a big FPS fan and I think this list is unmaintainable and not useful. Maybe a list of real-life firearms and what games they've appeared in might be useful, as might an article on notable fictional weapons (the BFG9000 comes to mind). --[[User:Wrath

child-K|Wrathchild]] (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- I' to play these games and don't find this informitive in the "right" way IThink4u 21:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep and merge. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heijunka[edit]

Keep: Heijunka is a technique that is used in the lean manufacturing business model. It is NOT the same a Just-in-time, so should not be merged with that. The description given is not at all clear, though the examples of how it works are correct. Not notable. r3m0t talk 16:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, 15,700 google hits [3]. Kappa 16:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Either way, this needs a rewrite to be coherent. Alr 16:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Best not to rewrite until the question of notability has been settled. Kappa 16:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could not this be usfully redirected to or merged with Just In Time? This seems to be a particular version of "Just In Time" manufacturing. DES (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a couple of citations that seem to indicate at least some notability -- I think the use in a speech by the Presidnet and CEO of Toyota is rather telling. Weak keep or merge as above. DES (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per DES MNewnham 17:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Just In Time unless someone can tell me why this is a distinct concept from that. (The article certainly can't and I haven't managed to find anything on Google.) --Last Malthusian 20:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments above. -- JJay 23:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:50, 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 no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boarhouse[edit]

Tagged for speedy delete with {{db-club}}. I do not belive this qualifies for a speedy delte. However, the notability is not IMO well established by the article as it stands, and seems to be dubious at best. Delete Unless notablity clearly established, and some effort made to convert this to more of an encyclopedia article and less of a travle guide entry. DES (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mea culpa. I was the one who tagged it as such; I probably should have went the AFD route instead. In any case, my opinion on it stands. Delete.--Mitsukai 16:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wikitravel if someone who knows more about that project thinks it's necessary. In any case, Delete from here. - Bobet 17:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transwikification from here to Wikitravel is not legally permissible. The original author must submit xyr own text to Wikitravel xyrself. Uncle G 22:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, thanks. - Bobet 23:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Mitsukai with endorsement of comment on transwiki by Uncle G. Stifle 01:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:01Z
  • Delete as NN. DES is correct that it's not {{db-club}}, that's a CSD A7 template for a club in the sense of "group of people". There was even a debate on the CSD talk page where someone speculated that this mistake might happen. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 04:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep said to be the most popular club in Moscow for foreigners. [7] -- Astrokey44|talk 04:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Astrokey's evidence. Kappa 06:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Astro's research sheds a new light over the notability of this club. -- Phædriel *whistle* 10:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC
  • Delete as above Pintele Yid 23:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How was this a relist, it had four delete votes and no keeps? Stifle 01:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A bar can be notable, and this one sounds like it is. Skeezix1000 18:56, 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 redirect. Ichiro 02:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captain "Jag" Jai'Galaar[edit]

Minor character, does not fit WP:Fiction guidelines for own article. No clear consensus as to where this should go, as there are no pages for minor SW republic characters. Could be merged into a future List of Minor Republic characters in Star Wars or the like, but as it stands, no. Mitsukai 17:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge somewhere, character from notable fictional universe. Kappa 18:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or expand per above. -- JJay 23:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I don't think it should be kept or deleted but I'm not sure where to merge it at. If we can't find a place to merge it then I vote keep. NeoJustin 18:34, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as SWcruft. Stifle 01:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:51, 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 speedy keep. Ichiro 15:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armona Union School District[edit]

Rambling, POV article that seems to have something with one particular school. There may be an actual AUSD, but this article doesn't even give that information. Meets WP:NOT in every way possible. Mitsukai 20:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete Complete crap. Lists off best teachers. This belongs in Urbandictionary, not Wikipedia. DrIdiot 23:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep page, Delete 99% of Content I suppose this is a keep, but I would just keep the first sentence, link to any schools and the county within which it sits. Not sure it needs to come to AFD to clear the bias.Obina 00:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serious delete per nom, without prejudice to recreating a proper article. Stifle 00:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All of the districts merit an article. Vegaswikian 06:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 07:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep School districts --Jaranda wat's sup 01:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since Vegaswikian has cleaned it up. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:04Z
  • Keep now that its been cleaned up -- Astrokey44|talk 05:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that it's cleaned up, I'm withdrawing my decision to delete it. Strong Keep.--Mitsukai 05:15, 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 14:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of solar eclipses seen from China[edit]

Seems NN, no other similar pages for other countries, Delete. Colonel Cow 22:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would only be notable for historical records of eclipses, from the dawn of time until 1900. 132.205.45.110 22:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely useless. Alr 22:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I don't see anything in the deletion policy that forbids this. However, I do agree that it is somewhat arbitrary. If it were up to me I would keep it because I see no harm coming from it. DrIdiot 23:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft Sceptre (Talk) 23:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's verifiable and interesting. Needs to be cleaned up to standardize dates but otherwise looks good. Ifnord 23:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain, but two things: firstly the future redlink eclipses should be dewikilinked, as creating the articles would be crystal balling, and secondly the article needs to be renamed, as the title uses the past tense even though the article includes to eclipses 800 years in the future. --Last Malthusian 00:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sadly, we cannot dewiki the future dates due to the poor design of MediaWiki in overloading the brackets to indicate not only internal links, but date preferences as well. Turnstep 01:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually this would be one of the very few legitimate exceptions to the crystal ball argument. Eclipses really are predictable centuries in advance. All it takes is physics and mathematics. Durova 07:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • From WP:NOT: "Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Alex (2010)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise." That seems to match future eclipses perfectly. --Malthusian (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, it's not a perfect match. While the chance of a tropical storm occuring in 2010 is extremely high, the chance that future eclipses will happen is orders of magnitude more likely. You could almost say as likely as the sun will rise tomorrow morning. :) Unless some *extremely* improbable event happens, such as the Earth being destroyed by Voguns, these eclipses will happen. I still wouldn't link to the dates, however. Better to link to a single page on future astromical events or something. Turnstep 18:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Maybe I've misinterpreted, but I interpreted that sentence, specifically "even though it is virtually certain", to mean that crystal balling does not necessarily exclude articles about subjects that are certain to happen. --Malthusian (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • The exact wording is, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Basically what it would take to alter this schedule is a collision with a very large comet - a collision on a scale neither the earth nor moon have experienced in hundreds of millions of years. So yup: this article falls within Wikipedia's narrow exception. Durova 02:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per precedent on lists of eclipses (see below) and inability to make this article conform with crystal ball policy. --Malthusian (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and I hope someone could extend this article to the whole world. — Yaohua2000 03:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well that's exactly my point. The Solar eclipse article already has a list of recent and upcoming (to 2020) eclipses across the world. The question I ask to the Wikipedia community in this AFD is whether or not a separate article is needed for China, with eclipses ranging from 1001 to 3000. --Colonel Cow 03:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Solar eclipses can be seen from worldwide area is very different from solar eclipses can be seen from a specific location. For worldwide, total solar eclipses are common, about once every one or two years, but for a specific location, they are very rare events, about once every 300 years. So it makes sense to list these rare events in a separated article. — Yaohua2000 09:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But one could just check the Solar eclipse page and look for eclipses in their region of the world (it says where the eclipse will happen on that page). Now, it doesn't go as far into the future as this article, but whether or not a list really needs to go to 3000 is a separate debate (which I'm sure those at the Solar eclipse page have already debated). --Colonel Cow 14:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I always wondering when I can see a total solar eclipse in my hometown when I was a child, total eclipse is rather rare, and it is not easy for a layman to work it out with enough precision, for people with similar questions, this article focuses on the previous and next total and annular solar eclipses from a specific location on the Earth, Solar eclipse doesn't contain such information, and such information is also rare on the web. Wikipedia and this article gives the answer. So I think it is useful, and perhaps encyclopedic, if it has a worldwide view some time, it can be a great article. — Yaohua2000 20:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Solar eclipse does in fact have that information (or is being added). If I were someone in New York, I could go to the Solar eclipse article and look for the next time an eclipse will occur for me in that list (by looking for "North America"). Same thing if I were anywhere in the world. If I were in Beijing, I'd go and look for eclipses under Asia. Solar eclipse already has this worldwide view that you speak of, and so pages like this aren't needed in my opinion. --Colonel Cow 21:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you did some research on this topic, you might not think so. Absolute most (> 95%) total solar eclipses in North America is not total in New York. Even in Beijing, Beijing municipality is far smaller than North America, but during A.D. 1001 and A.D. 2000 period [8], 7 total eclipses occured from somewhere in the municipality, but only one visible in the urban area. So for someone only check total eclipses visible in North America, or even State of New York doesn't make so much sense to total eclipses in New York City. — Yaohua2000 21:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So then a column on the Solar eclipse page e.g. "Total eclipse viewable in" would be a good idea, but it still doesn't change that a list about China itself (when the information could be put on the Solar eclipse page and represent a worldwide view) is "listcruft" in my opinion, as Sceptre put it. --Colonel Cow 21:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can create such a column in solar eclipse, but make this column as a separated article would be better. — Yaohua2000 22:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This list navigate aid articles in Category:Solar eclipses. — Yaohua2000 20:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categories in themselves are navigational aids, so they don't need pages redirecting people to them. --Colonel Cow 21:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article not only a navigational aid, but also provide additional information to the readers. Why don't you think it is a great article, but require to delete it? :( — Yaohua2000 22:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a category for this already, why keep the list? Plus, this would lead to an infinite series of lists of eclipses visible from location X. And I'm sure people won't stop at countries, they will want to include their hometowns as well. JoaoRicardotalk 00:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should stay because this list organizes information in ways that no category could emulate. It's an excellent example of the sort of information a good list can provide. Durova 20:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 18:15, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, listcruft and an invitation to create a load more articles about events that nobody will ever look up. Stifle 00:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems harmless enough, and WP:WINP, so why not extend this to the whole world? Could be very useful and I could certainly see people looking it up.Turnstep 00:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Stifle, Wikipedia is not toilet paper -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifible and usefoul article. --Moravek 15:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 00:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete eh?!? --Angelo 02:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per NOM. Themusicking 04:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we follow this precedent, we could wind up with too many susch list. Solar Eclipse should perhaps be expanded to give more detail on area of totality.... On the other hand, Wikipedia Is Not A CGI. A program would do this much better than article(s), Segv11 (talk/contribs) 04:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Monicasdude 04:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --HappyCamper 04:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's interesting from an archaeoastronomy point of view. Although on that line there should maybe just be a list of solar-eclipse observations in pre-modern times. Well if we could agree on what's pre-modern.--T. Anthony 04:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)--T. Anthony 04:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--nixie 04:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move/rewrite to List of solar eclipses. while its only a list of solar eclipses seen from China there doesnt seem to be a list of solar eclipses except for the one on Solar eclipse which only covers recent eclipses -- Astrokey44|talk 05:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and keep the future listings too. Eclipses are one of the very few things that really are predictable. Physics and mathematics do not equal a crystal ball. I'm going to go out on a limb here because my father was a NASA scientist and I grew up with this sort of stuff. I see what these list creators are doing and it makes a lot of sense. There should be more lists like this for other major cities. The information at solar eclipse is too general to be useful for eclipse enthusiasts. These are people who spend thousands of dollars and plan years in advance so that they can observe the real show during a solar eclipse, and by that I mean the very small path of totality where the sky goes dark. This sort of person would want to know, "Will there be a total eclipse in my metropolitan area during my lifetime?" If they're likely to be alive for the next one, then that saves a small fortune. These people would use a series of similar lists because they would designate easy points of travel: nearly two-thirds of the earth's surface is ocean and some of the rest is pretty uninhabitable. I believe this year's total eclipse will be in the Sahara desert. Solar eclipses are about the most verifiable information on earth and they're unquestionably notable. Durova 07:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete on 3 points. The first two: the article violates both WP:V and WP:NOR as it stands since it does not cite the source of its information. Third point: Even though I am really keen on physics and astronomy as a hobby, this kind of info qualifies as an indiscriminate collection of information and really belongs on some astronomy website, where the information probably comes from. Taken to one extreme, if this article is kept then similar articles for every country in the world would be equally acceptable and IMHO is overkill. Taken to another extreme, since prediction of eclipses is not crystal balling, predictions from the beginning of time to the end of time would be equally valid, and Wikipedia is not infinite. To answer the above point about eclipse enthusiasts, any true eclipse enthusiast worth his salt (and I am one, though probably not worth my salt) would keep an eye on astronomy websites and/or news of upcoming events. Zunaid 12:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you carried that reasoning to its logical conclusion Wikipedia would become a very small project supported only by journal articles and books. Many articles present information that is available on other Internet websites. Let's leave this alone and chase down the real cruft: the copyvios and the phone lists of fast food restaurants in Manila. Durova 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and Comment, for WP:NOR you pointed, but this is NOT original research. I suggest you read what original research first, since solar eclipses are verifyable. Anyone with a astrosoft and some astronomical knowledge can verify these eclipses. — Yaohua2000 12:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you misunderstand WP:V - it says that everything must be verifiable, not verified. Lack of cites is no reason to delete a page. Turnstep 18:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, as indiscriminate information. Similar articles have been deleted before.
  • I think there are more articles, and more recent articles, but I wasn't able to find them. -- Kjkolb 13:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The limited English language skills of these article creators hinders their ability to advocate for these entries. Had I noticed these nominations I would have defended them all. The mistaken reasoning cited in some deletion votes (such as the fallacy that eclipses are unpredictable) is strong evidence that Wikipedia needs more articles about astronomy. Solar eclipse information is an excellent starting point. Durova 18:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I think having the eclipse, solar eclipse and lunar eclipse articles is sufficient to explain eclipses. A list of eclipses will not increase understanding of astronomy, except by duplicating content in other articles in the introduction or linking to other articles. Also, covering eclipses by the country will require many articles, and covering them by the city would require an enormous amont of articles. -- Kjkolb 22:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom - very obscure ComputerJoe 20:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These six cities have a combined population of 81 million people. How is that obscure? Durova 22:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zunaid and otehrs sum it up well. -R. fiend 22:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft and per Zunaid. Pavel Vozenilek 21:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting information; I don't see why it needs to be deleted. Keep up the great work Yaohua2000! DarthVader 23:41, 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 no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediashout[edit]

WikiPedia policiy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. Alancookie 22:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, there was a typo in the article title in the afd page, fixed now. - Bobet 23:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom DrIdiot 23:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have rewritten the article to be more objective and unbiased (IE removed about half of it!) However, I think as it stands it is now a valid article, which as a practicing Christian I can see ministers etc. looking up. I vote Keep as per my rewrite (as long as thats not covered in any vanity policy!!! *G*) Jcuk 17:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, currently unverifiable. Stifle 23:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable, made by a company that probably fails WP:CORP horribly. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the rewrite on 7 Jan 2006 began to clean this page up and make it more of what I would have expected...less advertisement and more neutral and objective. I created a worship presentation program page to represent the topic of these types of programs and linked MediaShout's company webpage in the external links. Alancookie 05:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 00:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with cleanup tag. 46k google. although the article is currently about Corporation MediaShout 2.5 rather than Mediashout itself -- Astrokey44|talk 05:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From what I can tell the product is called MediaShout, but the company is MediaComplete, so it still needs cleanup/clarification Alancookie 10:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising, also most of the Google results are not unique. -- Kjkolb 13:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the topic worship presentation program which describes this genre of software along with external links to various software, including MediaShout. This was my solution after putting some thought into it, but I'm only making this suggestion if it would be appropriate Alancookie 06:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the media coordinator at our church, and we use Mediashout in our worship services. I vote Keep, as I rely on Wikipedia for anything I think of!!! Also, I don't quite think this is anything to do with the company. Probably someone who had no idea about the wiki's standards, and thought Wikipedia was some kind of "copy 'n paste" place. But can't we fix it instead of DELETE IT??? --66.82.9.82 23:12, 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 Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StreetRides[edit]

Appears to a be patent vanispamcruftisement, yet not eligible for the miracle of speedy deletion. The Miss Alexa has never heard of their website [9]. Not finding anything relevant on google either [10] [11]. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 00:08, Jan. 13, 2006

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. – FON (T) 00:15, Jan. 13, 2006

I had to look up vanispamcruftisement - unfortunately that website represents part of the logo which has only just been submitted to Melbourne IT for a .com.au domain, it has been approved but takes 72 hours. This page has been put up initially so that members of SR can contribute information as they have been allocated.

Cheers, Mat Graham (preceding comment by Matgraham (talk · contribs))

Okay, but it's not acceptable to use wikipedia to promote your business or website. If your organization becomes notable in the future, somebody else will write about it. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 00:17, Jan. 13, 2006

Oh ok, it's not for promotion at all. It's just that it's a decent size. It's not even my club, I'm just a member and thought it'd be cool to have a wiki on it? doesn't matter, I'll tell the troops not to bother submitting anything to it :( - Mat.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --a.n.o.n.y.m t 12:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maera[edit]

  • This is a dis-ambiguation page with 2 choices, neither of which has an appropriate link to a useful article. I suggest that this page be deleted if no one can show that either of the 2 Maera's have articles of their own. Georgia guy 00:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite. Dlyons493 Talk 02:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pre the expansion. --Pboyd04 02:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks fine now. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:06Z
  • Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 05:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. rather than nominate it, fix it :) Kingturtle 08:06, 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 Speedy delete. enochlau (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoichi Mizuno[edit]

Vanity, non-notable, Wikipedia is not a directory. --Adrian Buehlmann 00:16, 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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sainthood of all believers[edit]

The name of the iarticle is self explanitory and there is no need for this article to exist. Any explination that could possibly be given here would amount to "All people who believe this are Saints" which is self referential and has no useful information. Any article which links to this one can be fixed with 1/2 a sentence if it needs any change at all. Kode 00:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete concept adequately covered at Saint —Wahoofive (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, above. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 03:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Saint#Protestantism. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:09Z
  • Merge Segv11 (talk/contribs) 04:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Phædriel *whistle* 10:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC
  • Delete as per nomination. -- Kjkolb 13:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is just plain wrong. This is actually something I know something about (sorry, just a rare moment)! The author seems to be thinking about either the Priesthood of all believers, which is already covered, or the New Testament usage of the word translated as "saint" (hagios) which would draw the 'Pedia into the non-NPOV pit of textual interpretation. --KJPurscell 15:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete actually it wouldn't draw us into POV, hagios=saint=believer in the New Testament - that isn't really contravertial, and we can (and do) also neutrally record different views of how the modern church uses the word. But all this is in Saint - this article as nothing new to offer, and is, as you say, a little confused. --Doc ask? 02:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per KJPurscell -- Krash 14:09, 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 no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Vegas[edit]

This stub article was listed as a candidate for speedy deletion. I believe that the article's statement that the person in a professional wrestler in Canada's Northern Championship Wrestling makes this an improper CSD but I am listing it here out of courtesy to the editor whose speedy tag I removed. No vote at this time. -- DS1953 talk 06:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain. I see where the speedy nominator comes from. It makes a claim to notability, but really doesn't say anything useful apart from that. CSD A1 was appropriate, but if anyone is willing to add a line or two of basic information, I'd be happy to keep this without reservations. - Mgm|(talk) 10:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable biography. There are many wrestlers and they come and go. Hu 18:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's also scores of professional footballers, and atletes, but we still keep those. If you're going to delete this, please do it based on lack of content. Notability shouldn't be an issue with professional sportsmen. - Mgm|(talk) 08:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Professional wrestlers are not sportspeople, they are performers. We do not have pages for every obscure performer in a band. Hu 09:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this to generate more discussion. --Angr (t·c) 18:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per footballers et al Jcuk 20:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 00:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per what we ought to be doing with footballers, et alii. Not a notable person. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep professional sportsman/entertainer. Let's put the users first. Kappa 06:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- no consensus should (IMHO) always point to keeping -- SockpuppetSamuelson 08:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Hu. -- Phædriel *whistle* 11:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC
  • Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 13:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not buying it. --maclean25 00:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari 00:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google for "Manuel Vegas" Quebec yields 1,150 hits, showing notability. Visiting the first couple links shows validity. This is a wrestling stub, not some high school student get trying to feign notability. Turnstep 03:52, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 07:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Howard[edit]

This article is more like a newsflash than a biography and contains only info on the subject's death. I'm hoping somebody will know more about it and improve. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup per above. I think if someone spends more than one minute on this we could get a better bio of this pro streetball player. -- JJay 09:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable, but needs to be changed from a memorial to a biography. Starts off "It is our sad duty to share some news with you about a member of the AND1 family" and continues "...This legendary AND 1 Mix Tape Player" which led me to believe he was a musician, until I found out from Google that he plays something called streetball. At the very least it should say what he did. Since the author is still working on it I'm inclined to leave it alone and clean it up when it looks like he's done. --Last Malthusian 13:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 00:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See WP:NOT. Specifically "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives." Googling "Antoine Howard" finds essentially nothing on him other than memorials and notices of his death, almost all of which use the exact same wording used in this article. I'm not convinced he was notable before his death. Crunch 02:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable biography. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:10Z
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 04:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Saberwyn. Themusicking 04:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a borderline A7 speedy Segv11 (talk/contribs) 04:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Move to RFD, where I should have nominated it in the first place. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 02:21Z


Vds (disambiguation)[edit]

Unneccessary disambiguation page; VDS is already a disambig. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 01:12Z

  • Comment: This is actually a "disambiguation page" that actually is a redirect. Move to RfD, redirects not fit for AfD. Oh, delete too! --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unneccessary Dakota ~ ε 01:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-direct to VDS, which already is a dis-ambiguation page. Georgia guy 01:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Food Chains in Metro Manila[edit]

Trivial phone book listing of fast food restaurants. Durova 01:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Zoe as patent nonsense. Stifle 02:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Five Peanuts Cities[edit]

I have speedy deleted this article and blocked Gerald15 for a week, as I warned him I would do if he continued creating this nonsense. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:51, 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. Mo0[talk] 16:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teamwork (song)[edit]

Delete not notable children's song. I had to hunt around a bit to understand what this song is etc, and found that it was performed by LeVar Burton once on an American children's tv show (on PBS) called Reading Rainbow in the 1980s; it wasn't ever released on any medium as far as I can tell. Qirex 01:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that I've now re-written the article to be coherent, but I still find this completely not notable. (old vers) --Qirex 01:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 03:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. --Thunk 19:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ComputerJoe 20:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I LOVED that show! That was LeVar before and then during his Geordi years. Delete per nom. JDoorjam 05:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as nominated -- Krash 14:12, 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 Speedy Delete., non-notable bio for production company with no reliable sources Madchester 01:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOB Productions[edit]

"Production company" for some teenagers who made a film. There might be a claim of notability in the article since it says their film was well-received in many places, but it's hard to check since the film's name isn't mentioned in the article and looks to be a hoax. Googling "FOB productions"+desi gets 628 results, most of them from word lists and none seem to be relevant to this. - Bobet 01:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actualy, if you bothered to read, you'd realize that is gives the movie name as Sarhad Ke Par Dosti. Maybe not a big movie like King Kong. But teenagers doing charitable work on a movie scale seems very noteworthy? or is it just me? ---Raj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.25.54 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-13 01:56:52 UTC
  • Hey, just because you don't know the movie doesn't mean the article needs to be deleted. I mean, the point of Wikipedia is to help others learn about new things, right? This article can inspire creativity in schools, and i know this free ENCYCLOPEDIA doesn't want to preclude education? Yeah. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.95.1 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-13 02:00:32 UTC
    • This encyclopaedia also doesn't want to include things that are simply made up from whole cloth. This is why we insist upon verifiability. Uncle G 03:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: sorry about that, it must've been lost between the two pictures. 0 google hits for "Sarhad Ke Par Dosti". - Bobet 02:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarhad Ke Par Dosti is not a hoax-i saw the movie on google video and was pleased by the quality of the film. These people have obviously put hard work into making this movie. I would recommend anyone doubting the validity of this article and the production "company" to email [email protected] (as seen on the bottom of the page) to assuage your doubts. Maybe they can help you. --Ananth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ananthram90ib (talk • contribs) 2006-01-13 02:09:15 UTC
    • Google Video reports 0 matches for "Sarhad Ke Par Dosti". Uncle G 02:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FOB productions is an integral part of the desi population here in Dallas. Taking away this article will incur the wrath of the fobs and presumably start conflict. Keep the article. ---PESH student — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.49.14 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-13 02:09:24 UTC
    • For why arguments like that don't work, witness the fate of the article discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NUGGET. If you want to make a case that will be successful, cite sources. Continue with arguments like the above, and you won't make a case. Uncle G 03:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raj again, sorry for the somewhat uncivilized comment. Obviously the movie isn't a hoax. There are images, a poster and everything for the movie. I e-mailed FOB Productions and told them about this. They said that their movie was only reaseled through Desi people through hiearchal diffusion. They never had a website or a page for Sarhad Ke Par Dosti, as they did simple chartiable work and didn't bother with webpages. Just cause google does not index something does not mean its a fake. If people are going to base reality on what Google says, then i think that there might me a little bit of a problem with that. I am pretty sure if u type in "The Sky is always Hot Pink" im sure you'll get some hits...and as the wikipedia article said, there was a technical dificulty and the video was accidently removed from Google Video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.25.54 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-13 02:26:05 UTC
    • Obviously the movie isn't a hoax. — That's not obvious at all. There have been far better presented things than this that have been hoaxes. Uncle G 03:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FOB Productions is a valid production company with a release to its name. As seen in the article, Sarhad Ke Par Dosti is its debut release. FOB plans to release another movie May 2006 for similar purposes. - KM, Plano Resident — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.64.147.122 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-13 02:46:05 UTC
    • You have not cited sources to back up any of that. Uncle G 03:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am appalled at the fact that anyone would desire to remove this article. This movie's quality is superior and the content represents the Desi population of Dallas, and the removal of this symbol of the hope and achievements of the Desi pop. will definitely not please them. Personally, many of us down here at Texas Instruments would be disappointed ---FOB PRIDE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.125.205 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-13 02:47:05 UTC
  • Ok guys, just for the record.. FOB productions is not a hoax at all. This article should not at all be deleted. I have seen the movie.. and more importantly, i loved it. It may have been a slightly low budget film, but for a group of teenagers, it was fantastic-- definitely represented us desis well: Especially the references to other hindi movies. I hope FOB productions continues to make more films because I, for one, would enjoy to see them. -- Rojaneer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.178.189 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-13 02:52:05 UTC
    • Personal testimony of anonymous editors is not enough for Wikipedia. You must cite sources. Uncle G 03:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article tells us that a group of schoolchildren banded together and made a movie, but that the movie isn't available. The article cites no sources. Bobet has looked for sources, and hasn't found any. I've looked for sources and not found any, also. This article is unverifiable. Articles that readers cannot verify do not belong in Wikipedia. Delete. Uncle G 03:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raj again: There is always their e-mail source. If their own e-mails are not proof. Then there is no proof. Does culture chartity organizations that don't have google webpages have to not have articles on wikipedia?. The Desi population is dissapointed. I vote Keep article just like most of the other Desi (i think?) commenters here. the rest is up to wikipedia. The nuggets page thing is completly irrelevant. This page is obviously, as seen by it, not just random links to other pages. It has its own content. And to make up all that stuff seems very unlikely. If this article is deleted, what you would have done was destroy, as someone else said of FOB Productions "symbol of the hope and achievements of the Desi pop". Tell me, Does it harm you in any way is Desi's find pride by having this page up? With it up, many desi people are happy, but your tearing it down, disheartens them. i don't see what the problem is to leave it up if it helps a cultural community? social welfare is a very good thing...just to let you know... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.25.54 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-13 03:14 UTC
  • Delete, repeated requests for documentation have not been forthcoming. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do yall just want a website link? Is that your documentation?

Ananth again: try emailing the fobproductions, as i said before. Ask them to send u files for proof. in fact, i will try to email [email protected]

ok ok this is getting nasty for no reason. really. nothing in the article is false information. every company starts out small. want to ruin a dream? really, i mean, if nothing is false information, and none if it hurts anyone, why destroy a dream for no reason? --S.

    • This is far from nasty. It is the Wikipedia community informing you about the sources and references that a Wikipedia article needs to have. HollyAm 03:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • well, if you want your sources, try emailing Fob productions --ananth
  • For trailers or anything e-mail them. As they are just a culture/charity company I'm pretty sure they won't care showing you how they try to promote their culture.and this is not a promotional site, its to show to others what a group of teens can do. Also, through this, they created an organization called Pragati which collected 600 lbs of clothes to give to poor people in India. As the article says, there is no personal gain here. Can people read? --Raj
Email is not a reliable source, per Wikipedia's set guidelines. Anyone can create an account on a free email provider and distribute material as they please, under that name. --Madchester 03:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • well, if you want proof that FOB productions exists, why not email them? you will receive proof in the form of the movie that they made.
  • Raj: So be it. But tell me, do you something against giving an article to teenagers who are trying to help their community? Why would anyone lie about a group trying to give stuff to the community? its not lyk they're trying to claim that they're movie beats Lord of the Rings. Very well. If you "true" wikipedians feel that it hurts you all to host this article then i guess itll have to be deleted. obviously true wikipedians just like to delete things. I guess a chance for some teenagers trying to help their community has been crushed by people that say they are trying to help the world with wikipedia. So be it. This is life. Unfair, cruel, brutish.
  • Delete as non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:13Z

just because it is non-notable or is not famous does not mean that it isnt the truth. let them keep the article. unless you wikipedians enjoy crushing minorities' dreams. i agree with what raj has said...

  • Delete. As per the Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines, "Verifiability, not truth". We have a complete lack of third party sources, which means the only people who can tell us the 'truth' are the subjects of the article, and that is a bad thing. The movie's name doesn't respond in Google. The producers, FOB Productions, score a grand total of 7 unique Google responses, which include a model hiring service, advertising for the model service, the Yahoo Group for the model service, the releaser of a hip-hop album titled "FOB", a newsletter of some description, and someone that wants me to install a virused toolbar. If you could provide one relevant website (not created by this production company), or even one article in a newspaper about the film or the company that we can track down and confirm, I'm sure your case would be a lot stronger. Yelling at us and thrusting an email address at us is not going to help you, and will probably hurt. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 04:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The purpose of any encyclopedia is to document the truth. lack of verification on the internet is not valid lack of verification, for there exists a world outside of the internet. there is no possible way to cite FOB productions (barring email, which is deemed invalid by many of you) on the internet; it exists in tangible form, it just doesnt happen to be on the internet, seeing as how its not a syndicated movie (how would it get on the internet?), and done on an extremely small scale. nevertheless, it exists. anonymous testimony (it is not as though personal information will increase verifiability) is all that exists on the internet, but there is no other kind of testimony of verification that can possibly be transferred to a web site. Furthermore, there is no reason, evidence, or suspicion to doubt its existence. this is not a "guilty until proven innocent" trial. -Korok
    • Which is why I suggested a newspaper article, if one has been written on the movie or the company, be brought to our attention. Newspapers aren't online, but it isn;t too difficult for someone to contact the paper publisher and ask "Did your newspaper print an article on FOB Productions on the *insert date here*?". They look through their records, they say yes we did or no we didn't... and bingo. Verifiability! -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 05:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must agree, that Korok person has a fair point. and those FOB productions sites on google are not the same and as far as anyone can tell, this is a different type of FOB productions. this is a chartiy thing, not a model site or something..and if more screenshots from the movie, or if posting the trailer up will help everyone believe the credibility of FOB Productions then i will get the trailers and put them up. Maybe ill do that right now. --Raj
  • Delete is as Uncle G says, plus the claims are notability are not backed up. WhiteNight T | @ | C 06:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Persistent testimonials on AfD tend to attract deletion votes. I wish you well with your project. Enter it in some film festivals, get a newspaper to write about it, and resubmit the article when the project can be verified. Durova 06:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who ever you are Durova, even though you are against this CHARITY (so why would they enter in a film festival?) you have been the most constructive with your comments. While other's call this culture charity a hoax, you have said something useful. Ill e-mail your idea to them...but im not sure they're going for publicity. Who ever put up the article just liked what they did. --Raj
    • Nonprofit organizations are welcome to submit their productions for awards. It could bring attention to their cause, possibly distribution or broadcast or news reports or donations. I'm not against the charity. I like charities and vote for them when I can. Wikipedia has rules. Durova 08:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until they are more famous. -- Kjkolb 13:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. -- JamJar 16:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Failure to provide a third-party source of verification means it gets my delete vote as a vanity. It may be a charitable vanity, but it's vanity nonetheless. In addition I add a plea that the ones striving to get this article kept stop assuming that everyone who votes against it are anti-charity in some way, or out to get you, or whatever paranoia is involved. As for the arguments that deleting the article will somehow "destroy a dream" and "the removal of this symbol of the hope and achievements of the Desi pop will definately not please them", how much of a dream can it be if it's destroyed simply because Wikipedia guidelines don't allow the article? How much of a symbol of hope is it if you start screaming it's some sort of discrimination or conspiracy not to have it here? As harsh as it may be to sum up the 'keep' arguements this way, perhaps Shakespeare put it best with "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Nezu Chiza 19:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zoe and others --kingboyk 21:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute, Obvious, Strong Delete. A group of kids made a movie and posted it on Google Video. Then they decided their production company, an acronym for an ethnic slur, would be cute to put into Wikipedia. This is absolutely non-notable. JDoorjam 23:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The movie is not even available on Google video as the article claims. It's just a home movie made by non-notable people. Crunch 00:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a pretty good movie, but cheesy special effects


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concentricus[edit]

NN website, alexa has no data on it. -- Bachrach44 01:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's an important influence in the world of online literature. Few places allow such a professional atmosphere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crash zero (talk • contribs)
    • Prove its important influence, and we can keep the article. Also, please sign your edits :) Jdcooper 02:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Fang Aili 02:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jdcooper 02:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Delete per nom. chillinvillain "" Actually, alexa has plenty of info on it, unless you are talking about traffic stats...which I'm unsure what that has to do with anything about this
    • You may want to read WP:WEB. --Bachrach44 02:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That seems a bit off to what the website actually is. Wikipedia is dynamic right? What are the criteria is there for a webzine. Online publishing is not a small field, and while it is not the purpose here to argue the merits of online publishing, it seems as though the guidelines do not fit the page (for the catagory i mean). So I guess my question is: Is there actual guidelines for webzines or is it all grouped under the link you gave me? I'm just a bit unsure of how we are supposed to "prove it's worth" as it were for wiki, given other webzines grouped here. --chillinvillain
  • Delete as non-notable webzine. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:14Z
  • Delete - article provides no evidence of the webzine's influence - this evidence might include outside sources that discuss it, or events outside of this zine that it has influenced. CDC (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • --06:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)chillinvillain BBC had actaully offered to base a series off of a users piece (Universe, An Unauthorized Bibliography), however there is no proof of that offer due to it happening over a year ago and the user has sense moved on. I'm more than willing to back the zine up, but there are currently no real guidelines for that. What qualifies as an "outside source" linking to concentricus, or what makes it "notable". Currently, I don't see a way to submit the websites influence.
  • Comment :: as is at the moment, this does not read to me like a peer review, rather like a discrete press release. If Wiki-fied, would consider weak keep; as is, delete for self-promotion -- SockpuppetSamuelson 09:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable, advert, etc. Stifle 02:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twink Kee[edit]

This is not a real Star Wars character. They don't appear in any work of fiction, nor any reference book. In short, I don't think this article has any basis in fact. LtNOWIS 01:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable fan fiction per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:14Z
  • What's that junk-food brand you Americans have that sounds like this name? Unimaginatice fan-fiction hoax. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 04:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and perhaps propose a new CSD for articles about fictional people that do not claim notability Segv11 (talk/contribs) 04:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge. LtNOWIS, you are far too hasty- did you even think of checking with Wookiepedia? Perusing their articles on these characters, it is apparent to me that these articles are greatly inaccurate, but mere inaccuracy does not warrant deletion. --maru (talk) Contribs 04:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wookipedia seems a much better home for minor star wars characters. --Pfafrich 23:39, 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 02:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Test Icicles[edit]

This page would be a clear-cut speedy, since non-notable bands are now speediable, but the fact it's been around for a few months stops me from just deleting it. Delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I like the name though, it's got that "funny the first time you hear it and than less so every time thereafter" thing. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep! This band has been getting a lot of press recently — from SPIN, MTV Europe, the NME, and Pitchfork Media, among others. They are signed to prominent UK indie label Domino Records (UK), are currently in the middle of a European tour with a US tour to follow. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 04:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable musical group. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:15Z
    • No vote. (Previous vote was before I saw Keepsleeping's comments.) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:45Z
  • Comment: the band does meet WP:MUSIC as it has been written about in major publications (linked above) and has toured in the UK, continental Europe, and the USA. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 04:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Keepsleeping. - Bobet 05:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Keepsleeping's excellent edits! -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 05:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good save WhiteNight T | @ | C 06:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep up and coming band. Stu 11:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rather like the previous debate about Guillemots (band) this bunch haven't had a lot of tangible success but are getting shedloads of media attention and are definitely being built up as one of the next big things. Keresaspa 13:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- flavor of the month indie band, but they're getting mainstream coverage and "'test icicles' band" generates over 800,000 results per: Google. Snarkout 14:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Thank you keepsleeping ComputerJoe 21:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong keep Come on, check for notibility before afd please Mushintalk 02:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The onus is on the writers of the article to demonstrate the notability of the subject within the article. At the time of nomination, this was not done, but thanks to Keepsleeping's contributions, the article now does this. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 22:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine, but it really wouldn't hurt for nominators to do a bit of checking beforehand would it? Mushintalk 22:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: my college a cappella group toured the U.S. and Europe and was written about in major publications. Please tell me I get to put my headshot on Wikipedia. JDoorjam 05:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest if you feel bitter about not having an article about your band, that you get someone to write it instead of voting delete on notable bands. Test Icicles are very well publicised in the media in the UK at the moment. Mushintalk 13:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep People are paying money to see this band play, not being wheeled into retirement home rec rooms. This band belongs in Wikipedia. - Jaysus Chris 08:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The name is a bit rubbish, but this band are an "of the moment" act being given a lot of coverage in all the right press - and a lot of gigs in all the right venues.A notable band with notable coverage. doktorb | words 18:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep they are on Domino Records (UK). Kingturtle 08:08, 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 14:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sootie[edit]

Word as spelled does not exist. The information was originally put at Sooty (here) and claimed to be from 1960's Wales. No dictionary lists this spelling. The current information may be correct but not under this spelling. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. The previous post was incorrect. The word Sootie, is, as you say, not listed in the dictionary, however I beleive it to be in common usage. Is Wikipedia's policy to remove words not listed in the dictionary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.160.88 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 13 January 2006
  • Delete as unverifiable protologism. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:15Z
  • Delete from here, move to wiktionary if someone can verify this use (I couldn't). - Bobet 04:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wiktionary already has an article. Uncle G 06:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those of you who could not find verification on the background to the word 'sootie' this site should help. Welsh mining — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.160.88 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 13 January 2006
    • The word does not occur on that page. Uncle G 08:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • can i please comment on the IP references to each person that makes a comment on this page. so far they have given references in a detrimental manner. i do not see what independant un-biased benefit IP addressess give to anybody — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.160.88 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-14 01:03:27 UTC
  • Moreover, there has been reference to the word 'sootie' in conjunction to the London bombings. This can be found at London Bombing discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.160.88 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 13 January 2006
  • Keep Seems to me to be sufficient resources backing up the phrase. Links listed by the user do show multiple, and seperate, examples of "sootie" in common usage. Including it's source. - User:andy99 15:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC) (This comment is by 86.12.160.88 too)[reply]
  • Keep This phrase is in common use in my area, which is in the Midlands. This article is one which i believe to be verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.160.88 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 13 January 2006
  • Keep In Wiktionary, 'Sootie' states, 'Dark in appearence' hence there is good cause to believe that this article is viable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.160.88 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 13 January 2006
  • Keep In Suffolk this word is part of popular culture to describe someone as "stupid" after they have done something silly. My parents always used to call me a sootie when I was young. I'm not sure where it originated, but found this article very interesting. Any welsh historians out there with more information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.160.88 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 13 January 2006
  • Delete: first 100 Google references are mostly names, with a few type of animals, sites in a foreign language, and references to the Burns poem. I can't find any reference to sootie on the Welsh mining site. I'll also note that 86.12.160.88 has only made one edit unrelated to this. TimBentley 17:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • finally, someone else who uses this term. It is used frequently in my place of work, and have never really been sure of its origins. glad to finally put my curiosity to rest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.67.225.111 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 13 January 2006 UTC.
  • Yes it's me again. Hi, yes the same old IP address again, just a few more cases of the word being used in the context i mentioned previously. here here and here Although now i'm unsure as to whether to use the spelling IE or Y at the end. Further to this, looking at this last link (the wikipedia article) it would appear the word could also have originated from the very early Indo-European practice of "suttee" Pure logic states that that the above saying is logical.
  • Delete unless verified. If verified, then transwiki to Wikitionary. Durova 01:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of User:86.12.160.88's arguments so far have been arguments about adding further meanings to a dictionary article in a dictionary, such as sootie. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is an encyclopaedia. Our articles are not about the words, but about the people/concepts/places/things/events denoted by those words. Even assuming that the slur exists as claimed, there is no encyclopaedia article about sooties to be had here. And Wiktionary has a perfectly editable article ready for additional meanings to be added. Delete. Uncle G 08:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Uncle G, can i just bring it to the attention of all, that history whether it be of a word or anything else is perfectly eligible for an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia, by definition contains 'the entire range of human knowledge' as shown here. This would further support the fact that anything that someone would want to know about something should be found somewhere in an encyclopedia. Hence, bringing it back to the word 'sootie', there is a need for the word to be added to wikipedia so that people can look into the why and wherefores behind the word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.12.160.88 12:48, 14 January 2006 (talk • contribs) .

COMMENT[edit]

When is there likely to be a decision on this matter? I feel all the relevant points have been put forward by both sides of the discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steve789 02:56, 16 January 2006 (talk • contribs) .


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chez trouser[edit]

Appears to be made up phrase that can't be verified. The article as is contradicts itself, in saying the phrase was delveloped by a group of studens and later coined by a TV show. Looks like nonsense. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete under CSD G7. Nufy8 02:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Screamers[edit]

This article was created 01:35, 13 January 2006 as a dump from PRank Flash. Even if we ignore the GFDL issues with a copy-paste move, we cannot ignore the fact that verification had been requested on the items on this list, and that article with "List" as the first word are hard to hold to WP:V and hard to get passed AfD without attracting lots of "useful, keep" opinions. Verification through Wikipedia:Reliable sources is not optional, and lists are not exempt. brenneman(t)(c) 02:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as last I looked, the page was blank. 23skidoo 02:29, 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. Mo0[talk] 16:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Amesbury[edit]

Deletion was requested by an anonymous editor (who, on the balance of evidence, I assume to be Amesbury herself.) The situation is that the subject is a transgendered woman who is primarily notable for two Top 40 hit singles that predate her gender transition. The anon editor three times attempted to rewrite the article to eliminate any acknowledgement of the transgender issue while still retaining credit for the songs, even though the songs are verifiably credited to a performer named "Bill" rather than Barbara. [12]

She then requested deletion when she was advised that the article could not simply pretend that she was known as Barbara at the time the songs charted, and thus the only options are either to acknowledge that she was once known as Bill, or to delete the article altogether since the songs are the main reason she's notable enough for an article in the first place.

Thus, my questions are as follows:

  1. Does the subject of an article have the right to dictate what Wikipedia can or cannot write about her, if the dispute has more to do with personal image management than accuracy?
  2. If so, then how else can Wikipedia handle the topic, given that we quite rightly should have an article on any performer who has had verifiable Top 40 hits?

This is a procedural nomination because the request was made — personally, however, I do not favour deletion: the subject is legitimately notable and Wikipedia isn't doing its job if notable subjects can't be on here. Bearcat 02:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. Subject is a public figure, notable, and interesting. "Personal image management," as you call it, is indeed not WP's purpose. Dave 02:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. AFD is not the proper place to resolve this; Barbara seems notable to me. Ashibaka tock 02:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I agree...but a deletion request was made by the editor in question, so I complied procedurally. Bearcat 02:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I know-- just pointing it out to Barbara, whereever she is. Ashibaka tock 03:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable performer. But perhaps you made her a promise you could not keep when you told her either the article acknowledges Bill or gets deleted? HollyAm 03:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how there are any other options...if Bill goes, the songs go too, and if the songs go, her entire basis for being notable enough to have a Wikipedia article goes with them. So there's simply no way this article can realistically be kept without the name Bill in it. Bearcat 03:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are right, but the version of the article up for deletion keeps the Bill references, so there is really no reason for anyone to vote for deletion. And I just got the feeling that she thinks it can be deleted just like that. HollyAm 04:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like an NPOV dispute. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:19Z
  • Speedy Keep. Subject is notable and this is an encyclopedia; we must maintain factual accuracy, especially when blurring the lines would lead to confusion and ambiguity. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. If I were you I'd leave a comment for the anonymous editor. I think admin would honor a verified request from the real Barbara Amesbury. Until then we really don't know if it's her or someone else. I mean it's possible that the real Barbara is proud of the article and this anonymous person has a personal grudge against her or is a random bigot. Durova 06:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article shouldn't be deleted just because the subject doesn't want it to be known that she's trans (if indeed the subject is the person who requested deletion) -- if somebody is out, they're out. Catamorphism 08:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: couldn't the article be moved to "Bill Amesbury" and Barbara not be mentioned? The name that the songs were recorded under is the important one. This is assuming it's actually her. -- Kjkolb 13:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a minute. Are there any reliable sources establishing that Bill and Barbara Amesbury are the same person? It's not that I doubt it, but I don't think we can legitimately include this in the article without citing a reputable source, and the only sources I can find are a queer radio show playlist and a freeservers website. Another website credits the song itself to Bill Amesbury but adds, "Written by Barbara Amesbury," implying that they are not the same person. So I vote we move this to Bill Amesbury, who is certainly notable, and excise references to Barbara unless a reliable source is cited, in which case I would be in favor of keeping the article. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 15:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bill is Barbara; the writing credits on her songs were changed from Bill to Barbara after her name changed (which is an entirely normal thing — a songwriter who changes his or her name always has the option of having their past songwriting credits recredited to the new name.) The performing credit remained as Bill, however, because a male singing voice is a lot harder to gloss over. Bearcat 18:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said, I don't doubt it; what I want to know is, where did you find this information? - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 18:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. this is an encyclopedia doings its best at getting facts right. Kingturtle 08:11, 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 Speedied by User:RN as CSD A7 Segv11 (talk/contribs) 04:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beautivile[edit]

Delete because it appears to be band vanity Splintercellguy 02:26, 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 DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Camosy[edit]

Filmmaker, with no imdb entry, of an unnamed film; Google hits are for blogs and forums. Vanity, NN. HollyAm 02:32, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture/sandbox[edit]

Delete because it's unnecessary, and we do have a sandbox at Wikipedia:Sandbox. Splintercellguy 02:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or maybe Userfy, since User namespace sandboxes are allowed. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:21Z


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration[edit]

No content beyond an unverified statement of virtue. Anabanana459 02:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to University of Nevada, Las Vegas. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:22Z
  • Nothing to merge, but a redirect is good... CDC (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Quarl. Stifle 01:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The statements have all been provided by the media, for the most part every year at least concerning UNLVino. While not the best know of the hospitality schools, it is a significant school. Yes, the article needs a cleanup and needs to be more then a stub, but there is more that can be added over time. I added a few cats that might attract other editors. Google returns 11,200 hits after trying to filter out the individual the school is named after. Vegaswikian 08:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vegaswikian --† Ðy§ep§ion † 22:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This section is germane to UNLV due to the fact that it's the most prominent program the University has to offer. To delete it is to delete a part of UNLV. I see no reason why not to keep it with all the other superfluous additions to other Universities found across Wikipedia. And I go to UNLV at the moment so I can vouch for the validity of this article, and I do agree that it can-- and will -- be expanded. Perhaps by me in the near future. VinceyB.
  • keep Kingturtle 08:12, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ess tech[edit]

nn comapny doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP Pboyd04 03:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Mike 03:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ComputerJoe 21:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert, and a substub. Stifle 01:59, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Ichiro 02:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GTA-SanAndreas.com[edit]

Delete, non-noteable and not fit for an encyclopedia. Also, much of the information is completely worthless. Images have no captions and make it appear as though the encyclopedia article is becoming part of their webpage! Although not a reson in itself for deletion, no other WP articles link to it (except its sister article) and through Google, only 4 other sites link to this website. ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 03:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Though the page has been changed to have captions for its images, the images themselves do not add to the article.--ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 01:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've replaced the logo pictures with screenshots from the website, to give a bit more information about the site. GoldenTie 11:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GTAGuides.com —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:26Z
  • Keep. The idea that this article is 'non-noteable and not fit for an encyclopedia' is a matter of point of view. As far as the members of the forum the article is about are concerned it is extremely notable. We, as a whole, have worked to keep the entry in the correct writing style and with links to other Wikipedia article as needed. Also out of the three images in the article the one of Jack Thompson does in fact contain a caption, and the other two are obviously self-explanatory. The first image is the main image of the website and the second is the main image of the forum. As for the 'no other WP articles link to it' issue, the article has only been up and running for 2 days now, so that's not exactly very much time to be linked to by other articles. However we are listed in the Bulletin board systems, Virtual communities, & Internet forums categories. This article is just as useful as others in those categories. –OptimumPx of GTA-SanAndreas.com 10:38 PM (EST), 12 January 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.153.232.121 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete wikispam--nixie 04:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Alexa rank 50k [13], 40k google hits [14] -- Astrokey44|talk 05:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, important site for extremely notable game. Kappa 06:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, not really important but passes notability tests and I've heard of it. WhiteNight T | @ | C 06:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not spam at all! A huge notable site and forum. -cali —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.169.187.94 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak delete. It's a notable game but I'm not convinced that the site is notable. Stifle 08:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. High enough Alexa for me, for now. Remember, if wikipedia succeeds, we are still in its infancy. Maybe this should later be merged or chucked, but its good enough for now. Youngamerican 13:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's ranked #1 of the gta-sanandreas sites, so it deserves to have it's own wikipedia page. User:Gerard 16:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.100.142.55 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Keep. Do a proper [search] and you'll see at minimum 237 sites link to it - Nanook 16:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because no strong reason against. As Greg says, if you search Google properly, there's at least 237 links to it. It's the biggest GTA fansite on the internet, according to Alexa, and will soon be merged into GTAGuides.com. It's a notable site with more than 25,000 members. It's listed at the back of the San Andreas game manual as one of the 'official' fansites, has been up for coming up to three years, is active every day and is linked to in the San Andreas article. The article has only been up a couple of days and we've strived to maintain Wikipedia standards. The images are relevant and more information will follow. Compare this article to the one for Something Awful: we've tried to split the information up into history, forums and features (and 'fads') of the site, mirroring the accepted style as seen in SA.GoldenTie 17:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • GoldenTie (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the GTA pages. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 20:31Z
    • Incorrect: I've made contributions to the talk pages of other articles on things from schools to classic literature prior to registering with Wikipedia. I normally stay in the discussion pages and have made minor editing corrections to other pages also. Please do not attempt to blacken the article or cloud the water by enforcing opinions on the authors of the article. GoldenTie 22:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment Horribly over the top article full of loaded language ("insiders claim"), advertising spin, self-aggrandisement and such nonsense. I've deleted one small paragraph and don't have time to do the rest now. If it's kept, would a 'keep' voter please tidy it up. --kingboyk 21:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --kingboyk 21:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. While no one's arguing the game's notability, the site itself deserves nothing more than POSSIBLY a link on the parent page. --InShaneee 22:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This page aims to give information about the website to viewers who may be interested in it, much like the Something Awful article. The site is notable (see the rankings) and the article gives interesting information about the site and its stature. GoldenTie 22:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please do not vote more than once. --InShaneee 22:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right: my bad. I was merely entering rebuttal. But that is not the point. GoldenTie 22:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Webcruft (aka non-notable advertising spam for a website not of general interest nor of encyclopedic interest). Wikipedia is NOT dmoz. Plus apparent meatpuppets here. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rebuttle: The website is primarily GTA-driven in content, but on a community scale has become more generalised. Thus it may well be of general interest and it is a descriptive and informative article (of a large and popular website): what Wikipedia is all about. GoldenTie 23:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You seem to have somewhat mistaken what Wikipedia is all about. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 23:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttle: By all means correct me: I was under the impression that Wikipedia is a resource for information about an entity. This article aims to give a description of the site in question and gives background information which may be of interest to other potential website administrators, as well as users interested in the site. It is unlikely that the article would be accessed through any other reason than in a quest for information, and therefore is hardly advertising. On the contrary, it often shows the problems that sites go through - GoldenTie 23:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, you continue to miss the point that wikipedia is not a resource for information about just anything and everything. We have some rather strict guidelines on what merits inclusion and what doesn't. --InShaneee 03:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 06:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken the liberty of massively ripping out all the stupid forumvanity cruft. Nobody cares who had a forumwar with whom. The one thing kept is the conflict with notable "moral crusader" Jack Thompson. All the rest is just pointless blather. But keep as a generally notable site. If the cruft comes back, my vote may change. Seriously, people. NOBODY OUTSIDE YOUR FORUM CARES that some guy was a fascist and got banned or that some admin posted tubgirl and banned himself. Y'all may think it's the coolest thing since sliced bread but it's just breathless forumdrama that in a year or two nobody will remember. FCYTravis 11:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps a section on Forum Subculture might be an appropriate place to put recurring themes within the forum - e.g. the Redism movement. Also, I would have thought that a section on difficulties within the community may also be of use to future potential webmasters. GoldenTie 11:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's just plain not interesting to people that people got pissed off at each other and banninated each other. There's nothing unique or interesting about it to anyone outside your forum. I would suggest creating your own wiki if you want to create a complete and detailed history of every single thing that ever happened on your forum. The "Redism controversy" is... two groups of people getting pissed off at each other on a forum. They had no impact on the broader world and they hold no interest to anyone outside your community. It's not going to help webmasters because it happens on every single forum, everywhere. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm sure it's of amazing import to you and the people on the forum... but to everyone else, it's just more forumdrama that happens on every single forum ever opened. You could write Ph.D dissertations on the forumdrama at some places I participate in, but it really doesn't belong on Wikipedia. What would be FAR more interesting and important to people on Wikipedia is a larger section on what GTA-SanAndreas.com offers to people who play the game - what sort of help can they get, what resources are offered, walkthroughs, whatnot. Every Web site with a forum has forumdrama, that's not unique. GTA-SanAndreas.com appears to offer a lot of great GTA:SA resources, and that is probably more unique, not to mention more interesting to anyone who's never visited your forums. Remember, Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. FCYTravis 18:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the advice on what to include on the article: it's much more helpful to me and to those involved in the article to have suggestions as to what to add, as opposed to a nomination for deletion per se. I'll put something up! GoldenTie 18:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't take it too personally - one of the things that's broken on Wikipedia is the "cleanup" system. The quickest way to get attention for an article that is questionable in terms of content is... to put it up for deletion and get a consensus from a lot of people looking at the article. It's not elegant and it's way too confrontational but there you have it, until we come up with a better way of doing it. FCYTravis 19:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • True enough: I've put a brief paragraph on what the site contains. I'd like to expand it, but I'm not sure where the line is drawn between explaining the site's content, and just recreating the site navigation menu. GoldenTie 19:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. Tim Pierce 00:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable indeed, -MegamanZero|Talk 01:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-notability is not an official policy for deletion of Wikipedia articles. 80.249.48.45 13:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But websites can be deleted for being non-noteable. See Criteria_for_web_content. Unless you believe that it meets the mentioned criteria, the site's non-notability is reason for deletion. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 20:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable Incognito 06:14, 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 keep. Ichiro 02:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan & Isolde[edit]

The article on Tristan makes this one redundant. Nightscream 03:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. The romance, the character, and the opera are three discrete matters; combining them in any combination would be like saying "Camelot," "Morte D'Arthur," and King Arthur shouldn't have separate articles. Monicasdude 04:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur. From cursory looking at those three articles it seemed like Tristan talked about everything, not just the character; Tristan und isolde talked about everything, not just the opera; etc. I just meant some refactoring is needed. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:59Z
  • Keep as per Monicasdude Calsicol 15:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a popular play in Cornwall with a slightly different spelling Tristan & Yseult. --Pfafrich 00:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Monicasdude ArgentiumOutlaw 04:37, 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. The article was deleted by Natalinasmpf as a "blatent copyvio". I am closing the AfD as a result. CastAStone|(talk) 17:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Armini[edit]

This might be a vainty page (author username is marmini). Armini definitely comes up on a google search, but is he important enough to deserve a Wikipedia article? Anabanana459 03:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - possibly unverifiable - have any reliable sources printed all these resume details? CDC (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete bio - I believe non-notable.--CastAStone|(talk) 06:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a copyvio from a commercial content provider. -- Kjkolb 14:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tototheism[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. Mo0[talk] 16:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cellular respiration experiment[edit]

WP:NOT a science project, Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 04:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unencyclopedic. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:33Z
  • Delete per nom Segv11 (talk/contribs) 04:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete because I believe that this could be merged into the article on cellular respiration (osmisis? its been a while) but it maybe shouldn't be. close but i gotta go this way. --CastAStone|(talk) 06:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see anything about science projects at WP:NOT. See also Category:Science experiments -- Mikeblas 16:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The other science experiments are summaries of significant experiments done, not the explanation of how to do them. TimBentley 17:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These are instructions. Isn't there something about Wikipedia not being a manual? --Thunk 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beasting It[edit]

Not sure if this NN protologism could be speedied, so listing here. WP:NOT for things made up in school one day. keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 04:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Combat Duty[edit]

NES romhack. No attempt to establish notability, reads as clear vanity. Delete --InShaneee 04:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would work. This article is about a computer game. Durova 22:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --kingboyk 21:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to women in combat. If someone entered this phrase in a search, that's what they'd be looking for. -Sean Curtin 08:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Purves[edit]

Non-notable, vanity of a semi-professional, amatur hockey player, unless he wins awards, or goes into the National Hockey League which I doubt it Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 04:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. vanity. Blnguyen 04:22, 13 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 04:36Z
  • Delete borderline A7 speedy Segv11 (talk/contribs) 04:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until he goes pro, if that ever happens. Then he can come on back. JDoorjam 23:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Purves plays in the top Junior hockey league in Ontario. Junior hockey is to Canada what college football is to the U.S. Not professional, but widely followed. That said, I don't know enough about the person at issue to say whether he should have his own article. But I wanted to point out that this is not the same as some sandlot softball player. -- Mwalcoff 03:29, 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 no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[kapil patidar number of ][edit]

When will this AfD end? Timothy Clemans 04:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A week. enochlau (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put down for db-nonsense, but not so - moving to AfD. No vote. enochlau (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete as non-notable, though probably as notable as this kind of "are you an X" test can get since it was written in 1989. Pretty outdated now; most of the OSes in the "have you used this OS" list are defunct (much more so now than in 1989). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:39Z
  • Merge into Hacker. This article isn't the test itself, just a brief description and a link... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 04:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't agree that this should be merged with Hacker... this is far less notable than Hacker. As for it being a description of the test rather than the test itself: it should be that way, since this is an encyclopedia. The source itself could possibly go to wikisource but I'm not sure that's necessary. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 05:03Z
      • You don't think Hacker could use a single paragraph about The Hacker Test, along with a link? Segv11 (talk/contribs) 05:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nope, I don't think even one paragraph should be merged. If I created a "George W. Bush test" would you put one paragraph into George W. Bush? —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 08:01Z
          • Yeah Timothy Clemans 08:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You made the test therefore you are the 1st source. That's not allowed. This test has some history and terms that can be looked in the jargon file. Timothy Clemans 00:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Hacker -- Astrokey44|talk 05:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The history of this test could be helpful. Maybe it is kinda important to introducting the hacker culture. It could be said, "This is what three people at this time in computing noting as being important in the classification of a person in regards to the term hacker. It could analysized, critiqiticed(sp). Timothy Clemans 07:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, gets 32,000 google hits. Don't merge since it's far less notable than hacker. Kappa 06:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it gets 32,000 googles, it gets 630... "hacker test" gets that many - which of course catches a lot of other things. WhiteNight T | @ | C 06:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks to me like 9 of the first 10 results are about this kind of hacker test. Kappa 17:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I saw that too. There could be a number of explanations for that though - at any rate I'm not sure about this one, especially since it isn't in the jargon file. It may not be because it was a joke... I guess I'll need to do some more digging... WhiteNight T | @ | C 20:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I put in "Herewith a compendium of fact and folklore about computer hackerdom" on Google. The first 8 pages 20 entries is all unique. 160 links. Timothy Clemans 01:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jargon file has no mention of it; that says something about its non-notability, for something about hacking culture that's been around since 1989. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 08:01Z
  • Delete. Per Quarl. enochlau (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although the merge arguments are a little persuasive. If there's a suitable place to merge, then merge. enochlau (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just another e-mail timewaster, no encyclopedic content. Agree with RN and Quarl. Barno 16:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please jargon file is not all inclusive Yuckfoo 20:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many sites use this summary of the test:
  • "A compendium of fact and folklore about computer hackerdom, cunningly disguised as a test. This is version 1.0 from 1989-06-16. It was conceived and written by Felix Lee, John Hayes and Angela Thomas at the end of the spring semester, 1989." Timothy Clemans
    • From looking at the test, I wouldn't call it a "compendium" for entries like "Can you use Berkeley Unix?" any more then I would call a "how Asian are you" test a compendium for having entries like "Do you drive a rice rocket?". —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-14 00:35Z
    • "A compendium is a comprehensive compilation of a body of knowledge. A compendium usually contains principal heads, or general principles, of a larger work or system." There are a lot of terms all apart of programming, hardware and the hacker figure.
      • What's the criteria for deletion being debated here? Whether one likes the test, or finds it personally relevant? Its notability is established. It's at least encyclopedic enough to go into the primary Hacker article. Are there other criteria on the table that I missed? :)
Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 00:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Purity test. Gazpacho 21:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment; now that's an interesting idea. If people aren't willing to put a link to the test into Hacker then perhaps Purity test is a good home for the link. Afterall, the Hacker Test did evolve from various versions of the Purity Test... Segv11 (talk/contribs)
  • Strong keep: This test is eminently notable, as well as a relevant and ancient (by Internet standards) part of Hacker culture. It is worth mentioning in the Hacker article, and has sufficient potential for expansion to justify an article of its own. Deletion is not justified by any of the criteria above-stated.
Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 22:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is listed in Hacker under See also, related. 22:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
(unsigned edit by Timothy Clemans [15])
  • First choice: Delete. Second choice: Weak merge into Hacker. Third choice: Very weak merge into Purity test. For purposes of AfD counting, consider this a delete. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: how come the article got renamed and scope of it suddenly became much more restricted? Kappa 22:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was renamed to reflect it being a purity test. Timothy Clemans
      • I was about to object but from Google there are indeed some people who call it that. I edited it to clarify it is called 'hacker purity test' or 'hacker test'. Quarl (talk)
  • Merge to Purity test sounds good to me. Merge to Hacker culture#Documents would be okay. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-14 00:43Z
I support a merge, as users are more likely to be interested in reading about this in the context of a larger article. Hacker or Hacker Culture would be more appropriate than Purity Test. My vote remains keep for the moment, however.
Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 00:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could it be left just, because some hackers wrote it and it is a good example of what the hacker stero-type is? Timothy Clemans 00:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep -- it's not that earthshaking in itself, but it's been circulating around Usenet for over 15 years, and given rise to numerous spin-offs and parodies... AnonMoos 01:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So should it belong in the computing culture tied to hacking? Timothy Clemans 01:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why not try a Google groups search instead of a Google web search? P.S. please confine discussion of this topic to this page. AnonMoos 01:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Heard about this for years. -- JJay 03:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep - probably should find a suitable merge target instead though. novacatz 05:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then redirect somewhere appropriate. There are in fact a number of hacker tests (kind of easy to write one, after all) but as Google indicates, this particular one is not in any way special. I get a number of different ones on the first page already, but can't find this. Vanity. Radiant_>|< 03:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn crap Incognito 05:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Radiant! WhiteNight T | @ | C 05:45, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven F. Wise[edit]

Appears to be selfpromotional vanity. Blnguyen 04:21, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danube Bike Trails[edit]

Advert for a couple of non-notable bike trails in Germany Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 04:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Danube. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:40Z
  • Delete as non-notable with no merge, as major articles like this would soon fill up with non-notable content. -- Kjkolb 14:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've cleaned this up as much as possible. It looks like it was written by someone who didn't intend to advertise but whose command of English was somewhat weak. The one functional link leads to a description of the Austrian section of the Danube. This material looks like it belongs in an encyclopedia although probably not as a standalone article. I'd Merge with Danube unless someone has a better solution. Durova 22:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Danube. Heck all it'd take is two sentences...e.g. "There are many cycle trails along the length of the Danube. One of the most used is ....etc" Jcuk 23:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge wih Danube. --Terence Ong 09:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Danube or whatever. --King of All the Franks 10:10, 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. Mo0[talk] 16:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deer Crossing Camp[edit]

Non-notable summer camp Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 04:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

40kforums.com[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. No Alexa rating, forum contains 2378 users. 1 site links to it (according to Google), Google also has only 1 hit for the forum itself. Claims to being one of the most popular Warhammer 40,000 related forums is incorrect, as at least two of the forums listen in the links section have 3,000 plus members and an Alexa rating, one has over 13,000 as of twelve hours ago. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 04:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • For what it's worth, I don't think the NPOV is enough of a problem to make it necessary to delete. That problem is redeemable if we decide to keep the article (hopefully we won't, though). --Pak21 21:30, 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 14:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boys JIM Club of America[edit]

This article is filled with totally unencyclopeic content, desribing the operations of a camp, delete--nixie 04:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Ilin[edit]

Appears to be Hoax see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nizam (band) abakharev 04:46, 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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Tomato[edit]

Not notable; about 30 relevant hits. [16] Mikeblas 04:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by User:Neutrality (I'm assuming as an A6, but there was no log message) WhiteNight T | @ | C 06:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emofag[edit]

Poorly explained dicdef, probably NPOV too. Andrew Levine 05:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Berdichevsky[edit]

Non notable person ("Daniel Berdichevsky" gets 343 Google hits), and a likely vanity page. See also the AfD for Demidec Resources. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demidec Resources[edit]

Non notable company; "Demidec Resources" gets 815 hits on Google. Possibly a form of a vanity article, especially in correlation with Daniel Berdichevsky (see the AfD page for this person as well). EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two Ways to Machu Picchu[edit]

Non notable book, no publishing details given and non notable author. Has had only 2 edits besides a move. Delete TheRingess 05:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winny PD[edit]

Can't get any google hits on this person, no sources given. See also WP:MUSIC. Kappa 05:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep--Commander Keane 06:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cybermind[edit]

Delete. Non-notable mailing list; the only websites associated with the list are personal pages (such as the Geocities one listed in the article). Can't seem to find any other mention of it. Deadsalmon 05:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Following Hansnesse's observation of the list's notability, I'd just as soon drop the vote. Online documentation seems sparse, though, so perhaps Dr. Marshall could supplement his website with paper references. Keep. Deadsalmon 06:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete This mailing list is at least as noteable as the other lists noted in wiki. It is over 10 years old for one. It is also, as stated in the article, the subject of some academic research and articles published in refereed journals. The geocities web site holds some of those articles. Who is deadsalmon anyway? Jon Marshall 13 jan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.25.139.183 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 13 January 2006

  • Keep The mailing list was the subject of a PhD dissertation from University of Sydney (by the above Jon Marshall in fact), and was featured in several academic articles since then (I only discoved this when I was investigating to nominate for deletion myself). Rewrite, however, to make note of that fact. --Hansnesse 06:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator has withdrawn their deletion vote. Result is to speedy keep.--Commander Keane 06:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of prank flash[edit]

  • Keep I check all links here as a just in case.
  • Delete: Lists of links to flash animation is not encyclopedic Dyslexic agnostic 06:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; WP:NOT a link repository --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 06:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. Daniel Case 06:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page has only been created to clean up the 'prank flash' page, you can't split information out and then immediately delete it because it looks wrong on its own. This discussion's been had many times on List of Shock Sites and the proposal to delete has always been shouted down because people find this stuff informative. Take the links down and just leave the descriptions if that will help it fit policy better. - unsigned by User:194.200.167.69 07:43, 13 January 2006
  • Keep This is not an entry on its own, but a link off the entry for prank flash. It's the result of cleaning up,not a new entry so of course it would be "unencyclopedic", since all the encyclopedic information is on the original entry.
  • KeepIt's informational.
  • Delete nonsense. --Terence Ong 08:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've changed my vote. The Prank Flash article has been restored, so this is now pointless.--Tenka Muteki 05:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --InShaneee 22:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a good reference and a good warning for people.
  • Keep No one will ever know how much this list has saved me from heart attacks. KEEP IT!
  • Delete as listcruft -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think all of the "keeps" are sockpuppets of the same person. Dyslexic agnostic 08:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if we're all the same person, isn't it entirely possible for all these 'Deletes' to be 'sock puppets' as well? Pot calling the kettle black, eh?

Refrain from personal attacks, Dyslexic agnostic.--Tenka Muteki 20:56, 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 A7 delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 06:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hongseok Yoon[edit]

Not a notable person. —Comics (Talk) 06:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Navy Blue Eyes[edit]

Obvious advert for non-notable book. CastAStone|(talk) 06:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added all the warning tags, and I will go further and support the delete vote. Dyslexic agnostic 06:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Self-published novels are not inherently notable. The article about the author is a bit dodgy as well. Tverbeek 14:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable self-published novel. Stifle 01:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --a.n.o.n.y.m t 12:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MILE HIGH B.S.[edit]

Website linked to is still mostly under construction, text is promotional. Doesn't appear as if this publication has achieved notability yet. Daniel Case 06:52, 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 SPEEDIED by User:Jimfbleak as "junk" Segv11 (talk/contribs) 08:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BkW[edit]

Claims to be something famous concept to a computer game. This would appear dubious, as only 2 hits for Blitzkrieg Whores on google have the two words together. Perhaps self-styled slang?? or hoax??. DeleteBlnguyen 07:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per tag on page as nn-club. Daniel Case 07:06, 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. Mo0[talk] 16:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestlepower[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion by Anabanana459 as A3 (link only) but it doesn't qualify. However, it's a web site that fails WP:WEB -- no Alexa rank and forums have ~1650 members. howcheng {chat} 07:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a vanity page to me. Delete. appzter 08:27, 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 02:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Pettitt[edit]

This is borderline, but I would say vanity and non notable. Dave posted this himself, which is ok I guess except that do we include every voice actor? He doesn't seem particularly notable from what I found on the google search. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He seems like somebody that people might want to find information about if they're interested. I'm sure he must show up in the credits for these shows - that must at least mean something. And I've heard of most of these shows. I think voice actors probably do not return big hits on google in the first place unless they do something other than voice acting that they are notable for. So I don't think hits on google is reliable in this case. -- Rediahs 07:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hmmmm. Notability is an issue with voice actors or anyone else. We don't include all actors. We're not a directory. Here is his imdb page. Borderline but I still say not notable enough. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I better fess up... It was I who created the original redlink, based on the idea that while some characters in Zoids: Chaotic Century had voice actors with articles, others didn't. I thought it would be best to create wikilinks for all. In the article's defense, Pettitt has worked on the English dubs for parts of the Gundam and Dragon Ball anime series, arguably two of the biggest anime franchises dubbed into the Western world. I'm going to vote keep on this one. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 11:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- A 20 year career as a voice actor for television shows is somewhat notable. - Longhair 21:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and throw a verification flag over the article. Voice artists in notable animation are notable enough for me. Durova 22:50, 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 14:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarrissa Jeng[edit]

Starwarscruft - so we need a page for every Jedi? Segv11 (talk/contribs) 07:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all SW characters. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 09:14Z
  • Delete all Jedi played by extras in the Battle of Geonosis, and not elaborated on in the later Expanded Universe works. If you really, really want to keep this somewhere, merge it to List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters. This is not in any way a vote to merge, just an indication of the most appropriate target if that is the consensus. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 11:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters. The article as it stands won't take up much space on that page, and she's at least as notable as many other jedi listed there. Furthermore, the character wasn't just in AotC. She was also on the HoloNet News website. -LtNOWIS 20:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Starwarscruft, non notable, and the "beautiful hair" is POV to boot. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge official Jedi knights. Kappa 22:26, 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. As a general rule, I discount any and all IP address votes, and they made up every single KEEP vote without exception. Therefore, DELETE was the consensus. Mo0[talk] 16:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RCMB[edit]

NN website / fansite. -- Longhair 07:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Longhair 07:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable web forum. Took too long to even figure out what the subject was. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 09:13Z
  • Excellent forum full of outstanding individuals. I mean that, I really do. (unsigned vandalism from 65.216.70.62)
  • Very informative and acurate article... Who is that atractive man eating the Cheeseburger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.80.10.154 (talk • contribs) -- Longhair 21:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A great source for Melissa T photos and related information, occasionally MSU sports may be discussed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.159.115.154 (talk • contribs) -- Longhair 21:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A place where 19 year old kids are verbally abused and people are encouraged to push aside people standing in doorways. Keep it!!
  • as far as collge website blogs go this one is the best. you should keep it in wiki
  • keep it people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slicknickshady (talk • contribs) -- Longhair 21:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As written, completely unencyclopedic. If someone wants to rewrite it so it's not vanityfanspamvertisementcruft, I'll reconsider my vote. FCYTravis 20:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep from kosmo!
    • Oh noes someone on teh Intarweb called me an asshole. Whatever shall I do? FCYTravis 22:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the RCMB's defense, there can be found hundreds of informational pages. If you are looking to build a Pergola Arbor, there is a page dedicated to it's construction. Deciding whether to buy the new XBOX360 or wait for the PS3? You can find several pages on that subject. Looking to learn to homebrew? You can find a thread dedicated to learning this hobby as well. Wondering about mortgage rates or legal questions? There are dozens of experts on the RCMB who can answer your questions. There are tons more examples. Please reconsider your deletion. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.72.66.100 (talk • contribs) -- Longhair 21:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable website.Obina 22:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --InShaneee 22:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely unreadable summation. Not a notable website and not a real "forum".
  • Delete Far too many pics of Spartan Al. Very hard on the eyes. Wikipedia should not make you want to hurl.
  • Delete per nomination. Durova 22:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ashibaka tock 04:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why this entry should be kept is simply because it represents an emerging internet forum desperate for definition and recognition. The Red Cedar Mesage Board is not a "fan site" per se - it is a very unique online forum where thousands of people come each day to discuss various issues ranging from Michigan State University athletics to politics and other topics of general interest. With all due respect to the editors of Wikipedia, if the RCMB is permitted to remain on your dynamic online encyclopedia then many more, perhaps more significant, entries will be made regarding the RCMB and the true importance of the definition will be more clear. Please be patient. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Tuff gHost (talk • contribs) 00:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete potential future notability is not sufficient for inclusion in wikipedia -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you have a page dedicated to blumpkins, but the RCMB must go? Sounds like a solid decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.152.106 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Per nom. Ohnoitsjamietalkcontribs 07:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as non-notable forum, influenced by masses of ballot stuffing and meatpuppets. And the images are unknown copyright status to boot. Stifle 01:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of people[edit]

This Blogspot-hosted webcomic does not appear to be notable based upon my own interpretation of WP:WEB. Returns approximately 68 unique hits on Google. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compendium of bridge conventions[edit]

Delete. Although the list of bridge conventions will be useful one day (currently, category:Bridge conventions is quite underpopulated), it should be called differently (e.g. List of bridge conventions). The current version of the article contains just one, unnotable [17], invented by the author of the article, which clearly contradicts WP:NOR and WP:AUTO. Duja 08:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- original research. Reyk 09:43, 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 redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of time tracking software[edit]

List with three entries. Redundant per Comparison of time tracking software which has encyclopaedic content and many more entries. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 08:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Min Jung Kim[edit]

Based on the username of the person that created this page (User:Minjungkim), this is a vanity article. Creating this article is the user's only edit. Can't speedy it because I think does try to assert notability, but it's a judgement call, and I'm leaning towards delete. Coffee 08:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randomly opened chess[edit]

This does not appear to be a chess variant which has been played much at all. A [Google check] indicated 70 hits, and most appear to be Wikipedia mirrors. The exception is a VFD entry from Wikibooks. From reading the description of the game, the term "randomly opened" seems incorrect as well because the initial placement of pieces is not random. Some chess variants such as Fischer Random Chess, kriegspiel, bughouse chess and suicide chess have entries in sources in independent chess publications such as the Oxford Companion to Chess or are played regularly online on various chess servers. I cannot see any evidence that this variant is not a made-up game and I recommend deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GameFAQs Message Boards: Australia and New Zealand[edit]

Forumcruft. This is just one of the thousands of message boards at gamefaqs.com. All useful information is already at GameFAQs message boards. Coffee 08:43, 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. Mo0[talk] 16:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster Schools Chess[edit]

Article is about a forum of chess teachers in Northern Ireland. Chess is a great game, and I admire those who like to work for it, but this council does not seem significant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 11:12Z
  • Delete per nom. regional / school sports bodies would have to be pretty large / significant to be notable, and I don't think this one makes it. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Durova 20:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a free web host or anything like that. Stifle 01:39, 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. Mo0[talk] 16:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TrueKalia[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable company. 165 Google hits. Fredrik | tc 08:54, 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 Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Review of Politics[edit]

Delete - somebody created page linked from Chauvinism, but filled it with stream-of-unconciousness Shenme 08:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Garbage. Speedy? Kcordina 09:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, blatant nonsense. Lukas 09:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. Tagged as {{db-nonsense}}. It did give me a laugh though that someone writes like that. "govern meant said that war was over but he still sent soldiers". —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 11:10Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Woohookitty for copyvio —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 11:07Z


Pudsey Steel Services Ltd (UK)[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 no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of wiki farms[edit]

Container for external links. Delete per WP:WWIN (Wikipedia articles are not: [...] Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. ). --Pjacobi 09:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC) ![reply]

  • Delete --Pjacobi 09:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly not worth its own article. Perhaps some can be merged into Wiki? - Mgm|(talk) 09:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reincorporate the content from the previously deleted revisions, which were more than a mere collection of links. Christopher Parham (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of wikis and transwiki to Wikiclassifieds. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 10:46Z
  • Keep, at least some of these must be notable. Needs some inclusion criteria. Kappa 12:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge selected examples to Wiki farm at best. WP is not a collection of external links, and that's what this is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (possibly with clean-up) -- anything that encourages people to create specialist Wikis to which articles of fringe interest can be relocated ought to be supported. -- Simon Cursitor 15:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Clean-up -- valuable info, why not just remove external links if this violates WP's policies? --SamOdio 05:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Merge with the Wiki page? Potentially valuable, useful information that encourages future wikis.Jeb 06:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Improve - While it's right that no page should just have a list of links, older version of this page had useful comparisons that helped people decide what wiki farms to use and promotes wiki-use and wiki-awareness. A page with descriptions of the different farms and their pros and cons is useful for readers and useful for the wiki space in general. Additionally, many wiki farms have their own Wikipedia pages, like PeanutButterWiki, meaning that the page can at the very least index the Wikipedia pages about wiki farms. Dweekly 01:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Improve - While I agree that WP should not include web directories, I think an enhanced version of this page would provide readers with a starting point for applying the knowledge about wikis contained in WP. This type of page makes the WP knowledge more usable. --Fogleman 16:26, 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. Mo0[talk] 16:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microevolutionary model of cancer[edit]

This is a very in-depth treatment of a scientific theory promulgated by one book. The two editors defending the page's content deny that this is actually an attempt at orthomolecular oncology, but all the same the concept gets <300 Google hits and fails any form of notability to warrant this. JFW | T@lk 15:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the following reasons:
    • This "theory" does not contain rational arguments. It is a confused bundle of fantasy, semi-t*ruths, and miscomprehended biology.
    • There is no conventional evidence base.
    • There is no peer review.
    • The title of the theory is egregious misrepresentation of a paper published in a reputable scientific journal (BJC) several years ago. This latter paper is searcheable on Pubmed.
    In addition, the proponents of this theory are causing a significant amount of disruption on the carcinognesis page. They are not amenable to measured discussion. Whilst this is not a reason for deletion per se, it should be taken into consideration. The microevolutionary model being touted has no real distinction from the host of other pseudoscientific medical theories, yet it has managed to get a specific mention on the Carcinognesis page for no other reason than the bloody-mindedness of its proponents. This does not help the credibility of the rest of the page. Jellytussle 17:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Reyk 09:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable pseudoscience. See talk page. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 10:37Z
  • Weak delete. Could have slight slight slight significance. *uses fingers to indicate the significance of the article*. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 10:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong Talk 15:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --WS 18:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article uses some conventional references to support a "theory" that has little to do with microevolution and arrives at the conclusion that vitamin C cures cancer. The authors of the article have repeatedly attempted to gloss over its orthomolecular roots, masking the vitamin C conclusion, despite that being the main focus of their source text. It seems to be a perfidious form of linkspam. And I suspect some sockpuppettry as well.--DocJohnny 06:09, 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. Mo0[talk] 16:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Takedom[edit]

Blatant spam. Reyk 09:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Conscientiology[edit]

Delete: Non-notable neologism, connected to a one-man pseudoscience thing. Must have been on Wikipedia and got deleted earlier, as a different article of that name is still mirrored from Wikipedia on other sites. [18] Lukas 09:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It looks like the page was previously deleted for copyvio previously. enochlau (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Unverifiable original-research stuff. From iacworld.org: Whereas conventional sciences are based on the Cartesian-Newtonian model, which considers reality to be unidimensional (physical only), conscientiology is based on the consciential paradigm, which considers reality to be multidimensional... Modern technology is still not sophisticated enough to detect, analyze, and study the more subtle dimensions where consciousness can manifest itself. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 10:28Z
  • Delete per nom. Edgar181 16:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. OR and Bollocks. Barno 16:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research Prashanthns 18:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there is apparently a "Journal of Conscientiology", I've looked on a number of university library catalogs [19] [20] [21] and can't find it, nor any references to "conscientiology" that can verify. --Aude 02:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari 22:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Realcasting[edit]

Unnotable neologism. Only source cited itself cites this article. Haakon 09:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 10:26Z
  • Delete as not encyclopedia material. Edgar181 16:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Quarl. Stifle 01:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom TheRingess 16:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Note from the Entry's Author: The individual that initiated this deletion has little to no experience in new media. If 3rd-party validation is required on this topic, I will be happy to get an endorsement from the founding chairman of the [Producers Guild of America, New Media Council [22]]. Reality-oriented VidCasting will continue to grow in popularity. Google's recent announcements that it intends to release its Video Store to an open pricing structure [23] validates the paradigm. If Wikipedia is concerned abuot link spamming I am happy to have the link to my blog entry removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtaus (talk • contribs)
    • Comment - We know your game. It doesn't matter if the link to your worthless website is on the page or not. You just want the pagerank improvement that your made-up word receive when google finds it somewhere on the wikipedia domanin. -- Femmina 08:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn rubbish Incognito 05:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above reasons. --Timecop 05:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm sick of "reality" things in general, per nom. -- Femmina 08:15, 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 redirect to 24th century. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2348[edit]

This article might be notable one day, but are we setting precedents to create articles for every year to come? -- Longhair 10:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Longhair 10:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until we get there. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 10:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per below and to discourage re-creation
  • Delete. The only piece of information is that Gain_Ground references the year, and that information is already there. In fact I bet someone saw a juicy redlink there to 2348 and decided to fill it... Years don't need linking, only full dates for date preferences. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 11:06Z
    • Redirect per Astrokey44. Looks like almost all links to the 24th-century years are from Star Trek articles :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 20:44Z
  • Delete per nom. Quarl makes an interesting point. I wonder how many articles of this sort are created because someone saw a redlink that really shouldn't be. Maybe it'd be an idea to use "what links here" on AfD entries to find and fix these. Reyk 11:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Robin Johnson 11:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong Talk 15:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 24th century which is where 2362 2363 and alot of others redirect to -- Astrokey44|talk 15:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. I'm not against future years having articles if there are notable predicted events or fictional connections, but a single video game reference doesn't really cut it. 23skidoo 16:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Neunt of Axelrod[edit]

Hoax content and no google hit. RadioActive 10:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LookupThis[edit]

Non-notable advertising. Robin Johnson 11:23, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Art Bin[edit]

Webzine with no assertion of notability. Article has been unchanged (except for wikification) since an anon created it in 2002. Alexa rank 400,000. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 11:41Z

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Favourite Computer Systems[edit]

Not notable (65 google hits). Advertising. Sleepyhead 11:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is first hit, Google Earth Community is second, company's own website off the scale. No indication of size, revenue, market cap., customer base. Looks like advertising, but not blatant spam. JzG 12:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, JzG.--SarekOfVulcan 01:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advert for non-notable company. Stifle 01:38, 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 no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WebCollab[edit]

Not notable Sleepyhead 12:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undecided. Sourceforge shows around 2000 downloads for each successive version, I don't know how significant that might be. Probably not very. JzG 12:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability asserted or evident. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 13:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another generic piece of software. Mindmatrix 17:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 2000 downloads for every version seems like its enought. Achen00 23:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
--Ichiro 02:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- 2000 downloads per version suggests many more than 2000 users. I was mostly convinced by these statistics, however: [26]. Given about 220 MB of transfer a month, i'm figuring they get about 650 downloads a month; this suggests a much larger number of users than 2000, but also counts people who download just to evaluate it (without using) and fails to count a potentially significant group of users who download from a third party (like a package available from an OS vendor as a RPM), which the GPL permits, instead of directly through Sourceforge. --Mysidia (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, defaulting to keep. Ichiro 02:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autism Awareness Campaign UK[edit]

Created from an [IP] registered to a [former address] of the Dream Harvest College with which Ivan Corea is [associated] and therefore autobiographical. It's also unverified and PoV/Soapboxish in style. While this seems less dubious than dream harvest and the campaign may be worthy of a wikipedia entry, I don't think that this one is worthy of wikipedia. If it gets an article it should be started by someone who's able to write it NPOV. Delete -- JamJar 12:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep: Noteworthy; significance made clear by Parliamentary discussion and widespread recognition of advocacy efforts. Ombudsman 12:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: sketchy; it says that they won the "Beacon Highly Commended Award Certificate for Leadership," but does the award exist? The Association of Colleges doesn't describe it on their website or list winners. The Scottish parliament doesn't recognise the campaign in its declaration of 2002 as Autism Awareness Year (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/pdf_res_notes/rn01-01.pdf). The only recognition the UK campaign has is from the Autism Awareness Campaign Sri Lanka, which was begun by the same two people. --CDN99 13:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, there is a Beacon Prize [[27]], the 2004 leadership award was given to .... Bob Geldof. They don't claim to be winners, they just claim to have recieved a certificate of commendation (on their site they claim a nomination). Neither nominations or certificates are mentioned on the beacon site as far as I can find. Personally, my main objection to this site is that it's a biased, self-set-up soapbox. For the "largest ever movement for autism and Asperger's syndrome in the UK" there's not a lot of stuff about them on google, just a lot of self done press releases and admittedly lots of pictures with politicians their website (that's not necessarily a good yardstick, though). A search for Ivan Corea in the [local paper] brings up a few things. If the article were rewritten by someone not involved in the organization, with trustworthy sources given then I'd be happy. Wikipedia isn't, however, a forum for campaigning. -- JamJar 14:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Terence Ong Talk 15:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Q0 22:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I removed the POV quote. Just about notable. --Pfafrich 03:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per above Jcuk 18:45, 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 no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan and Charika Corea[edit]

Created from an [IP] registered to a [former address] of the Dream Harvest College with which Ivan Corea is [associated] and therefore autobiographical. It's also unverified and PoV/Soapboxish in style. Looks more like a CV than an article on Wikipedia. Actually contains very little information that couldn't be merged happily into Autism Awareness Campaign UK. Delete -- JamJar 12:16, 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 keep. Ichiro 02:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fauna of Maine[edit]

I have no doubt that the fauna of Maine deserves an article, but this ain't it. Sometime, it is possible that someone will want to write a real article about Maine's fauna, and when they do, it will probably only have the word "Maine" in common with this...thing. Maine apparently has such fauna as "trees... pine cones, and etc", it has a coast on its coast and has "lots of rainy seasons including snowy peaks and valleys". I suggest that a large pit is dug and this article is placed at the bottom of it. There's nothing here worth redirecting, and a redirect from this title simply to Maine seems a little facile. So unless it's improved considerably, this should just go, to reduce Wikipedia's embarrassment quotient. Grutness...wha? 12:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawing nomination after good rewrite by Youngamerican. it's still a stub, but at least it's now a sensible one. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak keep per below. PJM 13:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation. Movementarian (Talk) 14:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Liberatore(T) 14:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC) Good job, Youngamerican! This is now a useful stub (especially because of the reference). Keep. By the way, shouldn't the first "Fauna" be lower-case? - Liberatore(T) 18:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. keep now that it is a decent stub. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete w/o prejudice per Movementarian. I would go "keep" if this article is improved by then. Youngamerican 18:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per my quickie rewrite. I feel that I made it presentable as a stub, as it now has specific animals that live in Maine and no longer considers a pinecone to be an animal. Youngamerican 18:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicely done, Youngamerican. I still think it would serve better as a subsection in Maine. IMHO. PJM 18:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article could possibly get the ball rolling on a project that would cover the fauna of all of the US states and the various territories of other countries by users that know about wildlife. There could probably be alot written on the fauna of each state, unfortunately not by me, a humble cartographer/human geographer. Youngamerican 18:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial and Financial System[edit]

Advertisement of non-notable company per WP:CORP. Only 439 Google hits, with the Wikipedia artikel being first. S.K. 13:03, 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 14:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pen 15 club[edit]

Hmmm. Tricky. There is some evidence of clubs called this, but not much to substantiate the article contents. In the end I suspect this may exist primarily to promote the linked blog. It is unreferenced. What does the panel think? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:05, 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 14:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avidian[edit]

Unwikified advertisement of non-notable company. Seems to have ~$5 million revenue. S.K. 13:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an advertisement. Not enough information to transwiki to Yellowikis. Movementarian (Talk) 14:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete currently advert. Stifle 01:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I posted this article and would like to add some more content. I am using their product prophet right now at work and was suprised when it wasn't in Wikipedia's list of CRM vendors. I'll add hometown information, et cetera, and am in no way affiliated with Avidian. 17:53, 16 January 2006 Faddat (UTC)
Is this a Keep vote?
  • Keep. Lack of information is a reason to improve and expand. As to the two delete votes: If benefiting from having a WP article is a reason to delete, all articles on specific drugs have to go just for starters. So far I've seen only one reason to delete - the company or its products may not be notable. Lacking useful policies and guidelines (or am I the only one thinking that WP:CORP declares all companies notable that have ever advertized in a paper?) it is my personal opinion that this company is notable because it is growing exponentially in a niche within an extremely competitive market (which I happen to know to some extent - the market, not Avidian or its products).  AvB ÷ talk 20:04, 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. Mo0[talk] 16:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The further development of semantic neural network models[edit]

Delete. Original research, vanity. Some fringe view hijacking an otherwise legitimate academic field. Author of article includes his own works four times in the reference list, but is not a notable authority in the field. Text seems confused and unencyclopedic. Lukas 13:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Movementarian (Talk) 14:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as masses of original research, with a healthy serving of confused randomness. Stifle 01:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article about a paper written by the author of the article (a.k.a. original research). —Ruud 19:48, 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 SPEEDY DELETE does not assert importance/significance of subject. ~~ N (t/c) 03:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ_Savant[edit]

Non-notable, does not meet WP:BIO, also is a Autobio. Mike 14:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, some of this info is already on his user page, the rest can be easily moved there.Bjones 14:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete doesn't assert notability. Vanity and a red-link farm. --kingboyk 21:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nn-bio. Stifle 01:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Morgan (artist)[edit]

Unreferenced, and I could not find any verification (as an example, "David Morgan" "Marilyn Gotlieb" on Google returns 0 hits, as do "David Morgan" "Halle Saint Pierre"). I do not like the Google test, but the problem here is verifiability. Other artists by the same name exist, but do not look like being this one. - Liberatore(T) 14:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete For a claim of notability, the artist requires citations of sources and references to critical appraisals of his work indicating his place within the artistic movement of which he is a part. This article appears to be specious at the moment. (aeropagitica) 22:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Born in 1982, first exhibition in 1991? Hoax MNewnham 23:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ops! I already made the mistake of not checking the date of birth! I could have saved 2 whole Google queries :-) - Liberatore(T) 10:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can be verified -- Astrokey44|talk 03:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as currently unverifiable. Stifle 01:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siz[edit]

Turkish dictionary definition. Useful, but not for an encyclopedia. - Liberatore(T) 14:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roch's market[edit]

Delete. Non-notable corporation. Lukas 14:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B & H Tool Works, Inc.[edit]

Delete. Non-notable company. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Company of 130+ employees and annual sales of US$ 12-20 million. Is that sufficiently non-notable to delete? I'm not sure... — RJH 16:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per RJH's research. Stifle 01:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep although people are reminded not to write auto-biographical articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Bertsch[edit]

NN vanity, created (according to the usename) by himself Ezeu 15:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll take the vanity charges. But as an award winning cartoonist who is starting toi accumulate a large body of work on various archives i thought this would be an easy place to link all the various bits to. I have two weekly features in a paper with a circulation of 70,000. I apologize if this was in bad form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayne Bertsch (talk • contribs)
  • Keep and cleanup. This is a notable person, he has managed to write an article adhering to WP:NPOV. Stifle 01:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kepp. --Myles Long/cDc 22:47, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gothik-APA[edit]

A web ring with a Tripod URL Ezeu 15:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know what a Tripod URL webring is....

However there is a listing already onthe APA listing (ametuer press association) here that included the Gothik-APA. I founded Gothik years ago and noticed that though t was listed (originally without the hyphen) that it had no internal link or entry. I just fixed the hyphen mistake and added a very short entry on it since it was already on the list.

The list is here>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_press_association

  • Delete as non-notable website. Article is pretty much incoherent as-is. Stifle 01:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense Incognito 00:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 16:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Ingebrigtsen[edit]

Lacks wiki style, is a bio about a non-noteable person, even in Norway (I'm norwegian), lacks wiki style, uses too many norwegian words. vidarlo 16:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It has been speedy deleted twice, and in a couple of seconds thrice. Punkmorten 16:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indianapolismusic.net[edit]

This page was nominated for deletion by User:Ezeu, giving as the reason "spam". I'm just creating the AfD subpage. GTBacchus(talk) 16:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

spam Ezeu 15:24, 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 14:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gigposters.com[edit]

Spam Ezeu 15:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Essexmutant 15:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable as a repository of concert art posters. --Myles Long/cDc 18:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, currently just an advert. No notability established. Stifle 01:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added some info. about the site, playing down the advertisement aspects. Please check out the changes. Thanks. --Myles Long/cDc 22:51, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Cheese[edit]

Delete: another apparent hoax from Jameslewis Bill 15:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. Edgar181 16:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverified, might be hoax, advertisement if real. When I read this was used by "Vegans", it seemed less likely to be for the vegan subclass of vegetarianism than for inhabitants of a fictional planet around the star Vega. Barno 16:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probable hoax, definitely unencyclopedic. Durova 20:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, possible hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 23:25Z
  • Comment What would happen if this article were merged with Cheese? Would they annihilate each other? Fg2 01:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, they would annihilate each other in a total energy conversion explosion. This would make a great product though. krispymann25 11:58, 15 Jan 2006.
  • Ha ha. Delete, almost certainly a hoax (the "anti-cheese" website is orange.) Grandmasterka 02:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as hoax. Incognito 03:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I am not sure the product is actually called "Anti-Cheese" but such a cheese substitute exists, as in vegetarian cheese. (84.65.69.55 13:11, 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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ado 'Mortumee[edit]

NN fictional Halo character, not mentioned on Halo main page, 382 Google hits for '"Ado 'Mortumee" Halo'. I'm not very familiar with Halo, so I'm open to assertions of notability. Meanwhile, delete. --Fang Aili 16:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC) Fang Aili 16:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable halocruft. Stifle 01:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fancruft. Incognito 00:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Mo0[talk] 16:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters in Monarch of the Glen[edit]

Delete -- Not notable/unencyclopedic, articles like this are turning wikipedia into a series of tv fanpages. max rspct leave a message 16:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Monarch of the Glen is a major BBC series. Articles like this are created as a compromise in the hope of keeping deletionists hackles down. Television is a legitimate subject for wikipedia to cover, as well as whatever you are interested in. Bhoeble 19:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A compromise? Because they're all in one article? -max rspct leave a message 19:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Monarch of the Glen is a popular British TV series that has been going on for many years, thus characters are notable, thus keep. Englishrose 20:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - better this than a single page on each minor character. Reyk 21:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above Jcuk 23:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. We need more like this. -- JJay 03:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 03:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, much prefer this to an article for each of those characters. Stifle 01:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP is not collection of everything. List of minor characters in a TV product is prime example of information that will be useless within few years. If people are judged by their notability in longer time span why should be TV products treated differently? Pavel Vozenilek 21:30, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NQcontent Limited[edit]

nn-corp, sort of advertisement-y. fails to meet WP:CORP in my opinion-- Syrthiss 16:21, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 now that some references to verify use of this term have been provided. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unitheism[edit]

Unitheism seems to be a neologism, currently used by about 3 writers and a handful of other people, for something akin to pantheism. Apparently, it has yet to be picked up by the mainstream, or referenced in any major publication. That puts it a bit shy of the requirements on WP:V. Delete; neologism, unverifiable GTBacchus(talk) 16:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as neologism for panentheism, noting with irony that "unitheism" and "tototheism" are both Lindsay King's attempts to distinguish panentheism from pantheism and both got AfD'ed as neologisms for the latter. -- Jonel | Speak 18:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The top two Google results are a forum post and an unrelated reference to a Malaysian death metal band by this name - not a good sign. The creator cites Tripod sites and forum posts as evidence. It might have been a borderline transwiki to Wikitionary, but the decidely inappropriate tone of the entry and its probable neologism status make me want to wipe the slate. Spamming Inappropriately long postings to AfD instead of improving the article speaks against it. Durova 20:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply The comment that I chose to spam the discussion rather than improve the article is inaccurate. I am new at this. If I do not know the conventions here then I apologise. But I essentially wrote the basic form of the current entry. It was later edited, but its basic message and structure survived edtorializing by existing Wiki members. I did improve the entry.--The Boomer 16:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign before)[reply]
    Comment there are two anons involved here - Lindsay King himself, the article's creator, and someone else who wants to see the article kept, but without reference to Lindsay King; that's the anon who posted here. I think you may be confusing the two. Neither of them knows the ways of Wikipedia yet; please try not to WP:BITE. Nobody's trying to "spam AfD". -GTBacchus(talk) 21:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign!)[reply]
    Wording changed per your advice. Vote remains the same. Regards, Durova 22:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Both have now registered accounts. User:Lindsayking and User:The Boomer, respectively. I agree that the "spamming" of AfD was because of unfamiliarity with WP. -- Jonel | Speak 22:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add to Wiktionary. Although the original article was rambling, confused and unsupported, the current disambiguation is a useful summary of the various meanings and uses of the word. See references below.--The Boomer 21:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonnotable neologism - this isn't the place to make up new words. DreamGuy 05:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply It is not a new word. It is a very old word. Please see the discussion page for references and request for guidance on what is acceptable demonstration of a word and its definitions.--The Boomer 21:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm convinced by the sources presented on the talk page. It's not a common concept, but it seems that a good handful of religious thinkers have been talking and publishing about certain ideas they're calling "unitheism". Google may not know much about it, but it seems to be real all the same; imagine. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Unitheism for references and discussion.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NetDiz - Advertising Network[edit]

Non-notable website. Only ten hits! [29] Mikeblas 16:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truthman[edit]

Non-notable romhack, and most likely vanity. Delete. --InShaneee 05:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 16:38, 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 SPEEDIED by User:Geni as copyvio Segv11 (talk/contribs) 02:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farmington Mining Disaster/temp2[edit]

Delete.Besides the obvious copyright violation. There were already two almost identical pages on this topic. Farmington Mine Disaster and Consol No. 9 Mine Accident, which have just been merged. There is no reason for a third article, let alone one with copyright issue. Crunch 18:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 16:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need articles that don't follow the rules. Madman 17:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Should this be moved next door to copyright vio? Youngamerican 17:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the copyright violation is moot at this point since it's also a duplicate page and can be deleted on those grounds. Crunch 19:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tribrid cars[edit]

Non-notable neologism. It's a 2-sentence "article" about subject with only 114 hits on Google. Article even notes that Tribrid cars are not real, but only in concept phase. In other words, too small, too non-notable, too ephemeral to be an encyclopedia article. Madman 17:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is NOT a Crystal Ball. Mike 17:44, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 13:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EVillage[edit]

EVillage appears to be a reworking of the "eVillage" concept set out by a Mr Imran Aziz on his blog entry here. It seems neither notable, nor particularly coherent and I'd suggest deletion. LeContexte 14:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you - my mistake LeContexte 09:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as incoherent OR/POV/nn babble. Stifle 01:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense Incognito 02:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to understand the dimensions of the digital gap[edit]

What the hell? Werdna648T/C\@ 00:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think the 2nd (or 3rd) tag down explains it pretty well. 68.39.174.238 01:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Crypticbot 17:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- After reading it all the way through, I still have no idea what the author is talking about. I do know it's original research. Reyk 21:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR essay, and less than well written besides. DES (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR and just about unreadable. Stifle 01:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is all original research, and I don't understand what the writer is talking about... - Tony 03:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, confused garbage. Incognito 04:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miniaturized reactors[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. Mo0[talk] 16:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teagames and Teacon[edit]

Appears to be advertising. Blnguyen 02:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not advertising, I just like the site and want to give people information about it and Teacon. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Dmnkn1ght (talk • contribs) 02:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Crypticbot 17:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added Teacon to this afd, per the above. Leaning delete. Article doesn't assert anything that would let it pass our notability guidelines. —Cryptic (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads like an advertisement ("Massive" in one article; "Incrediably popular" in the other), no discusuion, no indication of notability beyond peacock terms. DES (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recently updated the Teagames page, explaining the controvercial nature of the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.199.37.10 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete especially Teacon, which seems to be an outright fabrication. —David Wahler (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Teacon non notable event. Neutral for Teagames not sure how to do that Alexa thing to see if this is a notable.Obina 21:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • you get it from here: [30] and based on that rank of 2736, Id say Keep Teagames, and merge teacon into it since that it just a convention for Teagames -- Astrokey44|talk 03:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astrokey44 you are a smart man, <3 68.127.102.226 07:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Chum Bucket Mega Bucket[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Crypticbot 17:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A plot device from one Spongebob Squarepants episode. If there were an article for the episode, it would be part of the plot summary, but certainly could never stand on its own as an article. Nothing here worth merging. --Wrathchild (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete -- Krash 16:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wraithchild. Stifle 01:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Mo0[talk] 16:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UFIDA[edit]

Not notable. Sleepyhead 11:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep possible bad-faith nom by author of recently deleted article on a minor competitor, Sleepyhead81 (talk · contribs). Article states "#1 ERP vendor in the Asia-Pacific area, with over 400,000 implementions as of 2005" - that would make it notable beyond question. Whether that is verifiable is another matter; since this has not been challenged (including by noiminator) I'm inclined to accept it at face value. JzG 12:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Crypticbot 17:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JzG. Need a better nomination than that. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 23:20Z
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 03:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JzG -- Astrokey44|talk 03:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanician[edit]

Tagged for speedy delete, but does not fit any of the WP:CSD. A pure dictdef. i have created an entry on wictionary, more extensive than this stub. Seems unlikley to expand to an encyclopedic article. Delete unless expanded or potential for expansion shown. DES (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T3h 1337 5t1x[edit]

No google hits, although a web comic. Probably fictitious — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashanthns (talk • contribs)

  • Delete as nn Renata 18:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does exist, search for "1337 ST1X". But it gets 15 hits! Delete. Punkmorten 19:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • move and delete incorrectly titled and nn WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 21:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just curious, why should we move before deletion? Punkmorten 00:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable web comic, hosted on blogspot [31]. I only get 6 unomitted hits. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 23:15Z
  • BTW: I don't think it's incorrectly titled; it's just not notable enough for Google to find it. The blog page is titled "T3h 1337 5t1x" and subtitled " Welcome to 1337 ST1X". Author himself is inconsistent. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 23:16Z
  • I found the site, on Blogspot, by searching yahoo. The strips are illegible, though, and the whole thing really hasn't gotten off the ground. So, delete as nn.Bjones 00:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per author's remark on the page. Flowerparty■ 00:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More of a blog than a webcomic, but not notable in any case. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Renata -- Krash 16:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everybody, fails WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 17:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • deleteper author's decision. This article will be immediately deleted. Accidentally failed to notice sandbox mode. Title spelling is correct (jargon, "leet"), and Google hits are confirmed. Bjones, click on the thumbnails of the comics to enlarge them. --krispymann25 11:28, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 13:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Projects for new highrises in Lima[edit]

  • Non-encyclopedic gallery of probably copyrighted images. Rmhermen 18:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete User:CyclePat made a nice gallery of motorcycle trikes over at Commons, perhaps he'll do the same with these. JzG 18:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trans-wikify: <inquisitive look> hum... <pause> Yup! Send to the commons. Architecture? Buildings? Dunno what category... but I'll try and figure something out. Thank You JzG. This is a good example of you using the people you know to try and keep wikipedia running smoothly and with a lot less deletions. I'm impressed. Score yourself 1 brownie point! --CyclePat 01:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I however am questioning the authenticity of the photo's and whether this is trully the author and whether he has authorization to release these photos. However, I'll see what I can do. Give me the weekend. --CyclePat 01:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete page. Send verifiable images where they belong. -- Krash 16:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a gallery of image files. I am quite suspicious as to whether the author has the authority to release the photos under the GFDL, but there is nothing we can do about that until WP gets a takedown notice. Unless of course the gallery is deleted, in which case the images become speedyable. :) Stifle 01:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- lets see this one go the way of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lima at night from same user. Staecker 00:31, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 13:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/6/46: CLEVELAND BROWNS 44, Miami Seahawks 0 and 9/8/46: Brooklyn Dodgers 27, BUFFALO BISONS 14[edit]

Neither game is particularly notable, except that they are just a couple of the very few games put on by the short-lived All-America Football Conference. They were originally linked from All-America Football Conference Scores but now are orphaned. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-America Football Conference Scores. --Wrathchild (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Important games from short-lived AAFC. Other article should have been kept too. -- JJay 02:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- Jaranda wat's sup 03:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Very strong Delete 2 non-notable football games, do we need articles on every game that ever existed? --Jaranda wat's sup 03:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just regular-season games. If they were championship games, then they might be notable enough. -- Grev 13:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jaranda. -- Krash 16:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. Awful title. -R. fiend 22:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, off you go. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Stifle 01:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pro football games, not indiscriminate information. Kappa 22:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn Incognito 00:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dommoni_RoundTable_Collaboration_Environment[edit]

Delete - Does not meet Corporate Notability requirements (WP:CORP) Batsonjay 18:38, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central_Desktop[edit]

Delete: Is not notable (see WP:CORP) Batsonjay 18:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, while his articles may be been deleted, it doesn't mean they belong here either. Mike 00:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 02:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mike. -- Krash 16:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Quarl. Stifle 01:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Adcruft, Non-notable software. Atrian 05:32, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BSCW[edit]

Delete: not notable (see WP:CORP) Batsonjay 18:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I question the good faith or neutrality of the nominator. User:Batsonjay founded a company for competing software, Plum Canary, whose articles were deleted on 2005-09-03 and 2005-09-12 (see AFD/Chirp software, AFD/Plum Canary), and has been mass-nominating competing groupware software for deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 22:44Z
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 02:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sour grapes? Maybe. But his articles don't belong here either. -- Krash 16:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say speedy keep as bad faith nomination, but it doesn't qualify. I don't see any reason to delete this, keep. Stifle 01:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MD Capital, Inc.[edit]

Privately held venture capital firm with no notability asserted. Hurricane111 18:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I contributed this because Michael Talei, the CFO of this company is a pillar in the Iranian American community and I wanted his company listed along side his name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DBegdorf (talk • contribs) .

Delete - Michael Talei might be notable, but that doesn't make his company notable. As it stands, is merely an advert. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oscarthecat (talk • contribs) .


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Talei[edit]

Only notability asserted is being a CFO of a privately owned venture capital firm (see MD Capital, Inc.) Hurricane111 18:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maude's classic cafe[edit]

Delete - advertising, no links to page Zoicon5 18:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zaplet[edit]

Delete: not notable (see WP:CORP) Batsonjay 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete can find scant evidence for this term in the real world. Uucp 20:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, veiled advertisement with the included link WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 21:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. From http://mindprod.com/jgloss/zaplet.html: These were a special sort of executable email enclosure. They did things like let you take a poll and everyone sees the latest vote tallies as a graph. You coulf make a comment, and the email automatically includes all the responses as they come in. They could be used to organise events with invitation and rsvp tracking. They could be used to share a schedule. They failed likely because executable content can always be malicious. Zaplet.com were bought out by metricstream.com which appearently has died. (emphasis mine) Merge to MetricStream would be OK but it's apparently not notable enough to have an article. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 22:03Z
  • Delete per nom, others. -- Krash 17:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Incognito 05:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Della Casa[edit]

Delete, Vanity Uucp 19:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable, vanity, as per nom. Resurrect when her books published, perhaps. --Oscarthecat 21:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, micronotable. Might change my mind if article were improved. Claims to notability: MTV documentary on her (verifiable: [33]), white house internship, playboy asked her to pose. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 22:00Z
  • Deleteper nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. -- Krash 17:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as barely notable. Stifle 01:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prey (movie)[edit]

Such a movie has not even been announced yet. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Delete. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

  • Delete It's poorly written too. Uucp 20:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom not announced not released Dakota ~ ε 20:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, possible hoax. IMDb has an entry for Prey (2006) but I don't think it's even the same one. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 21:56Z
  • Delete. On top of the reasons above, the article is completely about the book and doesn't say a word about a film. I don't think there's anything to merge into Prey (novel), which seems much better written, but I could be wrong. And no, the Prey (2006) at IMDB is not the same. ×Meegs 23:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Meegs -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Krash 17:36, 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. -- RHaworth 18:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bunny nick[edit]

Hoax. There is no senator from Florida named Bunny nick. Delete. Edgar181 19:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as non-notable club. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 22:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Davis Baseball[edit]

Unencyclopaedic article detailing a high school baseball program. No claim of notability, and no references or sources provided.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 19:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not encyclopedia material. Edgar181 19:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The program might be worth mentioning in the school's article, if there is one (though the article doesn't mention where Davis High School is). ×Meegs 19:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into the highschool's article, if it can't be found, Delete WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 21:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Tagged as {{nn-club}}. Merge would be okay but no article on HS seems to exist. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 21:53Z


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

The result of the debate was a consensus to merge and delete, but I will ignore the "delete" part of that. The materials which people contribute to Wikipedia are licensed under GFDL which makes them public domain, but the authors do need to be attributed if we use their work, and we do that by preserving a redirect with the history. This will be a plain old boring merge and redirect with Arab world. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, I'm having trouble with merging this properly since the topic is already mentioned in the Arab world article, I will put some merge tags on this and let someone more knowledgable than I am do the merger. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borders of the arab world[edit]

Currently a rather unencyclopedic, unsourced POV piece on one aspect of Arabic history. Information could easily be merged into Arab world. Merge and then delete. Lukas 19:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, can be metioned in Arab world, as suggested above. Caps-ignorant title, also. PJM 20:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge + Delete per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 21:51Z
  • Merge and delete, with emphasis on the merge. The quotes in then article are historical, verifiable and noteworthy, thus a useful contribution to an encyclopedia. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I nominated this article for deletion shortly after it was created. It has now been moved by its creator to Borders of the Arab world. However, on looking at it again, I notice now that the page has no AfD notice put up, and I can't find any evidence in the page history that there ever was one. I'm pretty sure I was trying at the time to do everything right as by "AfD nomination in three steps". If, by some oversight of mine or by some technical problem, this AfD nomination may have escaped the notice of the creator, I ask that the nomination be kept open until the author has had an opportunity to respond. Lukas 16:08, 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; merge and delete votes treated as deletes because merge and delete is an invalid action. Johnleemk | Talk 11:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Directive[edit]

The "Omega Directive" is only ever referred to once in the Star Trek universe, and that is in a Voyager episode. The article for that episode already contains most of the information on this page, so I don't believe this page is justified. Run! 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. Mo0[talk] 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ficticious Nigeria[edit]

A fictitious island from one sketch, totally non-notable. I was one millimetre away from speedying this. Punkmorten 20:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete DES (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deadstar Assembly[edit]

'Delete' I work with this band and as one day I hope they will be listed here, there is no reason for them to be included in the wikipedia at this time. Pr0gr4m 20:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidiction[edit]

Neologism Endomion 20:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Wolfe[edit]

User has created a page about himself. It was userfied, but after some discussion he has re-created in article space. While he appears to have a promising future, he may not yet have attained the notability that would justify an encyclopedia entry. -- Curps 20:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. After reading the wikipedia's guide on 'importance'; it states that it is important if the person well-known in a community. I know Nicholas Wolfe, he was Chair of the Youth Council of South Glous, and I know that many people over the World know of him due to his attendance at the Global Young Leaders Conference. This concludes that he is well-known in one, if not several, communities, hence it cannot be justifiably deleted. Wikipedia state that if one of any of the three definitions on 'importance' is fulfilled, deletion is not justified. One can't just delete it on the grounds of not knowing the person in the article or obscurity. Do NOT delete! I agree with the person below! -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.82.121 (talk • contribs) (agreeing with himself below)
  • Comment. This article is about somebody who has not only been a representative for his county but has also, and continues to, be a representative for the United Kingdom. I don't feel that it constitutes deletion merely because of the fact that he hasn't had a 'major' achievement to date. What do you define as 'major achievement'? Representing your COUNTRY at an international event isn't a 'Major Achievement'? I strongly disagree with deletion. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.82.121 (talk • contribs)
  • DELETE as nn/vanity. Google search for Nicholas Wolfe reveals 400 hits. 0 of the top 20 hit refer to this person. (Signed: J.Smith) 20:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hmmm. The latest incarnation of this article was created not by User:Nicholas Wolfe, but by one Klaus Merkel (talk · contribs), who has no other contributions. -- Curps 20:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable. Obina 21:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, might achieve significant achievement in the future, but hasn't so far. Sliggy 21:30, 13 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 21:44Z
  • Delete as per nom and Quarl. DES (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination. Ajwebb 02:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Krash 18:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Quarl. Stifle 01:08, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 11:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hosea Mays, Jr[edit]

Non-notable personage. FCYTravis 20:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notable to his family/friends, but not to anyone else. --Oscarthecat 21:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Mackensen (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan's Home Cinema[edit]

Vanity, Non notable Oscarthecat 21:13, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 11:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Mullins[edit]

Non-notable bio. Author re-instated this after it had been userfied so I am putting it up for AfD. -- RHaworth 21:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is full of knowledge about somebody i have been looking up for ages, please give ti a trial period even if it is just for 2 days

  • Delete as non-notable vanity biography. Daughter of Broadway production 'Cats' auditioni. The only claim to notability I see is participation in Eurovision. Article has lots of junk -- her ex-agent's wife is an alcoholic?. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 21:39Z
  • Delete Non-notable, violates WP:BIO. (aeropagitica) 21:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as WP:CSD A7 and G4 WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 21:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Just misses a speedy IMO. DES (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable --Xyzzyplugh 00:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Ajwebb 02:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. Customer Services Duty Manager at London Heathrow Airport!?! Can I have an article too? -- Krash 18:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Keep. She was a contestant in the Eurovision Song Contest, that's more than enough for me. Stifle 01:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definate Keep. Could the author forward some details to me, i would like her to turn on my easter lights in March Bazza
  • keep, Eurovision song contest contestant, record deal, tour of Nepal. Kappa 22:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article mentions a tour around Nepal, which does not necessarily mean that she performed there. What Nepalese venues did she play at? Otherwise non-notable bio. Atrian 05:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Jaranda wat's sup 00:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 23:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Destroy[edit]

This is just a pointless rant, but it seems like it would be wrong to speedy it. Superm401 | Talk 21:37, 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. -Doc ask? 00:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnival Liberty[edit]

Probably an important ship, but page has been up a month in the current state or worse. Delete until someone who knows the subject puts one up MNewnham 21:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's just an ad in its current form. Someone can put up a real article later, but there's no real useful content in this one. Superm401 | Talk 21:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment have tidied up the article so that at least people know what its about.....is it worth keeping? dunno..... abstain! Jcuk 00:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Information is verifiable [34] and the ship is of considerable size, ergo notable. --Hansnesse 00:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 02:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- Dsmdgold 14:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Other Carnival ships have articles (Carnival Conquest, Carnival Destiny, MS Elation, MS Paradise), though not the best articles I've ever seen. All need some sort of cleanup. -- Krash 18:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Carnival Cruise Lines without prejudice to the article being expanded on. Stifle 01:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep big ship. Kappa 22:11, 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 SPEEDIED by User:Alabamaboy as "no meaningful content" Segv11 (talk/contribs) 21:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The American Tragedy[edit]

A school term paper

  • Delete original essay. Gazpacho 21:37, 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 as stupid hoax. DS 02:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billy sparkles and the shiny boys[edit]

Vanity band article, verging on complete hoaxy gibberish. Rambles on about three (or is it four, or five?) different bands without mentioning a single track, album, gig or record company. Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:42, 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. -Doc ask? 00:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shai Twik[edit]

Not notable. 0 Google hits. May be speedyable as an attack page (see the ass grabbing comment), but I'm not sure if it is or not, since the rest of the article doesn't seem to be an attack. VegaDark 21:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Odd that the "now-legendary" Battle at the Picachoo (per the picture caption) comes up with zero non-WP hits as well. More mythical than legendary. Delete as unverified and probably vanity. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Krash 18:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable and possible hoax. Stifle 01:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (patent nonsense). howcheng {chat} 22:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia, safina[edit]

no context on what laguage is involved here. Non-encyclopedi tone. Feels like a hoax, but I'm not sure of that. No sources cited. Delete Unless proper sources are cited and context provided. Delete. DES (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Aboriginese"? This is a very thinly disguised attack article against someone called Natalia Safina, and as such should be speedy deleted in my view. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was planning to tag it for speedy-attack, and DES got there first. Delete or speedy delete. bikeable (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a very good attack on named subject of article. -- (aeropagitica)  22:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've tagged this: see also Natalia Safina. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzois[edit]

Delete Wikipedia is not a slang guide. This is unverifiable anyway Bill 22:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Dictdef, neologism, plus fails the google test -- 3 unique hits, none of which are clearly relevant to the term as defined here. DES (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Des.Obina 22:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Krash 18:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 01:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Envelope Escape[edit]

Non-notable magic trick? ComputerJoe 22:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IKarma[edit]

Reads too much like an advertisement, does not establish notability under WP:CORP. --Alan Au 22:36, 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 --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Light[edit]

Not encyclopedic. How to judge this, eh? Not really a book, not for sale on Amazon.com, article says "is available from the following location" so as a web site? Alexa is 1.3 million, but per WP:WEB what we're actually looking for is mentions in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I couldn't find any. Delete unless evidence of notability provided. brenneman(t)(c) 22:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:41, Jan. 13, 2006
  • Delete per nom. -- Krash 18:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Notability Ginar 21:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC) (sorry for all the edits, still learning)[reply]

Source here http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0973855525/qid=1137274887/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-5882960-7503910?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

and the free download is here http://www.red-ice.net/michaelsharp/index.html as found on external link by following from webpage

Also found here http://planetstarz.com/mlt/

and I found it originally here http://www.naturalmuscle.net/ (left hand side menu). This is, interestingly enough, not a traditional "new age" or spiritual magazine (so evidence for notability outside of narrowly defined group)

and last edit I promise. List of Media appearances from author blog

http://www.michaelsharp.org/blog/?page_id=12

  • Delete. Not everythign verifiable is encyclopedic. -R. fiend 22:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, but entry is arguably notable. original entry for deletion cited (nn) and verifiability as cause for deletion and evidence of notability and verifiability now provided. Is there some other valid reason for deletion that can be cited now?

I took the template for this article from [[35]] because it seems to me the two cases are comparable. Why one and not the other (honest question here, not trying to incite) Ginar 23:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Stifle 01:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- ok, admittadely I'm new at this but doesn't a counterargument need to be made here or will this be deleted "just because" and with no debate?

I believe I've read the relevant policies and it would seem to me this is not a candidate for deletion. It is verifiable, and is adhering to NPOV (and if its not it can be easily edited). It is arguably important to a "reasonable" number of people (notability) and as Jimmy_Wales points out, fame or importance are not relevant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Fame_and_importance#No (just NPOV and relevance) (i understand this is an issue of debate)


Since notability was cited as a reason to delete, and since notability can be shown, I'd like to see some specific comment on why the article remains "nn" despite evidence to the contrary.

quoting from Wikipedia:notability

Lack of notability is often designated by the phrase "non-notable" or the abbreviation "nn". Whenever using the term or its abbreviation, please explain briefly why you consider the subject to be not notable (e.g. "has written a book but it was never published

peeps, you might find this discussion relevant as well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Sharp Ginar 03:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete never mind, changed my mind after doing someother stuff. info here is better of merged with main biography. somebody else can add separate entry down the road Ginar 17:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparently self-published book (or at least not published and distributed by a mainstream press). Verifiability concerns also noted per nom. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. See also: image:Bol cover large.jpg, an image of this book's cover uploaded by Ginar, where he says: This file is released into the Public Domain by the Author and the Publisher whom I represent. --kingboyk 22:30, 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 speedily deleted as per CSD A7. --M@thwiz2020 02:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Kara[edit]

No encyclopedic value. Not a notable person, as far as I can find. Andicat 22:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mike 00:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. Flowerparty■ 00:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The term "Hacked By Yusuf KARA" returns 20,000 Google hits. Notable hacker? Punkmorten 00:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily deleted as per WP:BIO and CSD A7. --M@thwiz2020 01:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cazia style[edit]

This is apparently the architectural style that Charminar is built in, however every external reference to the style is directly obtained from, or derived from the said wikipedia article which includes the phrase 'Cazia style', thus creating a circular error. The word does not appear in an architectural context elsewhere. so I vote, Neologism, delete and fix the reference in Charminar. MNewnham 22:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no content and no context in the article. It's better to leave this thing as a redlink and wait for someone to start a real article about it. - Bobet 16:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. -- Krash 18:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. If I was more of a deletionist I would ask for a speedy as no context, but I'm happy to wait it out. Stifle 00:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable Incognito 04:19, 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 speedy delete. Punkmorten 00:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Gray[edit]

Article about nn person that doesn't attempt to justify notability. Probably just a misguided sandbox article. Request delete. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 22:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This should have been tagged as {{nn-bio}}. Now it has been. Tonywalton 22:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected. -Doc ask? 09:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wal Footrot[edit]

Wal Footrot is already mentioned and explained on Footrot Flats. JDoorjam 22:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC) AfD withdrawn; Wal Footrot redirected to Footrot Flats[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy the Dolphin[edit]

This is the second nomination for this. In the first one, there was no consensus. At least one, and probably more votes were based on the assumption there was actually a legal signficance to the ceremony. There wasn't. Also the lack of verifiable information about the bride of this dolphin is now clearer. Finally, there is a clear consensus to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Tendler, which is for essentially the same article. Rob 22:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, if someone wrote a PhD on bizarre publicity stunt weddings or human-dolphin relationships, this event would be mentioned. Kappa 22:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If somebody wrote on a tabloid story like that, they shouldn't get their Phd. --Rob 22:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It takes all sorts. It would also be good for essays on the changing attitudes of marriage. Believe it or not this is a significant event in comparison with the recent developments of gay marriage. Englishrose 22:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is unrelated to gay marriage, as gay marriages are now legal in a number of countries. Also, even unrecognized relationships between gays are at least real. That is, there are actually people who live together, and raise families together. This woman does not live with the dolphin. She visits him a couple times a year. She has no more relationship with him, than millions of kids have with the panda bear at the local zoo. This is starting to smell of POV-pushing on gay-marriage to me. --Rob 23:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is related to gay marriage because it shows that the different attitudes towards marriage. 10 years ago gay marriage would have seemed unthinkable is most parts of the world. Times are changing and people are trying to push forward different types of marriage. This is yet more evidence of change in attitudes towards marriage, whether it is legal or not. This is starting to smell of POV-pushing on gay-marriage to me. As a hetrosexual just for the record, I'm not really bothered if it seems as a POV pushing on gay marriage cause to be frank it's people's business, not mine. However, I recognise that it is significant as it shows a change in attitudes just as this article shows...sorry for repeating myself. I'd also like to point out that when gay marriage was deemed morrally wrong, people took part in similar services such as the one in this article despite them not being legal as a show of their love. I think I've made my point. Englishrose 23:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • What verifiable evidence do you have this "couple" has any relationship beyond the ceremony? There is no marriage. There was an unofficial ceremony. That's it. It means as little as two five year olds pretending to marry. If you want to argue that this has something in common with gay marriage, you have to show this "couple" has something in common with gay married couples or any married couples. Where is your verifiable evidence? This is just an attempt by anti-gay groups to attack gay people, by equating them with beastiality. You know as well as I, that nobody involved, in this actually supports "relations" between humans and dolphins. --Rob 23:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please assume good faith. It’s not an attack on gay marriage, it’s not even a pro-freedom article. Although to be honest if someone falls in “love” with a dolphin then it’s not a bad thing, I feel that any type of “love” is a positve thing. As I’ve said before, I’m not against but I’m not really for it. I’m too laid back to have a strong opinion on Dolphin marriage, although I can’t see why it offended some people in the previous AFD discussion. It was linked to gay marriage from people such as Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly. [36]. Maybe they’d read my comments on the previous AFD discussion but I doubt it. What verifiable evidence do you have this "couple" has any relationship beyond the ceremony? I’m pretty sure that there is a relationship beyond the ceremony based on the fact that she is reported to be “infated” on the dolphin but based on the fact that she has visited the Dolphin and she has been visiting it for 15 years. [37]. So I think the evidence although journalistic shows that there is apparently a relationship between the woman and dolhpin, thus I believe that this relationship has gone on past the cermony. I don’t think it’s impossible for people to fall in love with a dolphin, although a little strange. Englishrose 23:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Kappa but I'd also like to add that this article recieved widespread publicity. It was broadcasted on major Worldwide news stations such as BBC news and NBC news etc etc and made most of the tabloids in Britain. Englishrose 22:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if it wasnt deleted last time, I see no reason for it to be this time. Jcuk 23:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, essentially the same article, under a different name, was deleted last time. There have been two AFDs, on this topic. The first was "no consensus" (one voter has said they would change their vote if done again). The second AFD result was consensus to delete. --Rob 23:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • notwithstanding your comment about Sharon Tendler, Cindy the Dolphin was not deleted. Therefor on the basis that THIS article was not deleted last time it was AfD, regardless of what happened to related but seperate articles, my vote stands. Jcuk 23:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm sure I voted to keep this a few days ago, and as far as I could tell it had nothing to do with the legality of the ceremony but, from my point of view, the fact that the affair made world headlines. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Great story that deserves inclusion here. -- JJay 02:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just cos it made the "weird news" headlines for a day or so doesn't make it notable. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This made more than just "weird news" headlines, I actually saw it on my local news, and I live in Maryland, USA. At least for a day I think every news establishment was running something on this, so it is notable. Cyde Weys votetalk 18:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn newsbrite -- Krash 18:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ephemeral story with no legal basis. Insignificant. Sliggy 21:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason to change my previous vote, someone obviously doesn't like this article =P --RBlowes 23:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentIn fairness the marriage isn't legal, thus there could be a reason to change ur vote but it is notable. And please, please stop following me;-). Englishrose 23:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reprisal Yes but I chose not to, and it's not my fault you keep sticking your nose into every topic I decide to vote in. =p --RBlowes 00:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WikiTabloid Delete this severely unencyclopedic page. Stifle 00:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Stupid publicity stunts aren't generally encyclopedic, and the fatuous argument linking it to the issue of same-sex marriages pushes me right over the brink into voting delete. --Calton | Talk 04:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.  Grue  15:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly an odd story, but I think the likelihood of this being useful at some point in the future is reasonably high. -Colin Kimbrell 04:56, 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; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-kinesis[edit]

Very silly, just a list of words that were invented without any popularity considered. Bleedstupid 22:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Bleedstupid 23:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. Several of these words are important, particularly in biochemistry, and the -kinesis suffix is an interesting one. I agree about deleted the superhero words, though. I may try to do so later this evening. bikeable (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That works... I'm just concerned with the silly terms. Popular bio-chem terms are fine of course. The only terms that seem worth keeping are Psychokinesis, Pyrokinesis, and Cytokinesis. Bleedstupid 23:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just reorganized the article, putting the three commonly used terms at top, and all the rest down below. It's just an idea of a way to organize it so it's useful. I would be very comfortable with many of the less common terms (e.g., hypnokinesis, chlorokinesis) being deleted from the list. (whoops, I forgot to sign: bikeable (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep These words are not "invented" at all, but are rather heavily used in the (admittedly highly nonsensical) worlds of paranormal research and science fiction literature. The point is, these are linguistically legitmate uses of the suffix itself, regardless of whether the abilities are real or "silly" in their fictitious or paranormal nature. I see no point in deletion, as these articles will simply spring up as stubs elsewhere, and the -kinesis suffix does deserve an article.--172.154.18.45 00:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are not used ANYWHERE in paranormal research (with the exception of PK). They are not presented as ficticious words in the article that originate from science fiction literature - they are presented as legitimate scientific words used in research (which they aren't). Even then, find a popular science fiction book that uses the term "umbrakinesis". It's just plain silly. Bleedstupid 00:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Simple googling of selected "fictional" terms brings up arrays of conspiracy theorist websites and books expounding on aliens, psychic phenomena the paranormal, and some sort of alleged Unified Field Theory, not to mention various cults. Your issue seems to be one of skepticism, which is entirely understandable, but like it or not, there are message boards dedicated to supposed practitioners of everything from umbrakinesis to faith healers. James Randi would have a field day.--172.154.18.45 00:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then I challenge you to google the terms in the article and see if you get the same results. These terms should not be grouped in the same category you describe. These terms are not popular IN ANY FIELD. Bleedstupid 00:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure what you're proposing. Do you want these to be trasferred to the wikidictionary? Drawing a paralell to other suffix pages, Optophobia — Fear of opening one's eyes, a real but disused term for the highly rare "fear of opening ones eyes," only gathers 657 odd hits on google, and yet is present on the -phobia page. Chronokinesis gets 667 hits, mostly from psychic websites that assume the phenomenon is real. I'm still not sure what we're debating. It's clear that people use these terms as though they were real, no matter how odd or outre. Like the -phobia page, rarity in reality does not preclude or otherwise disprove linguistic legitimacy in the descriptive abstract. --172.154.18.45 01:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Searches in Google:
    • Aerokinesis: 4000 results
    • Atmokinesis: 611 results
    • Audiokinesis: 2930 results (most aren't related to the defintion in this article)
    • Biokinesis: 547 results
    • Chlorokinesis: 4 results (wikipedia only)
    • Chronokinesis: 664 results
    • Cryokinesis: 731 results
    • Echokinesis: 784 results
    • Electrokinesis: 9860 results
    • Gravitokinesis: 42 results
    • Hydrokinesis: 2300 results
    • Hypnokinesis: 19 results
    • Magnetokinesis: 438 results (wikipedia as top hit)
    • Photokinesis: 768 results (unrelated to definition)
    • Terrakinesis: 1410 results (wikipedia as top hit)
    • Thermokinesis: 277 results
    • Umbrakinesis: 137 results
    • Vitakinesis: 843 results
  • Compare these results to Psychokinesis (the scientifically accepted term), 226000 results. I'm suggesting that this page be deleted because it's silly. No, I do not think they should be transferred. Bleedstupid 01:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikitionary. Durova 01:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • quote from Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion - "Attested" means verified through 1. Clearly widespread use, 2. Usage in a well-known work, 3. Appearance in a refereed academic journal, or 4. Usage in permanently-recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.

    These terms don't fit under those guidelines... although I would rather that debate be over there about that instead of on wikipedia. Bleedstupid 01:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Silly" is throwing me off. Is it that neologistic terminology grates? In this case you've got a legitimate complaint regarding some questionable entries, but, as I learned, even chronokinesis has its real world proponents and seems entitled to it's terminology. Simply remove those that are purely neologistic (ex: chlorokinesis) and let those that have their claimant flesh-and-blood "practictioners" be. I point again to those rare and exotic phobias (which may not appear in medical journals at all) as an indicator of popularity and legitimacy not necessarily being mutually exclusive. --172.154.18.45 01:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, neologism sounds exactly like what it is. I didn't know the term you guys used. There are no sources for those terms outside of the sites on the internet (and even then, the terms are VERY sparse: please reconsider and compare the results against the results for Psychokinesis). They are not published in ANY medium. I research psychic phenomenon, and it urks me to see these neologistic terms grouped together with scientific terms. Bleedstupid 02:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Partitioning for easy editing) But here comes the crux of the debate. When does the ever-changing landscape of psychic and occult terminology stop being neologistic? Some that may have started out that way now have their small corners of legitimized usage in internet communities of claimants. Does usage by a claimant to a psychic ability grant legitimacy? Or is the usage itself indicative of false claims? Should another criterion be used, if at all? It seems to be the malleable properties of language itself that underlie this issue. --172.154.18.45 02:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that is the main point of debate. If we look at terms used in parapsychology, it is MOSTLY uniform. I propose we stick to terms that have been around for years, didn't originate on the internet, and have been published by multiple parapsychologists. This would eliminate 95% of the terms on that page. Bleedstupid 02:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then maybe templated requests for expert opinions are needed here, perhaps even the creation of a "Psychokinetic Abilities in Fiction/Fictional Psychokinetic Abilities" article, which would fall squarly within guidelines and connect with a category here on wikipedia. There are plently of legit articles revolving around fictional tropes as literary institutions, and such an article, linked as a related "See Also" might finally differentiate between discussion as a psychic phenomenon and popular fictional trope.
        • I could care less about where the terms go (whether they're deleted or re-labelled and re-defined), as long as they aren't presented as legit scientific terms that define psychic abilities. If they are presented as fictional, then that's fine. It's the association with science and parapsychology that bothers me. Bleedstupid 02:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But that's the issue. If the diction needs to be changed, re-labelled or redifined, or if disclaimers need be provided, it can be requested or even done by you. Your problems with this page could be solved with something more specific than deletion entire, just make your needs clear. Remember, ideally, this is a page for instances where -kinesis is used as a linguistic suffix, nothing more or less. That in itself is a very broad category, so there must be something that can be done here without taking away from that particular purpose. --172.134.253.16 03:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think we need to seriously consider what qualifies a word on that page... the DC Comics which are sited a lot never use those terms, i.e., they never say "Magneto, with the power of Magnetokinesis". So why have the terms? What is stopping people from creating a term based on any random comic? For example, Powderedtoastkinesis for the popular Powdered Toast Man in Ren and Stimpy. Do you not agree that it's silly to just randomly add -kinesis to some arbitrary prefix to create a word? I propose only to add terms that is widely known that the superhero's possess. I.e., if it was CREATED by DC Comics, and used by them, then I would think that is a good qualifier if it should be added to the page with the DC Comic as the example. Bleedstupid 16:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In such a case, you may want to solicit aid from the folks at WikiProject Comics in their commons, in determining just how new or how old some of these terms are, and when they are legitimately used. This would go far in determining their verity as literary terms using the -kinesis suffix. A neologism in use for many years would have long since ceased to be so. (Just an amateur's note: ask for assistance from adherants of all publishers, it's not just a Marvel or DC world.) Also, don't forget to cite those reference sources you spoke of if you plan to put disclaimers of standard parapsychological usage versus usage by claimants, and usage in literature. (See the Manual of Style for notes) My main problem with this proposed deletion is the likelihood that this page will simply reincarnate and gradually reform to it's current status quo unless specific guidelines, disclaimers and subarticles are developed. It is part of a node dealing with linguistics, and the base article with the definition will likely be resubmitted after deletion, reopening the door to the issues you are having. It's the nature of open source. Latter EDIT: You may also want to put out a rallying cry to expert opinions on Talk:Psychokinesis and Talk:Parapsychology. Your status as a researcher of psychic phenomena may be helpful there too. --172.132.44.152 22:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary, currently just a list of words. Stifle 00:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, collection of neologisms. -Sean Curtin 08:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because it doesn't harm anything being here and is useful to fantasy and sci-fi writers searching for viable terms for the given abilities; removing it would just be pretentious -Godheval 21:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • it doesn't do any "harm"? if it falls under neologism, then it should be deleted under the guidelines of wikipedia... regardless if you perceive any "harm" from them. Bleedstupid 03:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia guidelines provide exceptions to the rule in peculiar cases. (particularly if a neologism could be verified as being widely used in certain circles) This case in particular is contentious, perhaps because the suffix itself is genuinely notable for its frequent usage in the coining of neologisms. It's rather unique in that way. Also, an article is usually only deleted entirely if it is named for a neologism, which this one isn't. --172.171.98.229 08:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologisms. Incognito 23:51, 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. Mo0[talk] 16:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jet2.net[edit]

Article does not establish notability under WP:CORP, ends up sounding a lot like spam. --Alan Au 22:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not notable, per nom. BTW I am Canadian!!! Mike 00:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "Not notable, per nom" is not currently a criterion for speedy deletion. Please clarify which of the criteria you think it meets, or adjust your vote. Stifle 00:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator's Rebuttal — I highly doubt it's spam, since i referenced my work and have used it, AND MNSi as my ISPs in the past. I feel it should be kept, for the reason of it being a legitimate canadian company. I now feel this is another sad case of people wanting me to leave wikipedia by pressuring me (through deleting every topic i make or add to). Do i sense a bit of anti-canadian sentiment? Raccoon Fox 23:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • the views of the ringtail:

i just thought if other ISPs were listed, why not add three that are in my city? they're also served by a huge amount of people in Windsor, Essex County, and surrounding areas.

they may not be important to someone in say... San Antonio or england, but they might be of interest to anyone on wikipedia, even from the windsor area, Especially if one is moving to the area and wanted to find out what ISPs are in windsor....i'm just trying to share information with others in a productive manner.


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Cat[edit]

This is a Something Awful Forums fad that has not spread beyond the forums.


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Du[edit]

fairly obvious hoax -- no relevant google hits. Just barely not an A7 nn-bio speedy. Delete. DES (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is practically db-attack material. (aeropagitica) 23:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • William Du is a real contest winner. Within a week I will be able to provide sources that prove he is an actual champion of long distance competition eating. The problem is that the contest which he eats within is colloquial, and not mainstream, however within this week I will provide sources for this sport and an entry for the contest. -Many Thanks Terry Arif — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techno666 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 13 January 2006
  • Delete unless verification arrives within 5 days. Durova 00:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Durova. It is vanity. --Terence Ong 08:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, et alii -- Krash 18:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as currently unverifiable among other things. Stifle 00:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. *drew 07:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crap. Incognito 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 DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MNSi[edit]

Articles doesn't establish notability under WP:CORP and ends up sounding like an advertisement. --Alan Au 23:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Not notable, per nom. BTW I am Canadian!!! Mike 00:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article has little/no meaningful content. Mike 01:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Not notable, per nom." is not currently a criterion for speedy deletion. Please clarify to indicate which of these criteria you feel the page meets, or revise your vote. Stifle 00:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator's Rebuttal — I highly doubt it's spam, since i referenced my work and have used it, AND Jet2.net as my ISPs in the past. I feel it should be kept, for the reason of it being a legitimate canadian company. Raccoon Fox 23:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no references, external links etc. Mike 04:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Krash 18:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I removed the advertisingish language, but don't know enough about the company to judge its notability. - Jaysus Chris 19:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, for the moment. Stifle 00:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of not improved or varified - • Dussst • T | C 19:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added some information about the company using its website. I now think it is a lot more productive than many stubs that aren't up for deletion - • Dussst • T | C 16:01, 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 transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 14:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion of Dale-Gudbrand[edit]

Looks like it's an excerpt from a text, not an article. Maybe move it to Wikisource if the text isn't under copyright? Hbackman 23:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki per nominator. Tonywalton 23:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check copyright status, then transwiki to Wikisource and delete from WP. Stifle 00:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buck Twenty[edit]

dicdef at best, neologism and/or unverifiable OR at worst (unless someone provides some context and verifiable sources, in which case it just becomes a dicdef). Tonywalton  | Talk 23:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As author of this article, deletion is probably warranted at this time ... I intended to expand upon this article, but unfortunately lack the time. I have also looked for information on this word / phrase through the internet and have found no sources ... however, this is slang that is used frequently in my work place.


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Soares[edit]

Nothing listed at IMDB for this actor, independent film maker, artist, writer, director and martial artist from Hughson, California. I suspect a vanity article. -- Longhair 23:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Longhair 23:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree, looks like a vanity page. Google doesn't come up with anything substantial that seems to be related to this John Soares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbackman (talk • contribs) -- Longhair 00:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vainglorious vanity. JuanOso 00:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 08:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn -- Krash 18:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity page. Stifle 00:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nubmuffin[edit]

Neologism, few googles that don't fit description, no sources, didn't seem a speedy Dakota ~ ε 00:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom, neologism very few googles that didn't give the same definition.--Dakota ~ ε 00:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 06:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable neologism -- Krash 18:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as unverified neologism. Stifle 00:45, 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 speedied. r3m0t talk 00:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Clark Renteria[edit]

Delete. Seems to be a vanity page. Hbackman 00:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Bourget[edit]

Appears to be a vanity page. Already put up for speedy deletion once. Hbackman 00:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vanity. Durova 01:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Vanity --Dysepsion 04:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. --Terence Ong 06:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • His career took a significant turn in 1994 when he joined Alcoa in the business development dept!!! Lucky guy. Delete -- Krash 19:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. -R. fiend 22:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't know if it's speediable, though. Certainly a vanity bio. Stifle 00:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_13&oldid=1116878918"