Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 15 January 17 >

Purge server cache

January 16[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 redirect to Three men make a tiger. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three people, turn tiger[edit]

The information is already incorporated in the Chinese proverbs article Confuzor 00:30, 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 Babajobu 21:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Tatham[edit]

Delete Unsure why this merits inclusion. Efforts of spare time / student "free software" programmers aren't usually significant. Wikipedia is not intended to be infinite. Deiz 00:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete only supporting information is his personal website and blog. Durova 00:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Fair number of hits on this search and this one from a broad selection of sources. Seems to be fairly well known in the industry. TigerShark 01:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Reporting Bugs Effectively" article does seem to be fairly well known but was written in 1999. Also, those 2 searches are identical. Deiz 01:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for pointing that out, copied the same search link twice, now corrected. Cheers TigerShark 01:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Programmers are a dime a dozen. -R. fiend 04:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Smerge to Putty (it already mentions him). Trans-intarweb to advogato. Not convinced that the essay makes him notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 05:00Z
  • Delete per above Eusebeus 07:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per R. fiend--Ezeu 15:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (no objection to a redirect/merge with Putty). Putty - famous and notable. Simon Tatham - never heard of him. --kingboyk 21:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless there are evidence that the article "Reporting Bugs Effectively" is widely considered as essential reading, the article should be deleted for non-notable.--Hurricane111 15:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - minor but marginally notable. If not, merge and redirect to PuTTY - David Gerard 16:22, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla: The Animated Series[edit]

No useful content TigerShark 00:54, 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. nn comic book Madchester 03:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dust (michael battaglia)[edit]

Apparent vanity article about a non-notable comic book

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aya Medel[edit]

Unencyclopedic article about a realitively non-notable porn star. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 01:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per own nomination, contains no useful content. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 01:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Shinmawa 02:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wish all those porn flicks didn't make her ineligible for speedy deletion Segv11 (talk/contribs) 02:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable biography. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 05:04Z
  • Strong Keep. Don't people check this stuff before nominating and voting? She had a featured role in a film reviewed by the New York Times [1] and treated seriously by other critics [2] . Monicasdude 15:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The New York Times link above is not to a published review, but to the Times' website, which includes a list of just about every movie ever made, along with a two sentence summary ("trashy melodrama") taken from the All Movie Guide. If appearing in a movie listed on the Times' website or the All Movie Guide is notable, then essentially everyone who has ever appeared in a released film is notable.--MayerG 20:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the review being from the Times website/AMG rather than the Times itself; I didn't catch that. But the actress has an extensive IMDB entry and a featured role in a film shown at the notable Vancouver International Film Festival. Why isn't that enough? Monicasdude 21:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although she is as notable as the myriad of other non-notable porn stars on Wikipedia, the article is just a bad listing of her non-notable films. Or redirect to the Phillipine Wikipedia (is there one?) -Nv8200p talk 21:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see why a not so notable porn star has to appear here, and the films are non notable. --Terence Ong 13:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 05:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DGen/SDL[edit]

Nonnotable project for a Sega/Genesis emulator. No coverage. No incoming links. Submitted by author and neglected since September 2005 --Perfecto 01:08, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 05:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros. Revolution Characters[edit]

Speculative list of characters in an upcoming video game. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Randwicked Alex B 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per crystal ball, WP:NOT. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 01:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Pboyd04 02:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vapourware gamecruft, also as Yoda would say "crystal balls WIkipedia is not". Segv11 (talk/contribs) 02:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above, WP:NOT a crystal ball --Lightdarkness 04:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crystalballismcruft. Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 05:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable unencyclopedic original research crystal ball. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 05:36Z
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark 07:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:V since it's pure speculation at this point. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Speculation. Deathawk 20:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Mushroom 11:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a crystall ball so foggy that even most of the hoaxsters who failed the James Randi challenge would laugh it out. I mean, look at that list. If one's to write a speculative article (not saying that would be at all advisable in the first place, mind you), at least compile them from some actual guestimative polls or something and not try the "hey, Golden Sun ruled, bet half of those characters appear here" from-top-of-author's-mind approach. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:39, 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 06:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis Plus[edit]

Nonnotable Sega Genesis emulator. No incoming wikilinks. No media coverage. Homepages of authors has no alexa data. Neglected submission since October.-- Perfecto 01:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroom 11:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons above, as well as the fact that the Dreamcast port is the most advanced Sega Genesis emulator for that system, and definately makes the emulator notable. Also, the Dreamcast version of Genesis Plus has been covered in several gaming magazines, such as Retrogamer.
MetaFox 11:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because there's a new version coming (WIP since 2003!), featuring the most outstanding GUI for any emulator ever and an incredible amount of features and options. Also I was about to contribute some info as soon I'll have a free minute =P Last but not least, this emu uses a unique way to draw the graphics. The software rendering has been completly rewritten for the Dreamcast's PowerVR2 hardware. You can see the result in the 2004 demo release called 'GenesisPlusDC PVR Preview Version 3'.
DCEvoCE 18:06, 18 January 2006 (CET)
  • Abstain I abstain --Roofus 23:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep for the reasons above, article now has several incoming links, and there is no real reason to delete it. Alphax τεχ 05:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as non-notable bio article. —Cleared as filed. 03:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris "Bones" Schulte[edit]

Delete - Blatant vanity. Dbtfz 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Userfied but didn't delete. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 01:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment May also be copyvio, see here. TigerShark 01:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hilarious vanity article. Get a blog. Deiz 01:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:CSD A7. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 02:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete tagged {{nn-bio}}. As a dead give-away, it's written in the first person. That should almost be a CSD in its own right. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 02:48, 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 05:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SnesDS[edit]

Nonnotable Nintendo DS emulator. No media coverage. Nn alexa rank. Neglected submission by IP since July.-- Perfecto 01:26, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 05:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DarkMateria[edit]

Non-notable musician who fails WP:MUSIC. One of his songs became a short-lived Internet fad, which resulted in a no consensus keep six months ago. Article has not been expanded or touched since, and there is apparently nothing verifiably encyclopedic to say about him. He gets all of 973 Google hits - I expect a notable Internet phenomenon to display far more interest. FCYTravis 01:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as {{nn-band}}. Alternately, redirect to His Dark Materials  :) Segv11 (talk/contribs) 03:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 03:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 05:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari 05:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I removed the speedy tag since the article did undergo AfD some time ago. Nonetheless, this seems to have been just an Internet fad that came and went pretty quickly. howcheng {chat} 17:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. I was the nominator in the last AfD and the article hasn't changed in all these months. Sarg 18:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Incognito 05:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the song is awful, but everyone heard it so it must be notable.  Grue  16:51, 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 no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 05:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Body Soul & Spirit Expo[edit]

Does not appear to be important. It is a regional expo. JamesTeterenko 01:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. An expo which runs in several large cities. Room to improvement. Cnwb 04:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, if information is added about why it is notable, such as the number of visitors, famous speakers and number of visitors, I may change my mind. -- Kjkolb 09:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My feeling, when it was first created, was that it was just an advert for a local expo (whatever that is). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep...Keep for now, I think the event has merit, and that it has spread to a number of canadian cities makes it worthy here, but article needs more content to merit long-term Wiki-worthiness. also, suggest changing title of article to The Body Soul & Spirit Expo, Canada or something similar.Phantasmo 20:45, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 05:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McQuillan and Group Flight[edit]

Despite claims to notability, I have to wonder. Just searching for "Andrew McQuillan" doesn't turn this guy up in the first page of Google hits (of which there are only 600+ for all of the people in the world with that name). If you do a search for "Andrew McQuillan" "World Flight", you get three hits. The first is for http://flightsims.co.uk/news/news.php?id=274, which appears to be a simulation game? User:Zoe|(talk) 01:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable TigerShark 01:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the whole thing is a simulation game, yes? From what I gather from the two articles, they raise money by simulating a real-time flight around the world. So based on this, I don't see anything odd about the link [3] you provided. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 01:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wait until he's done something more noteworthy. Eurosong 02:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All points considered, this page should not exist. I say delete.
  • OK delete mine but dont delete Group Flight. I think it is unfair to delete details of an organisation raising money for charity. We raise vital funds for UK and European Childrens Charities. Andrew McQuillan
  • Delete but being a nice about it as possible. Not deleting because I cannot imagine who would sit in an airbus for three days willingly, rather than just handing over the cash, but because it's not notable. As always, willing to change my mind if new evidence appears. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 05:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Buffyverse articles[edit]

List is redundant classification of Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Category:Buffyverse, page title is self-referential. Dave 01:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Buffyverse' is very different to 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer'.Only place offering comprehensive but unified coverage of links to both Buffy and Angel articles, and all other Buffyverse related articles on one page. 'Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer' by its very definition explicitly separates it from Angel articles, from Fray articles, as well as from other stories revolving arond slayers and vampires from the same fictional universe. The link 'Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer' is incapable and inadequate just from its very title of such scope, if the categories do begin to take the whole Buffyverse as one, there is a case for deleting List of Buffyverse articles. If it is deleted before then, then a perfectly useful navigation tool for people who are fans of the whole Buffyverse is going to bite the dust. -- Paxomen 01:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize. Something like this is more applicable to a "Buffyverse" category, and that makes it easy to keep updated since every time someone creates a related article they just add the category. And the BTVS category can become a subcategory if people prefer.. 23skidoo 01:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The Category:Buffyverse already exists, and Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer is already a subcategory. Dave 01:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The Category:Buffyverse is more than inadequate it only contains half a dozen direct links! why not delete this article only when 'Category:Buffyverse' is up to the task of navigating the whole buffyverse quickly. At the moment there is no substitute for what this article is capable of. -- Paxomen 02:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact when Category:Buffyverse has improved enough to incorporate all the main articles viewable from its first page, I would happily delete the article myself even though i created this, but until then why delete useful content? -- Paxomen 02:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the articles I looked at in the list are either included in the Buffyverse category, or in one of its sub-categories (Buffyverse stubs, Angel (series), Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters), or in one of their subcategores (which I will not list here). Several articles only required the addition of a "[[Category:Buffyverse]]" (or whichever subcategory is more relevant) tag to the end of the article (In fact I did a few of these myself and tripled the Buffyverse category's contents). Once these have been categorised, we are left with a long list of links, and Wikipedia is not meant to contain long lists of external links. So those interested in the Buffy fictional universe, go forth and categorise! -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 02:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this should be a bloody category. Just because your categories are a mess is not an excuse to make listcruft Segv11 (talk/contribs) 02:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Segv11 (talk/contribs) 02:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and let the originator of this article sort everything into the appropriate categories. Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 05:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a self-reference. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The appeal of categories is that unlike lists, they update themselves automatically, and that one can use them to quickly find related articles. However, categories are not a substitute for lists, and you will find that many articles belong to both lists and categories. = Quote from Wikipedia:Categorization#How to create categories -- Paxomen 18:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Flowerparty■ 00:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I like Josh Whedon as much as the next guy but I don't see the encyclopedic nature of this much Buffystuff. Also it should be done with categories anyway, IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 01:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I love Whedon; I have all of Buffy, all of Angel, and Serenity on dvd. This is still listcruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Just an unimformative list that does nothing for the reader. Its also filled with sickening spam to boot. Hell, Speedy delete it if possible. -ZeroTalk 15:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete list and Categorize for reasons described by some earlier voters. Buffy fans, please remember that Wikipedia is not one of your fansites. It's for encyclopedic coverage of things that the rest of the world has found notable; see also WP:FICT and WP:WEB. Barno 21:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (the above comment was moved from the redirect page where it went astray.. User:Barno replaced it below with an elaboration, so maybe it's deletable but I leave it to him.++Lar: t/c 22:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete list and Categorize for reasons described by some earlier voters. Buffy fans, please remember that Wikipedia is not one of your fansites. It's for encyclopedic coverage of things that the rest of the world has found notable; see also WP:FICT and WP:WEB. A lot of that should be moved to a fansite, then merged down to a few articles. Whedon's work has excited a few hundred people and made viewers out of a few million people; it hasn't changed the world. In a hundred years, will this stuff be put up against Shakespeare or Hitchcock as a milestone in drama? Barno 22:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't the place to debate the cultural value of Buffy. It's a place to debate the encyclopedic value of the nominated article. Dave 00:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I was implying was not debating the general topic's "cultural value", but the cultural importance, which affects whether WP should give it one brief article, or three, or dozens. This is a matter of amount of encyclopedic value. If a few fansites pop up for three children's TV shows and a movie from one producer, does that mean that WP should devote megabytes of disk space and many hours of contributors' time to it? And I asked the question (in terms of widespread impact) rather than denigrating the content by claiming it's not worthy. If a hundred million people bought Buffy toys and a great Buffy-Art movement was inspired, then we probably should have such deep and broad coverage as this list implies. If not, we probably shouldn't. Barno 14:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari 22:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft Incognito 00:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. The delete votes refer to the current content, so a redirect serves the purpose of getting rid of that content, and is also useful as per the latest votes. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badass[edit]

POV unsourced original research essay, all of which are what Wikipedia is not. Nothing to transwiki, it's already at Wiktionary. FCYTravis 01:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds bad Delete please --JanetMokeson 01:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Anti-Wikipedian. - ElAmericano | talk 02:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All that and a dicdef too. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dictdef Segv11 (talk/contribs) 02:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Dbtfz 03:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to a list of slang terms or something. Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 05:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 05:40Z
  • Delete per everyone --Qirex 07:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark 07:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Derisive Snort) Delete per nom. Grandmasterka 11:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Potentially offensive. SycthosTalk 22:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. Incognito 03:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to redirect to BAADASSSSS!, the film of a similar name, as people might search for the film by entering Badass. (And get rid of current content!) CLW 11:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect a lot of users may be searching for that term, or failing that, for a movie.  Grue  16:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to movie title BAADASSSSS!, which is nigh-impossible to spell correctly. Babcockd 17:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. enochlau (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Asian Games[edit]

Delete. Ridiculous. Nothing there except the template box. Might also want to consider merging/and or deleting specific Games. WriterFromAfar755 01:30, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 05:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ensemble La Fenice[edit]

Does not look notable, Delete? Janet

  • Keep and expand. They are a notable baroque ensemble, with many recordings. But this article is useless. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 03:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There need to be more classical music ensembles on Wikipedia. This particular ensemble certainly seem notable. Cnwb 04:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Your criteria seem a bit narrow, Janet. Perhaps you should try getting a bit more experience before nominating too many more articles for deletion? James James 05:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Please do a quick search on google to check notablity before nominating for deletion. Englishrose 08:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there seems to be more than one group with this name. Which one it is should be determined and more information about them should be given. We are not told if they have one any awards or performed any concerts, and only a single CD is mentioned. -- Kjkolb 09:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and expand please it is notable really Yuckfoo 00:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 05:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Valls[edit]

Does not look notable Delete? Janet --JanetMokeson 01:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - seems to be a reasonably notable political dissident. Fair number of web hits. Dbtfz 03:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable Cuban dissident. Cnwb 04:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please do a quick search on google to check notablity before nominating for deletion. Englishrose 09:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above comments. --Alf melmac 20:25, 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 05:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soundcircuit[edit]

Delete. Non-notable website, low Alexa ranking, possible vanity. Brendan 01:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree with the possible vanity, also "list of users and traits" is completely random, useless, unverifiable rubbish. Anyone who wants to know about this is already a member. Deiz 02:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB -- ShinmaWa(talk) 02:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Informational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.51.203 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has less than 5 edits -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. -- Vary | Talk 03:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While seeming like an obvious waste of time and non-sensical addition to the site it's very informative on one of the more popular hip hop message boards out there. Since its formation is has 2479158 posts and 81441 total threads and almost 10,000 people who are logged onto the site. Someone has obviously took advantage of adding things that are superfluous but it's still worth it to have a note on this website and its message board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.162.19.91 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has never edited before -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has never edited before -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Deiz. Themusicking 19:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep dis junk. Value pack up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.87.144.67 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep One of the most well known message boards in the world, Soundcircuit is the barometer for what is raunchy and disturbing in all internet fashion. Consider this site the virtual Howard Stern of the net. The many characters and attractions to the site keep the public entertained at the speed of Jack Bauer. Ignoring its impact on society would be a grave mistake, one you may regret with your very lives...EGO 10:35, 16 January 2006 (CTU)
This account is less than 2 days old-- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has never edited before -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opinion hasn't changed after rework and dubious unsigned opinions, vote remains as above. Deiz 23:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete As per criteria for speedy deletion of articles points 6 & 7. --CopperMurdoch 05:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Else delete per nom, Deiz and WP:WEB. Zunaid 08:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can't see this meets CSD A7, since notability was asserted and is asserted above, A6 was valid but since there is an assertion of notability I have instead removed the attacks - which leaves, er, the name :-) Something tells me the closing admin is going to give lower than usual weight to some of the above comments. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. I'm with JzG on this one, too. RasputinAXP talk contribs 12:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedy as A1 no context if possible, slowly otherwise. Stifle 20:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 05:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle mechanic[edit]

Dictionary definition Tom Harrison Talk 01:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per dictionary definition Deiz 02:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dictdef Segv11 (talk/contribs) 03:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. Seems similar to auto mechanic; if that article is valid, maybe this should be kept and expanded etc. Emphasis on the "if". --Qirex 07:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. i love da butt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.5 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, as it has potential for expansion. Information to be added could include skills, training, common repair work and such. -- Kjkolb 12:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Legitimate topic. Clear potential for expansion into a full article. Could mention reference works (e.g. Barnett's Manual is four volumes). Suppliers (Park Tool Company). Schools (UBI in Portland), etc. etc. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and please expand the topic is important Yuckfoo 01:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a real, non-obscure profession. Seems like enough to merit an article. --Thunk 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid, if esoteric. Youngamerican 05:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've tossed in some things to bulk it up and make it more than a dictionary definition. I've also asked the folks in the Bicycle Mechanics forum of bikeforums.net to take a look, and I hope some of them will accept my invitation to Be Bold and edit the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after Dpbsmith's expansion and documentation today. Article is now much more than a dicdef or restating the obvious. Agree with invitation to knowledgeable people from Bikeforums. Barno 22:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Mary Poppins would say the Keep the Super-Califragilistic aspi aligotios extra strong, Keep!!! : And I think the nominator should be forced to add 10 hours of volunteer work to improve the article because of the bad nomination. He can start by adding [[category:bicycles]]. --CyclePat 03:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the article didn't deserve the nomination, but so what? I believe it was made in good faith, and the AfD process doesn't delete articles that should be kept (not that it's infallible). I hope your comment about "the nominator should be forced to add 10 hours of volunteer work ..." is a joke, else I could find that quite offensive. --Qirex 03:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mary poppins wonce said "In every job that must be done, there is an element of fun. You find the fun and - SNAP - the job's a game" and further more, as within Mary Popins Movie... I decided I'll do it myself. The dialogue with my fictional meandering character in my mind went something like this:
  • CyclePat: I'll do it myself.
  • Mary Poppins: Do what?
  • CyclePat: Wiki... and a bit of magic. It's easy. You think. You wink. You do a double blink. You close your eyes... And jump.
  • [Nothing happens]
  • Jane: Is something supposed to happen? [[4]].

But to answer your question. No. sorry if that offends you but I actually believe that there are many editors out there that don't know WP:DP. And yes, now that I think about it that may be bad faith. But not putting an expand stub as per WP:DP could also be considere the same. But well... Superca - Super - or whatever the infernal thing is. Of course, you can say it backwards, which is dociousaliexpilisticfragicalirupus, but that's going a bit too far, don't you think? --CyclePat 05:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the reason I dislike that particular comment ("offensive" was an exaggeration I guess) is that if people are afraid of doing anything but minor edits then we won't be getting anywhere. I'm not sure how quite to explain it but it gives off a vibe something to the opposite of the "be bold" mantra. I feel that this kind of attitude is intimidating.
I agree that many editors aren't familiar with WP:DP; when I was talking about "good faith" I meant that the nominator had good intentions of trying to help the project. By your comments I thought your opinion was that the nomination was made with bad intentions; I'm sorry, I now understand you were just saying that the nominator didn't know the guidelines, which is a fair thing to say.
I don't understand these Marry Poppins references (never seen it), in case you wonder why I don't reply to something you're saying with them. I think this is becoming a bit of a tangent to the actual afd... I hope you don't think it rude, but I suggest taking this to user space if you'd like to talk about this some more? Feel free to drop by my talk page. I mean this sincerely. --Qirex 13:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the consensus is not to delete the article, I'm fine with that. Certainly it's greatly expanded since I nominated it, and everyone who has since contributed to it deserves credit. I appreciate CyclePat's contrubution and his enthusiasm for the subject. I am not at all offended by his comment, which I take in the friendly spirit I'm sure he indended. Tom Harrison Talk 14:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IMHO it was a reasonable nomination. Nominations are an invitation to discussion. That's why we have discussions and a five-day review period. There's nothing terrible about nominating a borderline article. Nominations should not be interpreted as antipathy; nominating "bicycle mechanic" for deletion does not mean "I hate bicycle mechanics" or "I hate cyclists." Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I thought the article would be about that Monty Python sketch where everyone is superman, one superman breaks his bicycle and no one can fix it, except one superman who's in fact a bicycle mechanic, who fixes the bike and saves the day.  Grue  16:59, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ByNets[edit]

non-notable IRC network Tom Harrison Talk 01:58, 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 Babajobu 21:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

java.lang[edit]

Delete. This, and all the other articles concerning the Java standard packages, is merely a list of all included classes. This is already very well documented in Sun's javadoc and is useless. (I don't know of a single developer or layman that will use the page.) In short: It is non-encyclopedic. - ElAmericano | talk 01:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed --Hooperbloob 02:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Enough overview is included in Java 2 Platform, Standard Edition. We can't really add more without just listing classes. - ElAmericano | talk 16:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Quarl. Stifle 20:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, WP is not online documentation system. Do the same to .ref and .reflect. Pavel Vozenilek 21:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three articles cited above, or redirect them per Quarl. Important within their topic, but already properly covered, per ElAmericano. WP:NOT. Barno 22:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I doubt it will be possible to give full breadth to the java languge in one article. --TimPope 22:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Incognito 00:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all three (java.lang and .ref and .reflect). Note that I have created templates (Template:Javadoc:SE and Template:Javadoc:EE) that create links into the current version of the Java API Javadoc. The advantage of using these templates instead of pages on Wiki is that the links go to a much richer set of documentation, and when a new version of the Java SE API is released, the URL for the API docs on Wiki is changed in a single place at Template:Javadoc:SE/Home URL. If these pages are deleted, the current links to these pages should be replaced with:
    • {{Javadoc:SE|package=java.lang|java/lang}} → java.lang
    • {{Javadoc:SE|package=java.lang.ref|java/lang/ref}} → java.lang.ref
    • {{Javadoc:SE|package=java.lang.reflect|java/lang/reflect}} → java.lang.reflect
– Doug Bell talk•contrib 09:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Doug Bell that the content in java.ref about weak references et al should be merged to Garbage collection, or better yet, Weak reference. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 10:37Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eating Black Milk[edit]

Non-notable band. Less than 200 hits after filtering Wikipedia mirror sites. [5] Mikeblas 02:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz Aldrin's Race into Space[edit]

One liner about 1994 computer game. Not notable. Tom Harrison Talk 02:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete FullSmash26 02:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. -Will 02:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've fleshed it out a bit, and I think that it's now a reasonable game stub. If anything, the connection to Buzz Aldrin should make this more notable than the average game stub. -Colin Kimbrell 15:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. I withdraw my recommendation for deletion. Tom Harrison Talk 15:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Thanks for the expansion. — RJH 15:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after expansion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Now that it's expanded. Deathawk 20:48, 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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 06:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert's Hiphopketball a Jazzebration[edit]

WP:NOT This page is fictional and does not belong in Wikipedia as it does not contribute to knowledgeFullSmash26 02:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Colbert Report. FCYTravis 03:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No google hits for hiphopketball or jazzebration. TimBentley 03:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Colbert Report miscellania. Dbtfz 03:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We can't go listing every sketch he's ever done. --InShaneee 04:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Keep'" By that train of logic we should delete all the famous Monty Python sketches. Or let's start deleting Shakespeare's plays. Just because he's more modern doesn't mean his work is any less relevant than all the other greats. --rarwalker 21:06, 15 January 2006 (PST)
    • Do you have any sources to suggest this is a 'famous' sketch? --InShaneee 05:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, you are comparing this guy with Monty Python and Shakespeare? Oh, puh-lease!! Madman 05:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as worthless piece of information. And please don't create it as a redirect - nobody is going to search on this. Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 05:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep By your train of logic we should also delete Ministry of Silly Walks.--Rarwalker 05:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This user has already voted, above. Andrew Levine 09:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at the very least merge in it's entirety This is no more useless than The Fall of the Mutants. If Truthiness can be it's own article so can this.--GMEsch 05:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Not an apt analogy, as truthiness is now a major cultural phenomenon. - Reaverdrop 20:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This is User GMESCH's first edit. Andrew Levine 01:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to main article. Colbert's show is notable, as the public reaction to Truthiness shows, but individual sketches not known by 35 years of reruns, or written up by newspapers, news agencies and societies of cunning linguists probably aren't worthy of their own articles. --Fire Star 05:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per InShaneee ("We can't go listing every sketch he's ever done"). Madman 05:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to miscellania article along with works by Stephen Colbert, the persona. Frozenpork 07:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to miscellania article and Delete. Andrew Levine 09:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as appropriate and Delete TigerShark 23:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with miscellania article. Vash The Stampede 02:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with The Colbert Report. --Bachrach44 03:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and per InShaneee. Note: merge and delete are incompatible under the GFDL; any merge would have to be accompanied by a redirect to retain author attribution. Zunaid 08:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the miscellania article. While absolutely hilarious, this fake documentary has only been referenced once in the show. Merge it for now, and if it's referenced a few more times, give it its own article. It's too small to have an article at the moment. --Freakazette 21:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I now agree it should be merged with The Colbert Report or other similar article unless like Freakazette says it is utilized many times.--Rarwalker 23:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. It is not notable to be merged into The Colbert Report miscellania because it has only appeared once. --waffle iron 00:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge either into Colbert Report or the misc. article. AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 23:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the miscellania article. And change the title to "Stephen Colbert's Hiphopketball: A Jazzebration", with a colon. Ezradf 05:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second the colon needed after Hiphopketball. - Reaverdrop 16:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into The Colbert Report miscellania. badmonkey 07:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into miscellania. Nobi 11:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baba of toronto[edit]

nn Sikh leader. Three Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article makes him sound notable, but the google hits all look like total junk, possibly only distantly related to this article. Anabanana459 02:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 05:53Z
  • Delete unverifiable at best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete TigerShark 00:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per above. --Bhadani 12:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider - While the information on this article may not verifiable through Google, I'd like to remind you that many things are not, yet they are still fact. Specifically, matters that pertain to a group of older ethnic people, who are not particularly internet savvy, go unpublished in cyberspace. The religous leaders in Amritsar, for instance, do not publish their "hukams" (orders) on the Web, yet they are a very real occurrence which can be vouched for by most Sikhs. The concept of Baba of Toronto is by no means contrived, and although it is a scarcely discussed topic, it is a well known to many Canadians specifically in Toronto -- largely thanks to a video of the Baba delivering his sermons. Deletion of this page should be reconsidered as it would be eliminating factual information simply because Google did not reveal information on the topic. --Torontowala 19:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm pretty close to Toronto and I've never heard of him. DJ Clayworth 16:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Away with babas. utcursch | talk 12:17, 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, as nomination withdrawn and there appears to be something substantive to this article. Johnleemk | Talk 06:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dance dance revolution supernova[edit]

Background:

[7]

DDR Freak (www.ddrfreak.com) posted this piece of news about DDR supernova. The site has a lot of traffic (first hit when googling "Dance Dance Revolutiuon" and it is known that there are official representatives from Konami on that site. Yet, the site does not serve as official news site of Konami or whatever company.

Delete as unvertificable (no official announcement), minimial content and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. SYSS Mouse 02:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Too much dance dance revolution spam here already. -R. fiend 04:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We discussed this on List_of_Dance_Dance_Revolution_games as it being purely speculation. DDR Freak has, in the past, posted fake information as to a "DDR Extreme 2". Since there is no offical word, delete as WP:NOT Crystal ball. --Lightdarkness 04:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote stands at Delete even with the new rewrite, as stated below. --Lightdarkness 17:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was re-written and redirected to Dance Dance Revolution SuperNOVA, using a proper capitalization. This version is at a better state, but I am still considering to deleting that. SYSS Mouse 03:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still unverifiable/speculative, even if it is renamed and written in better prose. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 04:45Z
  • Delete as vaporware. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle 20:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has been trademarked according to the United States Patent and Trademark Office's website. --C.-a.-i. 00:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's been confirmed. Moogy

I heard that the game will be on display at a trade show next week. Truth or not, I shall withdraw this request at this moment. SYSS Mouse 04:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 01:51Z


Guidonian hand[edit]

Only 2 google hits, neither of relevance. Smells like hoax. Denni ☯ 02:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Total rubbish Changing to Keep (I assume vandalism was reversed?) Deiz 02:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable nonsense. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 05:55Z
  • Keep Comment - looks like "Guidonian Hand" is some sort of Medieval technique for teaching music pitch. Might be a legitimate article, but as currently written it seems to be a bad joke. Dbtfz 06:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Just needs to be reverted to earlier version. Dbtfz 06:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep now that it's a different article. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 07:55Z
  • Strong keep, after vandalism was reverted. Being a (semi-)expert I can attest to it being a notable concept in medieval music, and I volunteer to dig out the sources if needed. Lukas 10:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I retract my nomination now that it's been restored. Denni ☯ 00:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VICE In fairness to the user who wrote this, the article has been restored and the discussion reopened.'

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 06:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.tv.real-world[edit]

nn Usenet group, forumcruft. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Completely non-notable. User's only other edits were repeated reposting of the slogan. No content whatsoever. - Lucky 6.9 03:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't done editing it. "Repeted reposting of the slogan"? I was modifying errors I found as I read. Why was this deleted?72.49.106.198 04:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to simple delete in its current state. User claims that this is one of Usenet's largest groups, but there's no claim in the article itself. Will gladly consider a change of vote if notability can be established. - Lucky 6.9 06:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if cleaned up. I'm not sure how to judge notability for newgroups. Google groups gives about as many entries for alt.tv.real-world as the least-notable newsgroups with articles listed at List of newsgroups. For example, compare 27,000 posts in alt.zines [8] to 31,000 posts in alt.tv.real-world [9]. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 06:56Z
    • One way to judge notability is to look for multiple non-trivial published works about the newsgroup, such as FAQs on http://faqs.org./ for example. (This newsgroup has no FAQ there.) Counting posts is not a metric that is in any way reliable. In addition to the reason described below, consider the fact that raw article counts do not exclude Usenet spam. Uncle G 09:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete since no published works about the newsgroup that I can find. FAQ for Alt.tv and other sources all still lists it as about the TV show rather than what the article describes, so the claims are unverifiable. Thanks Uncle G. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 02:05Z
        • Nonsense, I'm afraid. Of course the FAQ will show the newsgroup to be about the TV show; it's an outdated FAQ from before the transformation of the group into a hub for off-topic comedy and trolling. The new users of the group are not likely to be inclined to write and publish FAQs on their own activities, nor are the conventional FAQ anthologies on the Web likely to accept such FAQs. The "claims" would be easily verifiable using Google Groups, if only the author had bothered to include some links (a strike against him, unfortunately).
          • I'm not predispositioned to delete (as you could tell from my vote changing); just couldn't verify the claims. Since you say it is indeed easily verifiable could you tell us, and tell the article, where to find reputable references? —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-18 01:07Z
            • Read what I wrote again, please. I didn't say "is easily verifiable," I said "would be easily verifiable" if the author (who surely possesses this information, if it exists) had taken the time to include some links to relevant articles in Google's Usenet archive. If the author, or an author, can do this, there will be your evidence in favor of keeping. If not, delete.
              • Okay, I see what you mean. However, I'm not sure that three or four links to posts would qualify as evidence that the newsgroup has permanently gone off-topic. Quarl (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I thought you were looking for evidence of notability, not evidence that the newsgroup had gone permanently off-topic. The former could, as I said, be demonstrated with some links to the Google archive; the latter would not be so easy to establish with links of any kind (one would have to present some kind of overview of recent activity, with the number of off-topic posts compared to the number of on-topic posts, if any).
                  • I suppose it's no consolation that I was in the process of updating the article, in which I was citing the historical significance of the group, and intended to include many links to the Google archives supporting these claims? Because, that was, in fact, what I was doing. I hadn't uploaded anything yet, because I didn't want to put it out there unfinished. So that's how it's going to be in the annals of history: "non-notable." Goodbye forever, I guess.169.155.33.1 23:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Is a post-count really an indication of the notoriety of a newsgroup? Trade groups and utility groups get hundreds of posts a day, but that doesn't mean they've made any historical changes or contributions to the Internet community. alt.tv.real-world, along with other groups (alt.fan.karl-malden.nose, alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, etc.) changed the face of Usenet. Just a thought, in our favour, but a thought nontheless. Wavy G 07:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was using post-count to argue in your favor :) Feel free to provide some evidence of notability other than post count to convince others that the article should be kept. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 07:47Z
    • I would agree that it isn't a reliable metric, for the simple reason that it is easy to post to Usenet in automated fashion, as many of the "binaries" newsgroups demonstrate, without human intervention at all. Uncle G 09:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn newsgroup. Stifle 20:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 21:52, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tastyfresh[edit]

nn website Hirudo 02:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 06:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le Karlof Orchestra[edit]

I found this on WP:PNT and translated from French, but he doesn't seem very notable. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 02:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator votes delete. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 03:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has been nominated for the Gala de l'ADISQ awards. Seems notable enough. Cnwb 05:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per Cnwb Dlyons493 Talk 19:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 06:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Axosoft OnTime[edit]

nn bug tracking software, 900 google links, some blogs and download sites nothing norable Pboyd04 02:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, also adding advertisement boilerplate -Will 02:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, notable enough for people to list it on their resume [10]. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 05:58Z
  • Delete, advertisement of software with just a list of its features... Jawz 08:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advert. Stifle 20:47, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seven stars of Revelation[edit]

Original research. User:RickReinckens nominated the article for speedy deletion, with the following reason: "The Book of Revelation is full of religious symbolism. The article takes one of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of interpretations, none of which can be proved and presents one person's pure speculation as fact. His interpretation is by no means a mainstream interpretation. See Rick Reinckens in talk page for more." The page doesn't seem to be a speedy candidate, so I am going for regular deletion instead. - Mike Rosoft 02:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete original research, religous interpretation is not encyclopedic. --Pboyd04 02:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Not a speedy. PJM 02:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RickReickens. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 06:00Z
  • Delete, original research. Grandmasterka 11:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOR. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A discussion of the different interpretations might well be relevant, but an assertion of one extermely minor interpretation is not. JGF Wilks 15:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, Pboyd04, and JGF Wilks. From the article and its only source:
Notation :Star :Church :Messenger *
:α        :Dubhe  :Ephesus     :St Paul
:β        :Merak  :Symrna      :Irenaeus
:γ        :Phad   :PergasuS    :St Martin
:δ        :Megrez :Thyatira    :St Columba
:ε        :Alioth :Sardis      :Martin Luther
:ζ        :Mizar  :Philadelphia:John Wesley
:η        :Alkad  :Laodecea    :William Branham
Messengers as outlined by William M. Branham http://WWW.Williambranham.com"
So the guy who wrote this claims to be one of the seven great messengers of the deity's word to the world's churches. Are we sure that this is QUITE the authoritative source that WP's standards of WP:Verifiability require? Barno 22:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 06:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Berwick[edit]

This article does not explain the notability of its subject. That he was mentioned in a book is not enough to show relevance. JDoorjam 02:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Weak keep per below. PJM 02:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Statement of notability now added. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 02:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and block nominator for violation of WP:POINT, as these obviously follow on from the failing AfD of John Warren (convict), which has a clear plurality to keep. Ambi 02:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sarah Ewart 03:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ambi -- Ian ≡ talk 03:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. But someone is going to have to make a disambig page eventually to distinguish this guy from the much better known Thomas Berwick the artist. Crypticfirefly 03:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC) I notice that Berwick's town, Jarrahdale considered him notable enough to mention on their own web page, if not in any detail. Crypticfirefly 03:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ambi. Bduke 03:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put into a broader article if possible, delete otherwise, per my comments on John Warren. enochlau (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ambi. Let's not get into the habit of nominating everything for deletion.Englishrose 08:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, being a ex-convict schoolteacher is non-notable, even if it was rare. Plus, 39 of the 9721 convicts actually became schoolteachers, so it is not even that rare. Given the number of people with the job of schoolteacher in the general population, that does not seem like a rate all the different than non-convicts. If the book is notable, an article should be written on it instead. -- Kjkolb 12:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, important part of Australian history. -Colin Kimbrell 15:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is notable Yuckfoo 00:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Crypticfirefly. I wonder if this Thomas Berwick is the (great)grandson of that Thomas Be(r)wick? --Scott Davis Talk 03:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 20:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is the same issue as John Warren (convict)--A Y Arktos 08:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.  Grue  17:00, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 06:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Hasleby[edit]

This article does not demonstrate the notability of its subject. JDoorjam 02:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 02:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Statement of notability now added. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 02:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and block nominator for violation of WP:POINT, as these obvious follow on from the failing AfD of John Warren (convict), which has a clear plurality to keep. Ambi 02:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think they're notable articles, and having stumbled across a hive of them, nominated several for deletion. JDoorjam 03:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You knew they were unlikely to succeed, however, and nominating these just wastes everyone's time. That's called disrupting to make a point. Ambi 03:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sarah Ewart 03:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no more notable than John Warren. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ambi -- Ian ≡ talk 03:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ambi. Bduke 03:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put contents into a broader article if possible, delete otherwise, per my comments on John Warren. enochlau (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, being a ex-convict schoolteacher is non-notable, even if it was rare. Plus, 39 of the 9721 convicts actually became schoolteachers, so it is not even that rare. Given the number of people with the job of schoolteacher in the general population, that does not seem like a rate all the different than non-convicts. If the book is notable, an article should be written on it instead. -- Kjkolb 12:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, important part of Australian history. -Colin Kimbrell 15:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just another ex-convict, just another schoolteacher.--Ezeu 15:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you think about it, is anyone really that notable? Lleyton Hewitt is just another tennis player, Tom Cruise is just another actor, etc. Keep as per Ambi. Rogerthat 11:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Tom Cruise is just another bad actor. Sven Larsson is also another bad actor. But Tom Cruise is notable, whereas Sven Larsson is a dude who plays Joseph in the annual Christmas play at my community centre. Sven Larsson is a teacher, and it wouldn't surprise me if he is an ex-convict as well. --Ezeu 23:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair 03:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is the same issue as John Warren (convict)--A Y Arktos 08:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable as that John Warren guy.  Grue  17:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is great history and exactly what we need more of here. -- JJay 15:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crooked Timber[edit]

nn blog, Alexa rank of 41,369, no media coverage, doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB Pboyd04 02:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"Crooked Timber"+blog produces 3.6 million Google Hits compared to, for example 1.3 million for "pajamas media"+ blog and 750 000 for Israpundit+blog
Factiva indicates media coverage by SF Chronicle, Australian, Chronicle of Higher Ed,NY Sun and the Guardian JQ 03:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a well-respected group-blog, contributed to by numerous notable academics. Cnwb 05:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as apparently notable blog. Google rank of 7. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 06:04Z
  • keep as Cnwb William M. Connolley 09:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable political blog. -Colin Kimbrell 15:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the above. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please the blog is notable Yuckfoo 00:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. Often cited, so influence probably higher than readership numbers would indicate. Herostratus 17:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Notable. — goethean ॐ 16:55, 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 Alykul Osmonov

Алыкул Осмонов[edit]

From WP:PNT, been there since January 2. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 02:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrgyz. Has entries on the Kyrgyz and Russian Wikipedias.[11][12] — TheKMantalk 18:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian entry says he's a Kyrgyz poet, dramaturgist and translator. I can't read Kyrgyz at all though. Solver 23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a definite candidate for transwiki. Physchim62 (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator abstains. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 02:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since WP:PNT was unsuccessful. --Ezeu 16:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alykul Osmonov. --Revolución (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if not translated/ notability is implied, I think. Redirection will not serve useful purpose, as a page name in several scripts may have to be accommodated by way of redirections. --Bhadani 13:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bhadani. Stifle 20:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom Incognito 04:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Cyrillic transliterates to Alykul Osmonov, and it turns out we already have an article on him, so this has been changed to a redirect there. Although article titles should be in the Latin alphabet, it's OK and harmless to have a redirect in a non-Latin alphabet, although not common (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)). I'm closing this Afd, since it is for a Kirgiz-language article, and if desired any new Afd could be applied to the English-language article instead. Note, as a general rule, non-English articles don't go through Afd... either they get translated within a certain delay (after posting a "notenglish" notice) or they get speedied. -- Curps 05:14, 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. – Alphax τεχ 15:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Wildman[edit]

This article, while well documented, does not demonstrate the notability of its subject. This is an excellent example of how verifiability does not equate to notability. JDoorjam 02:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. From the first sentence: "Henry Wildman was a convict transported to Western Australia in 1862, whose apparently false claims to have found gold in the Kimberley region of Western Australia prompted an exploring expedition to the area." How is that not a statement of notability? Sorry, forgot to sign before. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 04:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. PJM 02:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC) 02:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and block nominator for violation of WP:POINT. Ambi 02:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and caution Ambi about WP:CIVIL. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ambi -- Ian ≡ talk 03:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ambi. Bduke 03:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apparently this person's false claim lead to the exploration of a previously-unexplored region, eventually setting a whole series of events into motion. (See La Grange expedition). Notable enough for me, Wikipedia is not paper. Crypticfirefly 03:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ambi and Crypticfirefly. Sarah Ewart 04:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Drew and Crypticfirefly. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 06:05Z
  • Keep. This one's different. enochlau (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. If he was a major figure in the region's settlement, I would have expected to find something about him on Google, but found nothing excluding Wikipedia mirrors and irrelevant results. -- Kjkolb 12:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ambi and Google is not everything. pfctdayelise 13:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Drew/Ambi/Crypticfirefly. - Gobeirne 19:32, 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 06:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Armour Archive[edit]

Advert for an obscure web forum. I've added this site as a link to the Society for Creative Anachronisms page. Can't really merge or redirect because they're not an official part of the SCA. Durova 02:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as apparently notable: the forum has 6,500 members and 700,000 posts. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 06:09Z
  • Delete per nom. Nn alexa rank.--Ezeu 16:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 20:47, 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 no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 06:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Penney[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mark Penney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreated deleted material (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Penney). Allegedly, this fixes the problem with the last article, but not sufficiently notable even with the "fix." Since I was the last AfD proposer, however, I am uncomfortable speedy deleting it myself since there was a good faith at a fix. Still, my opinion is Speedy delete (as recreation of deleted material and as non-notable). I will also post CSD tags to those effect and let another admin decide the issue. --Nlu (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as A7; (not G4) Segv11 (talk/contribs) 03:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rgp82 - all info is accurate - many first time filmmakers on this, 16 January 2006
  • Strong keep lawtoo4 the information is accurate and the film The Right Way was a hit in Toronto and also played the Venice Film Festival
  • Keep pipergates yeah it can be verified 16 January 2006
  • Speedy keep filmfan665 - alot of filmakers who don't have the credentials this man has are in this database 16 January 2006
  • Delete, nn, sock puppet attack. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need to be logged in to edit so god only knows how many edits they may have
  • Weak Delete, non-notable bio. Googling for Mark Penney and his movie comes up with just over 100 hits, a lot of which are copies of Perry Enterprise's press release and what appears to be linkspam. Probably qualifies for speedy deletion: A-7 article. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 04:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This person was writer and director for a feature length film that appeared at a major film festival and has an entry in the IMDB. That's good enough for me. (Shoos away sock puppets). Durova 04:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Notable director. Per Durova. Cnwb 05:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expand and clean up. My God, I'm voting the same as the talking hosiery! Has Hell frozen over yet? - Lucky 6.9 07:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks ok. enochlau (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; while he's not particularly well known and while the preponderance of sock puppets makes me queasy, I'd ultimately have to agree with Durova: the film has an IMDB entry, has appeared at a major film festival and stars a sufficiently well-known actress (albeit one whose article needs a good sandblasting). And that's fine by me. Bearcat 19:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this is not a speedy keep. A speedy keep can only happen if there are no votes to delete and the nominator withdraws, or the nomination was vandalism or disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Stifle 20:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, speedy if possible as G4 repost. Sockpuppet invasion. Stifle 20:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep BrandonTheGreat - This is article should never been up to delete to begin with, 17 January 2006
  • Abstain, but due to the number of valid "keep" votes the article should not be speedily deleted. - Mike Rosoft 22:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same vote as last time. The IMdb site lists absolutely everything in TV and Movies but doing so doesn't make it anymore notable. Atrian 04:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Young but up and coming director. No good reason to delete this. -- JJay 15:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 06:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YTMND Soundtrack[edit]

Forumcruft. A one-line sentence could be put into YTMND. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article also serves the purpose to list many popular YTMND songs which the List of Fads site used to have. Fyrestorm 01:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a Wiki. Anything you contribute can and will be mercilessly edited by anyone. FCYTravis 05:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    FCYTravis's comment was made in response to Fyrestorm's statement that "No one should edit the tracklist. I put it up there myself, considering I am the project leader of the Soundtrack," which was part of his original rationale to Keep, made on 16 January; this statement was subsequently deleted.--MayerG 04:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it is a great reference site for the YTMND community as well keeping the list of the most-used songs in one easy-to-find place. This is what wikipedia was made for, finding information, even information that may not be seen as important to some. Michigancubbie
  • Delete as an absolutely worthless collection of information. YTMND has literally thousands of different pages on them. None of their soundtracks are notable. Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 05:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are about 10 sites claiming to be about a "YTMND Soundtrack" which didn't actually exist at the time. It was a small fad that eventually inspired the real thing. Dasyati 06:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — Iggy Koopa 05:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cyde Weys. I was going to say Smerge but fyrestorm and Iggy Koopa's comments and contribution history convinced me it should be deleted. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 06:13Z
  • Keep. This is a real compilation of music that cannot be dismissed with a single line, any more than a Greatest Hits album by any one artist can. Dasyati 06:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Until said compilation of music has actually been published by a major record label, it may be dismissed out of hand. I can make up an "FCYTravis Soundtrack To My Life." It may very well be a real compilation of music, but it is nonetheless unencyclopedic.FCYTravis 06:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "major record label"? I'm not going to go ask for every indie band's albums to be AFD'd, but I'm questioning what Sony BMG, Warner Music Group, Universal Music Group, and EMI have to do with anything. This mixtape derives its notability from that of YTMND itself. --Damian Yerrick 00:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    YTMND's notability does not mean that every single thing related to YTMND is encyclopedic. FCYTravis 01:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. This one is just cruft. 96 unique hits on google isn't very good when something is published on the web. - Bobet 15:47, 16 January 2006 also cocks(UTC)
  • Keep,--Super Quinn 19:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; lacks notability as a musical release (see the precedent set by the recent deletions of several bootlegs and mixtapes) and has no encyclopedic worth outside of a possible mention in YTMND. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 19:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nn self-promotion. --MayerG 21:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self promotion, not notable. FredOrAlive 21:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even a released music compilation. Just some songs used (mostly without permission or the artist's knowledge) on a website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree with fyrestorm that this page should be protected, but I agree that it serves as an index to List of YTMND fads by song. In fact, List of YTMND fads by song redirects to YTMND Soundtrack. --Damian Yerrick 00:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, it redirects there because you created the redirect. Gosh, I wonder how that happened. FCYTravis 01:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I created the redirect because I wanted to take this article in a new direction that the other article on the same subject that was previously deleted didn't take, namely giving each song title a context. --Damian Yerrick 05:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ytmnd soundtrack. NatusRoma 00:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete merge with YTMND. --Bachrach44 03:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (falls under G4, and isn't notable. Ideas suggested before include redir'ing to List of YTMND fads, but I would also agree with protecting the redirected pages. I love the soundtracks, and I'm listening to Volume 7 now, but unfortunately it isn't notable enough to get a Wikipedia article on it. I would really like to see a YTMND wiki or something of the sort, and maybe an Internet Meme Wikicity that would allow Forumcruft to live on in infamy (not like Uncyclopedia, which is separate forumcruft). -Mysekurity 03:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    G4 (recreation of deleted material)? I resent that remark. This is a new article on the same subject, and it goes into much more detail because it lists the fad(s) associated with each song. --Damian Yerrick 05:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. This becomes a debate of inclusion based on article quality v.s. notability. I seriously think there should be some place that is editable (see m:Association of Transwikist Wikipedians), that can hold this information (possibly Wikisource?). I think it is well-written and can serve as a good guide for something other than a forum. I think Wikisource would be good for this, and thus, I'm changing my vote to that. As per the Re-creation of delete material, while it isn't a complete re-creation (and why I'm changing my vote), it was still voted on before, and it would have been better if it was discussed at deletion review. -Mysekurity 03:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Incognito 05:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete forumcruft. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Zunaid 09:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. AnYoNe! 14:54 17 January 2006 for uselessness, the origin of the songs of the most popular fads are already cited in the List of YTMND fads, plus this collection isn't copyrighted.
  • Keep--or at the very least, merge.-PlasmaDragon 17:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very helpful for those who want to know the songs of YTMD. However, WP:ISNOT a web guide. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 21:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pikawil 08:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; if people want a merge so badly, it can be done, but since *someone* wants it kept.... Johnleemk | Talk 06:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La salle 56[edit]

  • very informative site. don't see any problems with it.

nn cable access channel, advertising, vanity, first person. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It does read like a press release, but I don't see much first person text. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 03:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Our reporters-in-training focus on local human-interest stories that often are overlooked by larger news media". User:Zoe|(talk) 03:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, you're right. But that's nothing compared to some of the every-sentence-is-first-person "here's what our great company does and you're gpoing to love us" cruft we've been seeing lately. I'll vote below. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight merge to La Salle University. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 06:16Z
  • Merge per Quarl Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cable channel- too big to merge. -- JJay 15:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 06:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xpunch[edit]

nn software ad page Pboyd04 03:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nn advertisement. Dbtfz 03:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 06:17Z
  • Speedy delete advert Incognito 05:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advert. Stifle 20:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari 20:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete : provides factual information on the company and its products, similar to "Microsoft Excel" entry. See the entry's "Talk" box --samea76 19:01, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 06:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jakarido[edit]

nn martial art, one Google hit, article created by User:Tecpardue. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable. 10 google hits for "ja kari do" and some relevant ones for karate "ja kari do", but not enough. So I don't think it's a hoax; but not notable enough. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 06:20Z
  • Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 20:41, 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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 06:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twisted Attitude (truck)[edit]

Twisted Attitude is a monster truck which is still under construction and is not completed yet 1. As such it is not yet notable. Arenacale 03:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. Wow, I didn't realize we had so much about monster trucks. I guess it's a fan area like any other. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 06:21Z
  • Keep for now as a useful placeholder and starting point, if it is built and raced on time, it will be notable, sort of like how we have articles for movies that haven't been released yet and sporting events that haven't happened yet. -Drdisque 09:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Ezeu 16:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as Ezeu FredOrAlive 21:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable -Nv8200p talk 22:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedy if possible. This user is going absolutely nuts adding similar "non-articles" and possibly copyvio'd photos. - Lucky 6.9 23:27, 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 no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 06:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zen Internet[edit]

Looks like advertizing to me --Robert Harrisontalk contrib 03:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, Considering another well known UK Internet Service Provider called PlusNet has a Wiki entry, and nobody seems to have raised objection to that, I thought a small article for Zen Internet (who are of comparable size) would do no harm. This article is in no way attempting to be advertising, just informative. Though some of the sub sections could maybe do with being re-worded to take away the advertising feel of the article -- Larkymarky 04:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLATANT advertising and self-congratulation. This is a sales brochure. Changing to Abstain after rework. Still a bit of an ad (logo size for example). Deiz 04:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 04:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per PlusNet. Have tried to tone it down to make it less of an advert. Jcuk 08:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only major corporations are encyclopedic. -- Kjkolb 12:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with the above view point, is PlusNet a "major corporation" ? My interpretation of a "major corporation" are organisations like Google and Microsoft. Zen is of a much smaller variety but has been trading for a over a decade which presents a core reason for it to be "encyclopedic" (Larkymarky 13:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment, I would say that PlusNet is not a major corporation and would vote delete if it were nominated. But the inclusion standards are my own and have no basis in policy as far as I know (although WP:CORP gives some guidlines). By the way, you don't have to restate your position when you respond to a vote or comment. Bolding "keep" or "delete" is considered a vote and each user only gets one vote. -- Kjkolb 18:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Not too bad now --kingboyk 21:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possible advert. Incognito 04:44, 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 deleted as previously deleted material. - Lucky 6.9 05:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KnJ[edit]

Delete: non-notable. Despite the article's claim, the phrase appears to have been used [seven times] at gamefaqs.com. Maxamegalon2000 03:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy deleting. I got the same results you did and I deleted it a couple of times prior to this. - Lucky 6.9 05:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it is used freqently, just due to the poularity of the naruto boards, the topics get deleted frequently, a had a really hard time trying to understand what peope are saying, so i checked here, because this site has everything, but it did not have it pheonix_222 20:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of events of YTMND-Day[edit]

List of non-notable events relating to YTMND. I'm nominating this for AFD instead of just boldly merging because none of this play-by-play information is worth merging, and the article title isn't worth a redirect. —Cleared as filed. 04:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does this have anything with that stupid "First World Internet War" or whatever YTMND is claiming it's a part of? Delete either way, because we've passed out of the realm of standard forumcruft here. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 04:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with World Wide Web War I, that is to say, this article should go whereever that one goes (including deletion). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 06:23Z
  • Strong delete We've advanced from the First World Wide Web War to YTMND-Day? Wow. Nuke from orbit, speedily if possible. WP:IAR was written for days like this. None of this has been written about by verifiable and reliable sources, so out it goes. FCYTravis 07:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there were anything worth merging, I'd say merge with Ebaum's World, but there isn't. -Colin Kimbrell 15:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what's with all the YTMND junk at the moment? FredOrAlive 21:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedily if anyone feels up to it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete This entire stupid "war" is being faught on all sides by self important egotists and is entirely non-notable. All pages relating to it should be speedy deleted on the grounds that wikipedia is not the place to wage "war". --Bachrach44 03:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as YTMNDcruft. Stifle 20:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely nothing notable here worth saving or merging. Turnstep 21:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crap. Incognito 00:59, 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 SPEEDIED by User:Zoe as "nn dog bio"; recreated by someone, and speedied again by User:InShaneee

Darcy Dog Rathbone[edit]

A dog whose only claim to fame is an 'award' hosted on some user's personal site. Delete as non-notable. --InShaneee 04:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn (gimme a break) Dbtfz 04:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ditto. I mean, he's cute and everything, but c'mon. --maru (talk) Contribs 04:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:19, 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 G1: patent nonsense. --M@thwiz2020 18:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eat Salami[edit]

I speedied this when it popped up on New Pages. Since the, I've had a message from User:Eatsalami (the original editor of the article) complaining about my choice of action. Coincidentally, my user page was also severely vandalised by User:24.17.193.64, who was the only other contributor to the article. I still believe that this page of nonsense should be speedied, but I'm trying to be fair by giving User:Eatsalami the chance to make his/her case. Cnwb 04:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The history of what? This is a serious question. Cnwb 05:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete, While it may at first glance seem to be "Patent nonsense" it does reflect the quirky nature of both the Cybiko Handheld and the Cybiko Handheld Community.

The phrase is still widely used in the very limited community in which it is known.

Although arguably it is of late being used more as an alias for the author than its previous use as a Jibe intended to reflect the programming styles of many within the community. As such it may still fall under the "Non-Notable Biography" clause.

Thanks to those who would consider keeping the article or suggesting any way to merge some portion there of within a cybiko related page.

Thanks for your consideration 05:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)~ User:JohnSix

  • Comment. This AfD is the only contribution of User:63.250.233.40 and User:JohnSix, the only keep voters so far. Cnwb 05:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as non-notable vanity biography. What is Eat Salami up to today? Eat Salami can be found on his Computer almost all the time chatting to his friends or attempting to play online games which he generally sucks at. Recommend the article author see WikiMe for writing biographies and/or WikiTree for writing genealogies. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 06:26Z
  • Speedy Delete as per Quarl. Jawz 08:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Quarl. Grandmasterka 11:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied again, nn bio. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Diamond[edit]

Poorly written article about an author, which is likely vanity. Sales ranks for his books at Amazon seem to be well over 1,000,000. Around 900 googles for "Graham Diamond", but many appear to be "Graham-Diamond" (two separate people), no relation. In any case, thats very few for someone who has evidently authored so many books. Not sure if any are vanity presses or not. -R. fiend 04:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • :If the sales rank is over 1 million, surely it should be kept? perhaps with cleanup and/or unverified tags -- Astrokey44|talk 05:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC) oh never mind, thats a rank, not number of sales isnt it. I'd still say Keep for references such as [13] -- Astrokey44|talk 05:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if someone cleans it up. Verifiable author including a series of 4 books [14]. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 06:30Z
  • comment have cleaned it up somewhat. No idea if he's worth keeping, American authors aint my thing.... Abstain. Jcuk 10:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Prolific author of potboiler fantasy/sf, published by US mass market houses in the 1980s. Monicasdude 15:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Arbustoo 04:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 23:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omofo[edit]

Newly created podcast that doesn't even show up on Google for "Omofo podcast" yet. WP:NOT a web directory, nor a place to advertise newly created things. Delete. Kusma (討論) 04:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the information about the podcast is factual, but isn't onto Google yet. If need be, it could be reposted later, with more info. Thanks.

  • Comment - no, thanks. -- Femmina 19:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was sent to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Further discussion will take place there. Punkmorten 20:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian whining[edit]

Offensive, POV redirect EngineerScotty 04:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated a WP:RFD. This page and its votes are referred to by the RFD discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion#January 16. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EngineerScotty (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 wasThe result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 15:03, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Gavin Heffernan[edit]

What we have here seems to be a guy who shot a couple of videos which were shown at a few festivals. No distribution and no reported box office gross. "Expiration" was released on DVD, but as far as I can tell Hefferman released it himself, making it the equivalent of a vanity press book. Doesn't seem to be at amazon anyway. I'd call this article vanity or self promotion, but if Hefferman wrote it I'd expect he'd have more to say than this. Anyway, delete this as another guy with a video camera trying to get a start in the film industry. Good luck Gavin, come back when you succeed. -R. fiend 17:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, and I know you get a lot of, erm, unusual people on IMDb but both Gavin Heffernan's page and his films have armies of sockpuppets in them, all active around May 2004. This is probably another example of extensive self promotion. Xezbeth 18:04, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. --Spinboy 01:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Winner of the Grand Jury Prize at the 2004 Canadian Filmmaker's Festival. Notable enough for me. Keep. Bearcat 01:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure. I don't know much about the Canadian Filmmaker's Festival, but some of these festivals are pretty small and many of the entries win some sort of award. It's not unheard of for someone to bring along enough friends that they can stuff the ballot box, or winning by being the local favorite. We're not talking the Palme d'Or or Cannes or anything. I'll look into it a bit though. -R. fiend 02:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as above. --Daniel11 02:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable or vanity (and the link on the Canadian Filmmaker's Festival fails to establish notability thereof, so presently fails to sway my opinion on this). Radiant_* 12:35, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as the festival looks fairly large, with some fairly major sponsors. Burgundavia 17:51, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I seem to disagree on the definition of "large". According to the festival's website, it lasts four days (in 2005, from April 7 to 10); only 10 feature films are involved - this year, Ivan Reitman's "Meatballs" will be shown, evidently hours-concours; it has no tradition either: the first edition took place last year, when the winner was Hefferman. I'm sorry, but IMHO more than this award is required to make someone notable. VladMV ٭ talk 18:51, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Can you find out how many film were in it last year? If it's only 10 this year I suspect it may well have been fewer last year. Coming in best of 6 or 7 is not a terribly great accomplishment. -R. fiend 20:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I couldn't find anything on the official website, I suppose the contents from last year's festival were removed. This page lists the films: they were also presented in four days. Assuming some of those are documentary features, I think it's reasonable to suppose at most some 10 feature films were competing. VladMV ٭ talk 21:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete While the filmmaker may oneday be notable, the current work done to date is not notable enough for inclusion. The article can be re-entered at such a time as more noteworthy accomplishments have been made. --Lloydd 04:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was wondering, in general should not self-financed undistributed movies be treated much the same as vanity published books? I don't see a huge difference, except perhaps that a movie made along these lines is more likely to be purchased by a distributor than a self-published book is likely to be purchased by a publisher. Given that I'm not sure that's true, and that until such a movie is purchased the matter in inconsequential, I'm tempted to think movies like this, and the people who make them need to be held to some standard beyond some award at a small festival. Even the winners at Sundance and the like are basically significant only because the award guarantees them a commercial release. -R. fiend 23:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Not really. While the commercial aspect of cinema clearly is quite important, you'll find that there's a vast amount of interest in the art in general. For instance, google the indy in question, Gavin Heffernan, and you'll find quite a lot of hits, with many reviews of his commercially undistributed movies. --Daniel11 00:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep the four mentioned, merge the rest (which has been done already, I think). Johnleemk | Talk 06:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Quendor articles[edit]

The pages I am nominating are:

Entharion the Wise, Mysterion the Brave, Zylon the Aged, Zilbo I, Bozbo I, Zilbo II, Harmonius Fzort, Bozbo II, Thaddium Fzort, Mumbo I, Bozbo III, Bozbo IV, Mumbo II, Zilbo III, Duncanthrax the Bellicose, Belwit the Flat, Frobwit the Flatter, Timberthrax Flathead, Phloid Flathead, Mumberthrax Flathead, Dimwit Flathead, Loowit Flathead, Duncwit Flathead, Barbawit Flathead, Idwit Oogle Flathead, Wurb Flathead, General Syovar, Lord Syovar II, Lord Syovar III, Mir Yannick, Lucy Flathead.

These are short stubs on non-notable characters in the game Zork. There is already a parent page, Kings of Quendor which already contains nearly all of this information. I cannot imagine a need for an article for each of these characters nor any of the articles becoming more than a stub.

The reason I don't just merge it all to the existing parent page is that I see no need to have these redirects. I suggest that any non-duplicate information is merged across to Kings of Quendor then delete all of these articles. --Qirex 04:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC) delete most of these articles, but keep Duncanthrax the Bellicose, Dimwit Flathead, Mir Yannick, and Lucy Flathead. --Qirex 09:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Please give me some time to finish these. There is ample information on these characters in the Encyclopedia Frobozzica and scattered throughout all the games in the series. There is an article for every single King of Gondor, King of Numenor etc. from Lord of the Rings, even through virtually none of these characters are involved in the plot and are only referenced in the appendices. I feel that this is an analogous situation. Wikipedia is not paper after all. Merging the content will very quickly create a prohibitively long and unusable article. Savidan 04:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Zork isn't quite comparable to Lord of the Rings, but anyway, I would support the deletion of those articles too; none of this belongs in an encyclopedia. Yes, there is a lot in here that doesn't belong, but that is not a justification for adding more stuff that doesn't belong. --Qirex 05:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They are extremely comparable in that they both have cult followings of fans. My point wasn't that we should delete those articles too but the fact that none of them have even been nominated for deletion in the hundreds of editors who have undoubtedly seen them implies that there is some kind of consensus for having articles about things that are in fictional universes especially when the fan base is so large as it is for Zork and Lord of the Rings.Savidan 05:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Originator should merge these into a single article and turn the rest of these into redirects. Wikipedia really doesn't need this very specialized knowledge spread out amongst so many different articles. Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 05:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge by Savidan, per Cyde Weys. If not Delete. Madman 05:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge its usual to merge fictional stubs, many of the Lord of the Rings king articles include some information on the king rather than just stating when/who they were -- Astrokey44|talk 05:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having slept on it I decided that the mergists are probably right. I've already taking the liberty of merging most of these articles. However, I suggest that the following four articles be kept: Duncanthrax the Bellicose, Dimwit Flathead, Mir Yannick, and Lucy Flathead. The first two are described in detail in a varity of literature related two Zorks 1-3 and Zork Zero and the second two are the main characters of Zork Grand Inquisitor. Thus, all four of them have signficance to the Zork Universe far beyond just being a King of Quendor. Those four articles could easily be extended to a lenght that I believe most people would feel warrants an article. Is this solution amenable to anyone as a compromise? Savidan 21:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this is a good compromise, I think the language I used earlier was too stong given that I don't know much about the game. Cheers, Qirex 00:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the four Savidan mentioned, Merge the rest. Yes these are reasonable articles, although Lucy Flathead could still use some expansion. -- Astrokey44|talk 04:12, 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. Punkmorten 01:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battalion: Head 2 Head[edit]

I'm worried that the creator misunderstands the purpose of wikipedia. The tone of this "article" and a comment at this website suggests that she thinks of this as a public wiki-webhost for strategies and the like. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as Wikipedia is not Gamefaqs.com. Could someone in a more plesant mood explain this to the user, I'd probably WP:BITE. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 05:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but only if rewritten encyclopedically. Seems notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 06:33Z
    • A web-based game whose main downloading page rates 878,000 per Alexa? -- Saberwyn
      • Hm, can't remember what exactly made me think it was notable. Anyway it probably won't be rewritten encyclopedically by the time it comes to delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 02:13Z
        • Turns out it wasn't touched. So it has to go. Punkmorten 01:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's too small to be encyclopedia worthy, even if the article had anything in it. Night Gyr 17:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Saberwyn. Stifle 20:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari 20:41, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star strike[edit]

"Currently, the game is in the alpha stage. With many features not working ...". Stop right there; I've heard enough. It's not notable. (Although "There are bugs throughout the game, which give it variety but are also known to cause a few headaches to it's more dedicated players.," is going in BJAODN). Daniel Case 05:04, 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 no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 06:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Phillips[edit]

Reads sort of like vanity for a non-notable radio personality. Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 05:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The tiniest bit of research would reveal that the sole author, User:Rogerthat is a well-established Wikipedian who has started dozens of articles/stubs on Australian media and sportspeople. If this qualifies as a vanity article, I'd have to say Brett is a very modest man indeed. There is no suitable criteria in WP:BIO and the Google test is not applicable. I would have thought the tiniest consideration and respect for the work of other Wikipedians would hold one back from zooming to AfD... like maybe even asking the contributor to expand on the subject's notability... but apparently not. I am disappointed. pfctdayelise 13:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete not vanity but doesnt seem very notable. 'believed to be related' doesnt sound like a good source -- Astrokey44|talk 14:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain as not familiar with the subject, but Rogerthat seems to be familiar based on past contributions. I have added a {{weasel}} tag to it, however. (See talk page.) Essexmutant 15:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the offending assertion and the weasel tag. --kingboyk 21:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Doesn't assert notability. (SEN 1116, incidentally, is a local radio station in (lovely) Melbourne, hardly Triple J or Radio 1). --kingboyk 21:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Changed to weak delete --kingboyk 09:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC) I've decided to abstain --kingboyk 02:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SEN 1116 is still a notable radio station, so the above comments are inconsequantial. Cnwb 23:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is I am lacking sources on Phillips, which is why it needs to be expanded. That said you will struggle to find sources on the Net for even the most notable Australian people. Rogerthat 00:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would the average Aussie know who he is? (Not a rhetorical or loaded question). I note by the way that Merrick and Rosso get 13,400 Google hits from Australia alone. --kingboyk 01:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way if noone has ever heard Brett Phillips, go to SEN and listen to him in about 12 hours from now, or if you're in Melbourne, listen to it in your car. Rogerthat 02:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Ipeeontheseat[edit]

This is an utter nonsense article. It relates to nothing special, and appears simply to be a user's attempt at a bit of vandalism or free advertising. Thor Malmjursson 05:32, 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 withdraw from AFD. Punkmorten 20:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untied States[edit]

Misspelled REDIRECT which covers up spelling errors. At this time there are no incoming links to this redirect-article. Kill it. Dutch-Bostonian 05:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Whittie[edit]

Zero Google results. Suspected hoax. Cnwb 05:40, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 07:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsie the Magic Cow[edit]

Delete. Non-notable; maybe a joke Jtneill - Talk 05:43, 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. Punkmorten 01:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard lehoux[edit]

Actor who has appeared in "dozens of small regional theatre productions" plus one TV advert. Add that to 250 google hits and a failure of Geogre's Law, and you have... nn-vanity! Grutness...wha? 05:53, 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. - Mailer Diablo 23:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Transcapitalist Party[edit]

Not notable. No Google hits besides its own website, and the article even admits that this is essentially a taxi party. —Sesel 05:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 00:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ottomen[edit]

Non-notable band, Delete --NaconKantari 05:56, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas Wanderer[edit]

A fictional nursery tale, from a fictional nation in the Warhammer universe. Appears in one rules supplement, in sections, and on a Games Workshop website subpage. Fictional fiction, with no impact on the aspects of the fictional universe we real-worlders deal with. Do we really need it? -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 06:03, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three for me[edit]

Non-notable card game - invented a few weeks ago. Cnwb 06:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What's the criteria for card games, national level tournament? Whatever it is, delete until then. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 06:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until at least 5000 people know how to play this game. Dbtfz 06:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable,unverifiable. All the Google hits I looked at were not relevant. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 06:42Z
  • Delete per nom -- Astrokey44|talk 14:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Bachrach44 03:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neocardgame-ism (ESkog)(Talk) 03:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete There is a typo. The game was created January 1, 2004. At LEAST 5000 people know about this game. The game was learned about and spread through a local school card tournament. The game was played through a series of eliminations. 300 people took part in the game with at least 1000 surveyours, and even more people who knw the game and rules. This should be notable enough to not be deleted. I can include the history of the game once it is off the deletion list.Tifroc
    • I think it would make more sense to write a history of the game before it's off the deletion list. Cnwb 03:34, 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 00:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Powerskin[edit]

Seems to be a commercial plug jmd 06:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted as recreated article. kingboyk 08:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Core Davidson Education Services Ltd[edit]

DELETE Someone brought this article back after it was agreed that it would be deleted. clear advertising. see previous motion to delete. Kiwidude 08:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recreated articles can be speedied as far as I am aware. Any admin care to oblige? Cynical 11:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Core Davidson Education Services Ltd.[edit]

Delete Clearly an advert and is nn. Kiwidude 06:10, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was sent to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Further voting should take place there. Punkmorten 20:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neener's ass[edit]

Phrase gets 1 google hit -- probably a joke. Dbtfz 06:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I forgot to say delete. Dbtfz 06:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with your intent; this should be relisted at WP:RFD (where it can be speedy-deleted). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 06:44Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (nn-club) howcheng {chat} 16:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DICCU[edit]

Non notable college society jmd 06:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Case for the Internationalization of Virginia High School Curricula[edit]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Felt tempted to speedy it as "attempt to communicate"! -- RHaworth 06:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this description of a non-notable high school curriculum revision document. Note: majority of this article is source text which is unencyclopedic and possibly copyvio. I don't think it's notable enough to transwiki to wikisource. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 06:46Z
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Also, if a case is being proposed then the article is POV and violates WP:NPOV.  (aeropagitica)  07:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a soapbox... Original research or copyvio? Grandmasterka 11:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --kingboyk 21:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR TigerShark 00:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete irredemably POV. --Bachrach44 03:09, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamersdaily[edit]

ThreeAnswers 06:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


ThreeAnswers: By this criteria, half of the articles you've written would be "non-notable". MC Mong, the Korean hip-hop artist you wrote about ranks 425,000 on Alexa. Does that mean he's not worth mentioning? This article was just posted, give it some time to develop.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.35.26.78 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Of course, Gamersdaily is primarily a website, and MC Mong is primarily a person (or so I'm told). That means they fall under different notability guidelines (see WP:WEB and WP:BIO). It's the article's merit as an encyclopedic entry that is under examination, and the comparison to the nominator's edits seems irrelevant. — TheKMantalk 08:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I cleaned up the article, but I'm still leaning towards delete because of the impression that this is podcruft. I would like to see definitive proof of userbase and awards (see citation tags in article) before I decide otherwise. — TheKMantalk 08:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Visitor stats can be provided if needed to confirm the site gets 2000+ visitors. Also a check on iTunes own podcast directory would show that we're the highest ranked Independant gaming podcast. User:Thefoldtalk
  • Comment: I've just supplied screenshots of almost 9,000 people on the site at once, and of the iTunes 'Top 100' podcasts, showing GamersDaily ahead of Ziff-Davis's "1Up.com" show and Kevin Rose's "Systm" show. The only gaming-related shows ahead of GamersDaily are "G4/TechTV Videocast" and the "PC Gamer Official Podcast," both of which are run by multi-million-dollar corporations. That is quite an accomplishment -- I don't see how this can be considered podcruft.
    • Comment - can you please stop blogging in here? -- Femmina 23:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep brilliant podcast. Stifle 20:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, extreamly notable Incognito 05:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - very non encyclopedic and non-notable -- Femmina 08:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The best podcast I have heard. Cptchipjew 22:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. *drew 05:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if this is non-notable, then there is no notable independent videogame podcast?



  • Comment: all you people who are saying delete probably all got paid to say it. not notable my ass. why dont you all just shut up and listen to the podcast. after all theres a godamn link on the bottom of the article. and look at it this way, if it werent notable, GamersDaily wouldnt exist right now! And about the "Podcruft" remark, They put up the pictures of Gamersdaily having 8000+ people on the site and them being on itunes' top 100.

The point to this comment: Leave GamersDaily alone, they didnt hurt anyone, "They come in peace".

  • Comment: Wasnt the out come a draw? 3 keep 3 delete or can i not count properly?--Slogankid 11:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 06:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haketsi[edit]

  1. The creator of the article is anonymous.
  2. The article cites no sources.
  3. No one else has adopted the article.
  4. A Wikipedia editor and I have both tried to confirm the information without success.
  5. Google lists 236 results for the word Haketsi. All of them are either random word lists or contain the exact same text as Wikipedia.
  6. Many of the Google results with the same text cite Wikipedia as the source.
  7. I emailed the webmaster of the most popular website in Georgia a few minutes ago asking whether he can confirm the truth or falsity of the article but have not heard back yet.
  8. Unless this article is greatly expanded it should deleted.
  9. As is, this is a dictionary entry that belongs in Wiktionary, which doesn't have the term either.
  10. Even if the information is correct—which has not been established—it obviously is not important. If it had even minor importance, it should appear somewhere else on the Web in a different context.
RickReinckens 06:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like you've done your homework.  :) If you can get any confirmation, then transwiki to wiktionary, and/or mergre with Georgia (country). Otherwise, delete uncerimoniosuly. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 07:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I received the following response to my inquiry:

Hi there,
The word "Haketsi" is not Georgian, I never even heared that Georgia is called so... You can ask Armenians about thi term, they might provide more information about it.
Good luck!
Regards, Besiki Sisauri

www.welcome.to/ (...) sakartvelo


From: "Rick Reinckens" <[email protected]>
Reply-To: "Rick Reinckens" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: W2S Comments
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:08:49 +0100
This message was sent from:
------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------
I am researching an English-language article for the free on-line
encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org
The article says that "Haketsi" was the Armenian name of Georgia in ancient
times (before 800).
Can you confirm whether that is true or false?
Thanks!
RickReinckens 21:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search of google reveals only hits that are from pages which pull from wikipedia. In other words, I'm voting for deletion based on it being unverifiable, and most likely a hoax. (If it were true, you think someone would have mentioned it). Great job on the part of the nominator. --Bachrach44 03:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rick's thorough research. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:21, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vezon and Fenrakk[edit]

Crystal ball fancruft original research. Randwicked Alex B 07:10, 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, then redirect. Punkmorten 01:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eco-defense[edit]

This article is completly unecisary. It states POV info that can be found other places on WP. The one author is an IP. And the article provides insuficent context to what it's talking about. One could imagine a ligitamte entry with this title, but this isn't it. Tobyk777 07:13, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of PHP applications[edit]

this is prime material for categorization Delete and replace with category-- -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:21, 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: unremarkable people or groups. --M@thwiz2020 18:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve 'Flash' Juon[edit]

Delete because it is a vanity page. The IP that created the page has been promoting the web sites mentioned in the article; the self-promoting article might as well be written in the first person. Daniel Quinlan 07:32, 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 deletion. enochlau (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xhizors[edit]

Vanity. Jogloran 07:40, 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 deletion. enochlau (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maszu Piękny[edit]

More vanity. Jogloran 07:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion'. enochlau (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L. Matthew[edit]

More vanity. Jogloran 07:39, 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 no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 06:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Nguyen[edit]

not notable seems like a recent college grad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawtoo4 (talk • contribs)

  • Weak keep looks like he's done some films, but not sure if any of it is notable Segv11 (talk/contribs) 08:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, same here. He's not not very notable, but the article itself is competent and he is a real person. -ZeroTalk 08:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another weak keep. hes on imdb here [15] but only one 30 minute film is listed -- Astrokey44|talk 14:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, until he is in a widely released film, I don't think he's notable enough. His first film was a student film and I don't see anything to indicate that this isn't something similar. -- Kjkolb 18:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sufficiently notable TigerShark 00:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep At least a few people seem to have heard of him, based on a quick Google search. Zagalejo 00:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MegamanZero. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kjkolb. Stifle 20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kjkolb. 'Nguyen' is very common Vietnamese surname. Its quite probable there are many, many people with the name 'Paul Nguyen'. Simply being in IMDb doesn't indicate notability. Afterall, I'm in IMDb, too -- along with nearly 2 million other people. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 23:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Paul Nguyen was the Director of Ian Jones: Activist and Artist, How the Steelpan Is Changing Lives (2008), in 2007 If Justice Fails (2007) TV episode Actor , in 2006 Lost in the Struggle (2006) TV episode Associate producer, in 2004 You Got Beef? Director, in 2000 Zombie Killers Director, writer, producer and 1999 Stop Racism National Video Competition: Racism. Stop it. Bnguyen (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda_Wenk[edit]

Reason why the page should be kept

  • KeepIt's documentation of an Internet Meme of late 2005/ early 2006. Deleting the page won't make that fact go away. (This anonymous comment added from IP address) -- 70.24.118.158
  • KeepI see no reason to delete this. It's 100% credible and indeed documents a real, if not terribly widely known, Internet phenomenon. It's perhaps the first interesting issue raised from public personal photography sites such as webshots, and I could easily see this phenomenon repeating itself. If it does, Wenk will be counted among the first to generate unintentional popularity in this way (by user 24.211.155.113).

Reason why the page should be deleted Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 08:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Idiosyncratic, lack of importance --Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 08:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, vanity Jawz 08:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not vanity, as Wenk has nothing to do with it -- and would seemingly would've preferred to remain anonymous -- but this is a person who's 15 seconds of fame are up. -- GWO 11:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GWO. 15 seconds is not enough anyway. Kusma (討論) 14:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --King of All the Franks 14:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject makes no claims as to notability and appears to have made attempts to remove her Internet presence.  (aeropagitica)  15:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DaGizzaChat (c) 21:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, vanity Incognito 03:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-encyclopedic. DrKC9N 06:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not entirely sure the 15 seconds were ever really enjoyed.  :) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:32, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name plates[edit]

Seems like a non-notable/unencyclopaedic topic for an article. Far too general; I can't see it ever amounting to anything useful. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 09:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep with wikify tag. 800k google hits. I found some pictures on commons but they were a different sense of nameplate than meant in the article. Could also be merged with Nameplate -- Astrokey44|talk 14:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though the article needs a lot of work. I was thinking about starting an article about nameplates because they are often mentioned in technical writing, like nameplate capacity, nameplate voltage and such. -- Kjkolb 18:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nameplates are notable and encyclopedic but article needs some work TigerShark
  • Keep per Astrokey44. Essexmutant 10:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Okay, the article seemed a bit "silly" to me at first, but based on the changes it's undergone over the past days, and the already-existing Nameplate article which I didn't know about before, my opinion has been swayed. It still needs a good deal of work, but it is worth having as an article. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 08:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as per CSD A1: no context. --M@thwiz2020 18:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totemsup[edit]

1 hit in google [16], nonsense basically. feydey 09:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • SPEEDY as nonsense -Drdisque 09:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, but not as patent nonsense (the letters/words are stuck together in a recognisable order). However, can be speedied under WP:CSD A1, lack of context, in my opinion. Tag amended. Sliggy 13:50, 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 copyvio. Punkmorten 01:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit II[edit]

Delete non-encyclopaedic original "research" Drdisque 09:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - copyvio, original research -- it looks like either a review or a book report. If such a book exists, I'm OK with there being an article about it. But this ain't it. 23skidoo 19:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to WP:CP. Stifle 20:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 01:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pompeo Posar[edit]

He was a Playboy photographer; he took photos of Playboy models; he took lots of photos of lots of Playboy models. That's it. I don't think that it's enough for notability. The padding out with a long list of women he's photographed doesn't make him notable. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — just to make things clear. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, being a big fan of everything pornographic. He's one of the most prominent photographers for the world's largest erotic magazine. What's not notable about that? Eixo 12:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article lists a compilation of his work published by Playboy, and whether you treat it as a book or a magazine it's a single-author work with a paid circulation of way more than 5000 -- and therefore meets the notability criteria for published authors. Monicasdude 15:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known regular contributor for major magazine. -Colin Kimbrell 15:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems sufficiently notable, article needs expansion though. TigerShark 00:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficiently notable. Stifle 20:26, 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 all. Johnleemk | Talk 06:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Burbridge, Technobangman, The Royal Filipino Under Aged Vegetarian Society[edit]

Patent nonsense, I think it's been deleted before. Pretty funny though, I'd suggest BJAODN. Eixo 12:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, Technobangman is somewhat different from what was deleted but recognisably the same organisation. There were not many votes on its AfD though. Liam burbridge was speedied. So it is reasonable to complete this process in respect of Burbridge, and at least defensible to leave Technobangman for now. If this AfD ends in a substantial consensus to delete then I will watch the pages, with a view to speedying any reposts and possible protection, and told the user so here. Will that do? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I'd just like to see that whole lot speedily deleted due to my previous involvement in the original Technobangman AfD which sparked the creation of these nonsense pages (we're the facists btw, for deleting the original Technobangman article). The user concerned repeatedly vandalised the AfD page, made personal and general attacks against the voters and used multiple accounts so as to deter detection of their vandalism. I strongly suspect the newly-created User:Skillman100 is also User:Liamcb and User:82.110.149.183. It just annoys me to see someone using Wikipedia in this manner. David Johnson [T|C] 16:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It annoys me, too. I'm sure if this were anything other than my first day as an admin I'd have nuked them straight away; any other admins stumbling across this may feel inclined to do so. On the other hand the other AfD got few votes; if this counts a goodly number it will make future enforcement completely uncontentious (in my view - but what do I know?) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont you think nuking us over a website would be a bit silly. Did'nt you learn anything from Hiroshima. Anyway you need a war decleration and in most cases, a nuclear attack would waarant an approval from the UN. And you'd probably just end up affecting yourself. Gaylord. Think before you nuke, thats what i always say. And btw, Liam CB is not skillman100, I am skillman 100. Why is it not plausible that he can have a friend with the same sense of humour? As for attacks on individuals, id like to make it clear that we never made the first move. We were ridiculed by certain users randomly for no reason, particular David Johnson, which i particularly find offensive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.110.149.183 (talk • contribs) .

i think that you should maybe get out more. btw the facists were not you, the facists were very strong men oppressing people of ethnic origin. and i overcame them single handedly. do not sully my triumph! i am a reformed man and, as i said to robert mugabe when i looked him straight in the eye, IGNORANCE LEADS TO FEAR, FEAR LEADS TO ANGER, ANGER LEADS TO HATE, HATE LEADS TO SUFFERING. if this has the same effect on you than it did on bobby m you will be crying in shame now. to clarify, i am not a sad person who sits alone on the internet creating people and masturbating over bestiality. i am an ARTIST. thank you,
liam x x x
ps i would like to ask David Johnson if he has a life outside of wikipedia? maybe a job? friends? family? if so, maybe he could spend his time on this outside life rather than being a colossal prick. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liamcb (talk • contribs) .

  • Note to others: there is no need to remove any of the above attacks against me under WP:CIVIL. Not only is it rather amusing, but it illustrates my above points quite well. People are free to browse the original AfD page to look for evidence of people being ridiculed. David Johnson [T|C] 14:12, 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 00:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U Media Concepts, Inc.[edit]

Advertising masquerading as an article for a tiny SEO and web marketing company. Despite being 'a premier comprehensive marketing and advertising company that has strategically differentiated itself as a Media Portfolio Advisor', "U Media Concepts" only draws 11 unique Google hits. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages, nor are we an SEO plaything. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Ecclesiates 1:2. This is not a Spam site. --D-Day 12:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, whole article is nothing but adspeak about a company with no claims of notability anywhere. - Bobet 13:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Incognito 05:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 20:21, 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 06:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Sims[edit]

non-notability, no references Melaen 13:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as double non-notable bio. Stifle 20:20, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Horse Ventures, LLC[edit]

Non-notable company, 330 Google hits, the companies main (only?) product was recently deleted. --S.K. 13:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. If their main product isn't notable, the company isn't either, IMO. --Thunk 16:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Captain Jackson 19:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. Stifle 20:20, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 06:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NGOism[edit]

Delete. Okay, you folks outside the obscure partisan fights of Europe's backwater, have you ever heard of this? Low hundreds in Google, seems decidedly sub-noteworthy vanity propaganda to me. --Malyctenar 13:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, it is political propaganda made by Lumidek. But as the Czech version shows, it could be modified according NPOV and then be useful for readers. If we have the Czech version, why not English? --Egg ✉ 13:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Agree with Malyctenar and Thesquire. Dear colleague Egg, even if Lumidek loves Klaus – as quite some of our Czech country women and men do, as he gives them what they like to hear – and puts his love as far as en.wikipedia, we should help our colleagues over here to fight vanity and, in this case, meaningless Klaus' neologisms. (Another thing is that of a very low threshold for vanity at cs.wiki... and yet another of watching out for propaganda on en.wiki...) wiki-vr 07:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, after reading WP:NEO I vote delete. --Egg ✉ 08:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ;-) –wiki-vr 08:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism i.e. protologism. Stifle 20:20, 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 no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 06:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Playero[edit]

"One of the producers of reggaeton that initiated this movement". Well, well, well, how arrogant, since our article on reggaeton specifically declares the origin of reggaeton to be uncertain ("The birthplace of the music genre is a subject of debate between those who believe it was started in Panama and those who believe it originated in Puerto Rico"). Obvious NPOV violation, and I'm not sure how notable this is. So delete. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 13:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. However, Playero is indeed one of the biggest pioneers in the reggaeton genre in Puerto Rico, back in the 90s. The article definitely needs a lot of work, but that necessarily doesn't mean a deletion. I say keep and I'll try to work with it in the following days. Thief12 02:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as non-notable musician. CSD:A7. Stifle 20:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the criteria to determine who's notable and who isn't? Obviously, Playero is not an international artist, but you can ask anyone in Puerto Rico (and perhaps even Latin America) who's one of the pioneers of reggaeton and lots will tell you "Playero". Most of his recordings were underground tapes that weren't sold on stores because the genre wasn't mainstream yet. That's why they even called it "underground rap". And, like I said in the article, lots of today's artists (even Daddy Yankee) started their careers with Playero. Truth is that Playero is (along with Vico C, El General, and others) one of the first to bring reggaeton music to the surface. Heck! I don't even like reggaeton that much and here I am speaking for him, LOL! Thief12 00:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Incognito 04:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This producer is quite well known in Puerto Rico and I'm completely sure that Puerto Ricans would like to find his biography on Wikipedia. —Joseph | Talk 17:49, 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 06:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Ground (nightclub)[edit]

Because a band called "Phish" once performed there doesn't warrant an entry into Wikipedia Cyberevil 20:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment More than Phish. Its closing, and it seems borderline notable. Seems like a piece of music history being documented; I'm leaning towards Keep and Cleanup, but I'm going to look further first. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It's fairly notable in the area. Nothing on the website indicates it's closing. Definitely needs cleanup. Crunch 23:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, the closing was from a news article, written apr 2004, closing supposed to happen in a year or two - apparently didn't happen. [[17]]. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original Higher Ground in Winooksi, Vermont closed in 2004, with a newer location opened later that year in South Burlington, Vermont. It is owned by the brother in law of Phish's lead guitarist, Trey Anastasio, and a lot of history, pertaining more to the band's side projects than the band itself has been made at both locations. Phish is one of the major Vermont institutions like Ben & Jerry. I originally authored the article because I believe that Higher Ground has been an important place to the people of Vermont and the fans of Phish, and feel that it belongs in Wikipedia as much as a venue like CBGB. Milchama 12:15, 11 January 2006
    Wonderful, I've not been able to find decent sources to puzzle this out. Can you add sources to the article, and expand a little? At the least, add the sources to the talk page so they are available for others? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, among other things. Stifle 15:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to do a rewrite of this article, if you can give me a few more days. I promise to add more sources to make this legitimate and up to Wikipedia standards. Thanks. Milchama 13:44, 12 January 2006
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 13:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty of notable bands and singers have played there -- Astrokey44|talk 04:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite complete. Milchama 23:12, 17 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 speedily deleted as per CSD A7: unremarkable people or groups. --M@thwiz2020 18:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hornswaggled[edit]

Scaife marked this band as a speedy deletion. I don't think it's speedy (nor obviously does Kappa), but I'll complete his AfD. Nominator abstains. TimBentley 14:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article was speedily deleted. TimBentley 14:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pockethouse[edit]

Website vanity. The link goes to a personal blog, the forum has fewer than 200 users. Too small to make any impact outside its core group of users. Joyous | Talk 14:06, 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 06:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowblade[edit]

Article is about a game system created by the author, which seems to fall under the heading of original research. - squibix 14:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, original research. - Bobet 22:46, 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; different Wikipedias have different standards. Johnleemk | Talk 06:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Didillon[edit]

Looks like a vanity to me. Staecker 14:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Agree with nom. It looks somewhat like a personal activity log or quasi-résumé. — RJH 15:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a resumé and not a record of notability. If it is the user's own page, transfer the data to their Wikispace. If not, delete as violation of WP:BIO.  (aeropagitica)  17:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it's just a CV. Sliggy 18:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the article hade been revised basically, seems it to be, persons or matters outside the U.S. are less worth to be mentioned and edited at Wikipedia.org., even if they are obviously eminent to be listed at foreign Wikipedia pages, for example http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophe_Didillon We think Wikipedia.org should be a cosmopolitan matter. B. D. 19.01.06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Didillon (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. Punkmorten 01:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Day In The Life Of, Chewyroll Media[edit]

Non-notable and unverifiable set of short films from a non-notable production company. Stifle 14:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unless references and citations can be provided for the article, there is no substantive claim to notability.  (aeropagitica)  17:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. dreamrequest 13:52, 16 January 2006 (MDT)
  • Comment added Chewyroll Media on the same afd, since its the 'company' with no other claim to notability than making this. - Bobet 22:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, since there's no claim to notability. 0 google results for "Chewyroll Media", indicating no notability coming from there either. - Bobet 22:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Incognito 00:10, 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. —Cleared as filed. 16:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinan Samil Sam[edit]

No text, just a photo Staecker 14:53, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Chaplain[edit]

Vanitadvertisement Staecker 14:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No justification regarding notability provided. The article discusses a book for sale and not the author.  (aeropagitica)  17:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this "article" is just text lifted from his web site, advertising his book for sale. Grrr. Sliggy 18:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 06:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Dalli[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was vanity. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This doesn't read as a vanity article but it is hard to find the claim to notability for the academic. He has 137 citations on a Google Scholar search. I think that the article could be rewritten to demonstrate notability.  (aeropagitica)  17:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- Astrokey44|talk 04:24, 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 06:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal love[edit]

Delete Bobbyboyuk 19:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about the relevance of this article. Seems strange.Bobbyboyuk 19:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Read the last line Famous animal lovers include Michael Jackson and Brigitte Bardot. St. Francis of Assisi is considered the patron of animal love. This would be BJAODN is it were funny, since it's not, just delete. --Bachrach44 03:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless there is a better article about the same subject. There should be something about this - lots of people love animals. its a psychology subject isnt it? Also "animal lover" gets 1.6 million google hits [18] -- Astrokey44|talk 04:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense/bad joke Incognito 04:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--nixie 03:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the term may sound odd at first, a Google search does provide evidence that it is real. The subject certainly is. A film documentary of this (by the same name) also exists. --Alsayid 06:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know how odd or jokey this article seems to you. AFAIK Animal Friendship is an emotion and represents a significant category of people. There are societies ands clubs for animal friends. How is the thing that Brigitte Bardot and so many other people advocate, but not necessarily activistic? Shouldn't be an article for it? I don't know about other countries, but my country there is a special word for it (zoophilia). I was surprised that there was no mention to this in wikipedia, except some vague articles about animal rights and zoophilia as a pervertion... and now it's considered a candidate for deletion. Geez Pictureuploader 11:16, 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 redirect to Glam rock. - Mailer Diablo 00:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glitter Rock[edit]

What this is describing is Glam Metal, but the name "Glitter rock" is used to describe Glam rock as is stated in the Glam rock article..

The two are totally different movements, see Butt rock for other examples of "Radioflyr's" confusion on such matters. - Deathrocker 10:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep; if a merge is imperative, it can be done without an Afd. Johnleemk | Talk 06:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

  • delete Article needs cleanup, citation, and verification Ginar 02:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jesus Merge into Religious perspectives on Jesus. This can be adequately covered there. --Ezeu 17:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expand. Jesus is already at 47k, and the differences between LDS Jesus and Protestant Jesus are sufficient to carry an article. BD2412 T 17:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, if not speedy keep All reasons given for the nomination are matters for the talk page, not AfD, and AfD is not required to edit the article. Also per BDA. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 19:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and leave a redirect Dlyons493 Talk 19:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BD2412. An individual groups' view of Jesus is noteworthy (and this could, no doubt, be expanded) but all such views cannot be incorporated, and done justice to, in the Jesus article. --Doc ask? 20:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm new here so just quick question, is it true that concerns about verification are addressed in the talk page? I'm involved in another request for delete and I keep hearing "verification" as an excuse for delete. I'm just strugging to see if there is any common application of the rules here. I'm guessing there isn't but is that "just the way it operates". I'm also involved in another delete where the nominator (and admin) has come out and said he'll ignore consensus and delete an entry if it isn't cleaned up by the end of the vote. It seems to me the delete process is highly political. true ??? --Ginar 20:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to be a valid subpage on a very important topic regarding Mormons. Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 21:09, 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 G1: patent nonsense. --M@thwiz2020 00:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liams Lost Love[edit]

Fails Google test with 0 results, probably nonsense --NaconKantari 20:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a film being made but no details have been leaked yet, so no online details other than this have been published.

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Speedy?) Delete Probable hoax: Arnold Schwarzeneger (sic), Johnny Vegas and Cameron Diaz?! It's probably punctuated wrong anyway + WP not a crystal ball. --kingboyk 22:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, since it's easily verified to be a hoax and nonsense. Any film with that cast would get a mention on google, not to mention having a quotes section on a film supposedly so early in production that no one else has heard of it yet. - Bobet 22:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

List of German dreadnought battleships[edit]

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

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


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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Jones[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was notable?. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — I'm not completely sure, but I think a chair of the mathematics department and a Professor Emeritus makes him somewhat notable. However, it'd be good to have a notable contribution to the field listed. — RJH 15:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- This article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. --BrenDJ 16:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and cleanup the publication list! Dlyons493 Talk 19:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Professor Emeritus should be notable. Essexmutant 10:52, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uber neal[edit]

Spam for some website. Delete --NaconKantari 04:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I added the nonsense template, don't know why this can't be speedied. TheRingess 04:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not quite nonsense; it is trying to say something intelligible, although we disagree with what it says. enochlau (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. enochlau (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism from nn website. --Muchness 16:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advert. Incognito 05:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Stephen Fuchs[edit]

I'm not slapping a nn-bio on this to see if its notable enough. Some info here [19]. With the debut book to be released in April 2006 and no idea if he really meets WP:BIO. Comments. feydey 15:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Feels like book promotion now. feydey 15:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn-bio now. He might become notable if the book sells well, but until then, WP:NOT a crystal ball. - Bobet 22:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn as yet -- Astrokey44|talk 04:43, 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 speedily deleted as per CSD G1: patent nonsense. --M@thwiz2020 00:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chici chici[edit]

a quick search brings up this word being used for sound effects, and not Latin --Dangherous 15:45, 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 06:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digestion (alchemy)[edit]

This artilce is a dicdef which is already in Wiktionary. Movementarian (Talk) 15:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just put the {{wi}} tag on it (as I've just done), no need to delete, right? --W.marsh 16:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless I'm missing something. There's no 'Digestion (alchemy)' in wiktionary, just plain digestion. The definition on this article was a dicdef on digestion, probably created because it was linked from another article. - Bobet 22:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The definition as described in the article was already outlined in the definition of digestion, although not attributed to alchemy. Movementarian (Talk) 04:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, yes, but this page at the moment links to the non-existant wiktionary page called 'digestion (alchemy)'. Since there isn't an alchemy-specific means of digestion in here or in wiktionary, just deleting this page would seem smart to me. - Bobet 12:18, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 06:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Audit Services[edit]

Article about a business with no assertion of notability. A search for it on Google and a look at its web site don't make it look any more notable, either. —Cleared as filed. 15:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom and my usual antipathy to this sort of page. Daniel Case 05:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Essexmutant 10:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN Incognito 04:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete This is not the name of a company. Pls read what I wrote on the discussion page. yucina 20:10, 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 06:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmendar Mendar[edit]

Unverified definition of a name. See Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary. Hurricane111 15:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, misleading title since it only defines the word Dharmendar (article with that title got deleted 3 weeks ago, so the title is probably just a way to avoid redeletion). The definition as of now makes no sense and has no real connection to the subject, except that it is supposedly a word. - Bobet 16:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Disgust. - Mailer Diablo 00:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disgusting[edit]

Article is a dicdef which is already in Wiktionary. Movementarian (Talk) 15:57, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IANCW[edit]

Non-notable slang definition used in one IRC channel BigBlueFish 16:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Muchness 16:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another neologism. --Bachrach44 02:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 06:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shin-Ninjitsu[edit]

  • Delete - non-notable, and arguable, branch of martial arts. Same material as was on the Ryu-Ha Shin-Ninjitsu page that has been deleted twice (see discussion here.)Kcordina 16:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is the same material, it could be speedy deleted. Just edit the page and add '{{db-reason|Recreation of deleted material that was at [[Ryu-Ha Shin-Ninjitsu]]}}, or a similar reason, to the top. (Won't be bold and add it myself because I don't remember the original article.) Otherwise delete as vanity martial arts. --Malthusian (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks, it is not _quite_ the same, so I'll leave it here to run the course. Kcordina 09:25, 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 06:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cliteracy[edit]

I can't find evidence that this word is anything more than a protologism, see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for every plausible word that sounds interesting (and usually has to do with sex). There needs to be evidence of meaningful use, which doesn't seem to be the case here [20], [21]. W.marsh 16:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep June is Cliteracy Month [22] Endomion 20:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thus proclaims some blog. See WP:V that's not a good source. --W.marsh 20:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article provides no verification of its claims, a Google turns up only ~300 odd hits (many of which enclose the phrase within quote marks or otherwise acknowledge it as a neologism). In the absence of reliable sources, delete as unverifiable, a probable neologism. Sliggy 22:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say redirect to Cliterature, which is a widely used, if new, word. But we don't seem to have that. Perhaps rename and expand? Grutness...wha? 01:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feel free to do the expansion. --W.marsh 01:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • having had a second look at the article, I see I misread it thoroughly the first time (ironically). It's such a completely different concept to cliterature that it probably wouldn't be a reasonable redirect to it at all. in which case, I'm changing my vote to a weak delete. Grutness...wha? 11:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom Incognito 05:52, 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 23:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandpitgirl[edit]

As far as I can tell, this is just an ad for the sandpitgirl.com website. No claim to notability, and the website itself seems like it's a story baked into a puzzle; I'm not about to solve the puzzle to reveal the story to research the article. Mikeblas 16:42, 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 06:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Sobh[edit]

nn student journalist, no other contributions to field, Delete -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 16:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Had a weekly (Thursday) column in a daily newspaper. Got quite noted as such. A simple websearch reveals this. She is also active and noted in music. gidonb 18:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, borderline speedy candidate. College-newspaper writer, apparently most notable for falling for a hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mariam Sobh gets 484 hits from very diverse media and very diverse activities. [23] Daily Illini is an independent daily covering news from Urbana-Champaign and beyond. gidonb 22:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's a student newspaper, and as such is not as inherently notable as most local papers, and definitely not as notable as the major dailies. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 17:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The Daily Illini is one of the two independent dailies in Urbana-Champaign, so it is not the New York Times. Yet the article is not on the Daily Illini, which has an article (click here) and deserves more attention. The article is about an author and musician who receives 484 hits for diverse activities, many of them the hoax but also on her theories regarding the fashion industry and her music preformance. This is a lot of hits. She also won a journalism prize. It proves that students can get noted. We run many articles on students that make news. gidonb added some info on 15:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gidonb, quit editing your comment after the fact. Also, please see Sliggy's comment. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 16:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is precisely why I added a special warning. But be my guest, rub it in, and dance on my body ;-) I respect Sliggy's opinions, they do not cancel the prize she won, only belittle it a bit. And of course I completely respect this majority decision; there are pros and cons to anything. A pity of all the work I invested in this well balanced article, but never mind. Next time better! Cheers, gidonb 02:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wrote a column in a student run newspaper, and fell for a hoax. Whilst a student, won a "Mark of Excellence" at a regional level in the "Radio Daily Newscast" category. Common sense, let alone the biographic notability guidelines, indicate that this person has not (yet) achieved significance or notability. Sliggy 00:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if not speedy--nixie 03:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn vanity incog 00:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this non-notable gal. IZAK 06:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, no consensus; keep, whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 07:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 in the United States[edit]

This series of pages (a quick look indicates it might only be 2004 and 2005) is unnecessary, and as an indication of that, it has gone totally unmaintained. No point in even merging and redirecting; the information is already in the individual year articles. —Cleared as filed. 17:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The year articles in WP already cover the major events from a global perspective. This is redundant information, even if it was fleshed out.  (aeropagitica)  17:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep improve and train the Americans to produce their own monthly articles as several other countries already do. The fact that global news and subject update articles are seen as the appropriate place for minor U.S. news is an aspect of U.S. centrism. CalJW 17:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - like it or not, Wikipedia is kind of US-centric and there's nothing in here that isn't alread in 2005. This is redundant and not prone to being maintained well. Also I'm turning this into a multinomination, please vote on 2004 in the United States too. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 21:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not confined to the United States. 1924 in Tonga? I think not. Jtmichcock 22:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jtmichcock. --Revolución (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful summary of year's events in the US. --TimPope 22:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TimPope. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Canadian precedent.  Grue  17:07, 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 see above, dude. Johnleemk | Talk 07:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2004 in the United States[edit]

  • 'Delete per above. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 21:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not confined to the United States. 1924 in Tonga? I think not. Jtmichcock 22:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both, of course. We have 2005 in Canada, or is your anti-Americanism showing once again? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if this was directed at me (the nominator), but I am an American and obviously have no anti-American bias. My concern is that the articles are pointless because they are not likely to be updated, and what information is there is duplicated from other, better-updated articles. —Cleared as filed. 22:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm from the US as well. I checked out the Canada article and there turns out to be a whole panoply of articles for over a hundred years. Is this true for any other country? I stand by my statement that Wikipedia should not isolate these chronologies by country since, no matter what the country, there is almost always going to be some influence to or from another country. Also, each of the dates, e.g., 2005, has its own universal chronology. The Canada articles disturb me, however. I would be extremely reluctant to AfD all of them since so much effort has clearly gone into their production. By the same token, I think someone should have AfDed the first Canada article when it appeared. My suggested resolution at this point would be to leave the Canada articles alone, but not let any others be developed and get similarly out of hand. I realize this is a half-assed resolution, but it is the most equitable I can think of. Jtmichcock 13:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jtmichcock. --Revolución (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, some things are important in the context of the US but not in the context of 2005 as a whole. Kappa 18:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both - When Wikipedia comes close to its goal of "containing all human knowledge", year articles will need to be subdivided quite finely. Scope is the determinant of relevance; the election of a mayor is significant locally but not state-wide; state assembly action has no national meaning but is important locally; U.S. internal goings-on frequently have no impact beyond its borders. We already acknowledge that many types of information belong in 2005 in sports (or whatever category) but not 2005, but some events transcend to a higher importance and should be listed on the main year article. This is the same situation but for a country, which seems eminently reasonable to me. - Bantman 19:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful summary of year's events in the US. --TimPope 22:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Incognito 00:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TimPope. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Canadian precedent.  Grue  17:07, 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; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Interview[edit]

Delete — As with the previous AfD, the same reasons there, apply here: Is there even any need for it? It's and interview process; is it just becuase it's Microsoft that it gets its own page? People should be fairly familiar with the interview process. If it has to be deleted, then perhaps put a {{deletedpage}} on it? KILO-LIMA 17:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, and if it's substantially the same as the last one, speedy delete. I'm not sure it is - of course I can't see the original, but one of the sentences was quoted in the AfD - I searched the article for part of it ('development manager') and found nothing, so it's probably not completely identical. Its only purpose is still basically as a how-to, which violates WP:NOT. --Malthusian (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is next-to-nothing in the article that is different from a majority of 'prepare yourself for a job interview' articles that are published on a weekly basis. The Microsoft aspect doesn't make it notable.  (aeropagitica)  17:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article has improved since the last AfD. Even a merge is better than delete. I don't think we want to upset a relatively new user to Wikipedia by deleting one of his decent articles? --★Ukdragon37★talk 18:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are numerous new users who's pages are delted. Some are even wrost than AfD, and in this case, I mean Speedy. This article seems to blatantly advertise Microsoft's interview, and Wikipedia is not a how-to. KILO-LIMA 20:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge I think my article should at least be merged with the Microsoft entry. Microsoft was one of the first, if not the first company to develop this unique style of interviewing. Since other companies like Google and Yahoo also use this type of interview, it is becoming more commonplace, so I can see why people might want to merge my article with Microsoft. I did spend a good deal of time crafting the article and you can find that the content is factual and well-written. I only decided to write this page after reading the Microsoft entry and seeing that "Microsoft Interview" was not linked to a Wiki page. I think that those who are more familiar with the more traditional behavioral interviews will learn something about how technical interviews are conducted. -- Suvablee0506 18:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't see what makes the interview process unusual, personally. The procedure and the questions all seem pretty standard. This may be because, if the article does have a purpose, it's hidden in all the stuff that frankly, doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia entry. We don't need to know, for example, Microsoft's current job postings, or that they pay for your accomodation, or their expense claims procedure (which is, btw, identical to every other expense claims procedure). Or rather, we would if we were applying for a job at Microsoft, but no-one who isn't could possibly find that information interesting; that means it's not suitable for an encyclopaedia. If it's a unique style of interviewing, then tell us about it and remove all the other stuff, because I honestly can't see it in this article. --Malthusian (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do see your point. Perhaps I can incorporate some of what I have written in "The Second Round Technical Interview" and and "Interview Questions" into the "Business culture" section of the Microsoft entry and delete the separate entry for "Microsoft Interview"? - Suvablee0506 18:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Me too. Perhaps merging would be better. But no large amount of detail should be added. It is only a process as to whether someone should ge a job at Microsoft, or not. KILO-LIMA 18:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is neither anything notable nor encyclopedic about this entry.Microsoft's interview process is not particularly different than the interview process for other similar companies. I think it borders on advertising, to be honest. Crunch 18:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Back in the 80s and 90s, the Microsoft interview procedure was influential and innovative. I don't diasagree that the article needs to be cleaned-up, though. The talk page suggests there was a far more interesting version previously available, but I don't see it in the history. Can it be resurrected? -- Mikeblas 19:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Microsoft interview process is definitely notable and drastically altered interviews across the whole field of computer science. Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 21:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If that's true, then I think the article can be rewritten with that fact as its focus, and less detail on all the steps of the interview process, many of which are common to every job interview in every field, dating long before the 1980s. Crunch 00:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Smells like a copyvio or an official submission to me. e.g. It is expected that the candidate research Microsoft's various businesses and product groups, and come prepared to speak in-depth about his/her résumé in addition to asking thoughtful questions. --kingboyk 22:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was no intention of mine at all to create an entry that would cause controversy. I was just reading the Microsoft entry and found the wiki-link to "Microsoft Interview" with an unwritten article. I was totally unaware that it had been deleted before. I understand everyone's concern about the entry. Perhaps an addition to the Job interview entry could include a description of a technical interview using the Microsoft interview process as an example. Obviously, only parts of the current article would be used. I myself am leaning towards deleting the "Microsoft Interview" entry and merging parts of it with possibly Microsoft and Job interview because that type of interview is becoming more commonplace. I am however against deleting it outright before at least some of it is used somewhere because I did do genuine research and put forth an honest effort. Any thoughts? - Suvablee0506 23:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't worry too much about the controversy, honestly. We try to assume good faith and I'm sure there's a way we can use some of your material. Besides, the guidance presented to a user when (s)he clicks on a red link maybe isn't good enough. --kingboyk 23:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Before the article was deleted, someone really should have checked 'what links here' and dewikilinked 'Microsoft interview'. --Malthusian (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a how to guide. --Bachrach44 02:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would just like to say that contrary to what people are saying here, this article's subject in my opinion is quite notable. This interviewing process is drastically different from what the majority of other companies use. There should be somewhere on Wikipedia to document this. I agree that maintenance may be needed (clean up, removing potential adverts, merged etc.) but I do not believe this article should be deleted outright (as per my vote above). --★Ukdragon37★talk 18:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic, the pracice will surely change over years. As an anectode: I know about one guy who got hired by Microsoft (as a tester) w/o any interview at all (a student who finished university, not someone with big name). He was recommended by a friend (who even didn;'t worked in MS) and got in without being asked anything at all. So the article isn't even correctly describing reality. Pavel Vozenilek 22:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would everyone be okay with just using some part of the entry and merging it with Job interview to describe a technical interview using Microsoft as just one example? The Job interview entry has a section on behavioral interviews but not technical interviews. Again, I am not against deleting the entry but not before some of it is used somewhere.- Suvablee0506 17:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As has been noted above, the subject of the article is particularly noteworthy because of its originality and subsequent effect on many companies, especially in the 80's and 90's. However, the article itself is not spectacular. It should be condensed, refocused, and placed either on the Microsoft page or the Job interview page, the other with a note and a link. Rexmorgan 03:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was this is why we go by consensus and why AfD is a discussion - delete! Johnleemk | Talk 07:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hauner[edit]

Just another Vanity page. Edited mainly by Cat-o-Matic1, his or her only edits. Vít Zvánovec 17:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete vanity page, nn-bio --Bachrach44 02:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Adam Hauner is well known webdesign pioneer and co-worker of several prime Czech websites. --Petr.adamek 11:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as Petr.adamek). Cinik 11:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Same reason as Petr.Adamek.) Tlusťa 13:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Petr.Adamek. --Terence Ong 15:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, user page in main namespace. Adam Hauner is very active on Czech Wiki (hence the few supporting votes above - such AfD also runs on Czech Wiki) and sometimes helps on English Wiki (thanks). While he may be known by fellow designers in Czech Republic (who form most of Czech Wikipedia crew) there's no indication he is also known outside this relatively small and quite fluid circle. I know about existence of websites he worked on but none of them is notable enough to have article on Czech Wiki. I had asked this user months ago to userfy the page and did again two days ago. Yesterday Hauner answered: "if you have problem with the page delete it" [25] (in Czech, edit from 11:00, 16. 1. 2006). Pavel Vozenilek 22:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note on possible reason of this AfD: the nominator had been banned from Czech Wikipedia (by voting procedure and Hauner (if I remember well) voted for the ban). This AfD may be seen as form of revenge. That doesn't change my opinion on delete, though. Pavel Vozenilek 22:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I simply don't find usefulness of this page for the (English speaking) world. If I could vote on cs:, I would vote quite opposite. -- Vít Zvánovec 09:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not questioning this. Pavel Vozenilek 20:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 07:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James McGowan[edit]

  • Person is non-notable, not everyone who presumes to start a "ministry" is notable for that reason.
  • The person has a limited publication history. Not everyone who publishes a book is notable.
  • Membership in a theological society is not a criteria for notability.
  • Not everyone who graduates from Louisiana Baptist University is notable for that reason.
  • The person is an "education pastor" at a church. Not everyone who serves in that capacity is notable.
  • Attempt to include article in the Wikipedia article base is POV driven.
    • The aggregate of reasons of inclusion into the Wikipedia article base does not give weight to any claim to notability. WarriorScribe 17:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, very minor christian minister with unnotable and insufficient service and publication record. 65.245.103.190 20:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. McGowan is a pastor, author, and professor. --Jason Gastrich 05:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interestingly enough, Gastrich would rather whine about my "back-handedly" thanking someone for their vote (the "thanks" was genuine, in fact, and unlike Gastrich, I'm not out shopping for "votes," so his comment was not only juvenile, but disingenuous) than provide any rationalé for McGowan's notability. - WarriorScribe 17:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. McGowan has liberty and freedom of speech under the constitution to speak on or add onto any discussion that he chooses to as a citzen of The United States. Deleting this entry would be a violation of his constitutional rights)--Michaelwmoss 06:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: to date this user has three edits (all on this page). He also misses the whole point of wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 06:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this count as a legal threat? Please say it counts as a legal threat. --Malthusian (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure sounds close to a legal threat, and certainly it is pretty stupid. The first amendment really doesn't apply here, as we are not the government. Maybe we need to point this user in the right direction, he sounds like a 12 year old kid. Brokenfrog
  • Strong Delete bush leage minister not note worthy
  • Strong keep. McGowan is a notable figure. Plus, other Wiki people with far fewer credentials are kept. --207.200.116.73 06:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • why is he notable? Do you have some examples of people with fewer credentials that survived an AfD? David D. (Talk) 06:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, nothing extraordinary here - HBA
  • Delete Fails biography notability criteria. OhnoitsJamie 06:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails biography notability criteria. David D. (Talk) 06:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as nominated. - MBlair
  • Delete as nominated. This James McGowan looks a lot more notable.--SarekOfVulcan 06:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails biography notability criteria.
  • Delete. Ugh, another one. Fails WP:BIO. --Malthusian (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mark K. Bilbo 20:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Between the book and the ministry is probably known well beyond his own congregation. California 12 13:57 January 17 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm fairly certain that, when we want to engage in an evaluation of notability, we can't deal in "probably." Apparently Wikipedia does have standards. Do you have evidence that "between the book and the ministry" McGowan is "known well beyond his own congregation?" What is "known well?" Is it enough to merit an encyclopedia article and, if so, why? That's part of the point, I think. Thanks for your vote. - WarriorScribe 22:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's really not your place to (back-handedly) thank anyone for their vote. Even though you nominated this entry for deletion, this isn't your entry or your web site. It belongs to Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 08:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's really unfortunate (and probably no small irritation) for Gastrich, but I can thank anyone that I want (there was no presumption that the entry is mine or that the web site is mine). Of course, every time he wants to snipe, whimper, and whine like this, it's just one more piece of ammuntion. - WarriorScribe 17:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep He is a good and notable person.--God's child 05:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: to date this user has six edits two on AfD's that Jason Gastrich voted keep. David D. (Talk) 05:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the number of known and suspected Gastrich sock puppets, I don't think it's absurd, at all. - WarriorScribe 18:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - being a prof does not mean you are notable. --Pierremenard 11:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A.J.A. 16:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article was created by Jason Gastrich to promote his school as a mainstream institution. This is only one of around 10 articles he created promoting his religion/degree/school. See List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people. --Q — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.73 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Guettarda 03:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delele--nixie 04:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with the rest. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep (weak) He is an author, but this needs to be merged with something more notable perhaps.
  • Delete He just doesn't have the notability. If this wasn't such a controversial issue the article would be deleted without a second thought. --kingboyk 23:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Hall Monitor 23:32, 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 redirect; merge impossible due to copyright problems. Johnleemk | Talk 07:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian McCullogh[edit]

This is not the correct spelling of the player's name. His real name is Ian McCulloch and he already has a page. O'kelly 17:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition the text is stolen word for word from the Global Snooker Centre website.O'kelly 18:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect would make sense, except I'd redirect it to the disambiguation page (if one exists). I instantly thought of the guy from Echo & the Bunnymen. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ian McCulloch (snooker player) with attention to avoid existing potential copyright issues. Crunch 01:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if someone can be bothered rewriting the copyrighted material. Else Delete as per above. O'kelly 09:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Ian McCulloch (snooker player) per above. Essexmutant 10:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanco galindo[edit]

non 'notability the main and most massive highway in Cochabamba department, is long only13 km long ?? Melaen 18:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Length does not matter (at least for highways) Dlyons493 Talk 19:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep depending on verification, we've kept smaller and less noticable roads. Jcuk 19:52, 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. Punkmorten 00:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro show[edit]

vanity, advertising Melaen 18:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obiliterate this insanity. --D-Day 18:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what D-day said. (IE, it's spam for something entirely unnotable). --Bachrach44 02:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. References provided. Johnleemk | Talk 07:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hanneke Canters[edit]

un-notability: her only published work is her thesis Melaen 18:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sad, but she died too young to have yet become notable. Dlyons493 Talk 19:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come again?! At what age must one die to become notable? Buddy Holly died at 22. I'm sure you didn't mean it the way it sounds, but it does sound a little suspect! --kingboyk 22:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I meant was she might have become notable if she'd had more time - but a single thesis would have had to be exceptional to qualify her, and I don't think anyone is claiming that for it. Dlyons493 Talk 20:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no demonstration that Canters' thesis is influential amongst Feminist academic circles. Might be a justifiable keep if citations and references to critical appraisals can be provided.  (aeropagitica)  21:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added more citations with more to come. I do think Canters made a significant contribution to philosophy - I intend to give a summary of her thinking. Her work has just been published so it will take some time for there to be critical reviews of her ideas - so perhaps give the entry some time. It is an interesting question as to how many books make a person notable - and surely there is a very subjective element in the judgement of who is notable and who is not - and how this is measured. Certainly, Canters made a verifable contribution to human knowledge whatever on thinks of the subject matter itself. Also the book was co written with Grace Jantzen who herself has clearly made advances in the feminist philosophy of religion and contributions to developing the work of French feminist thought in the English speaking world. Thanks stuartg238


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 23:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006[edit]

The subject matter of this article is entirely speculative. There is no guarantee that the Liberal Party will lose the 2006 election, and no guarantee that they will hold a leadership convention this year if they do. I recognize that the author has attempted to conform to Wikipedia policy in drafting this article, but the premise remains inappropriate. CJCurrie 18:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Likely, but premature. Skeezix1000 18:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator; while it's true that this appears likely at this point, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should never contain any such article until the leader of a political party has actually announced his resignation. Bearcat 18:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if the Liberals loose the election, there is no guarantee that Martin would resign triggering a race. - Jord 18:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with above. Purely speculative. Can write the same article for the other parties as well if they lose. YUL89YYZ 18:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Premature speculation. Revive article when leadership convention is announced/scheduled. --Hurricane111 19:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WarriorScribe 19:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Give me a break. 23skidoo 19:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crystal ball CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 19:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --DelftUser 20:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Revolución (talk) 01:37, 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 07:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Cat ('Mech)[edit]

non-notability (cruft from MechCommander ) Melaen 18:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The Mad Cat is probably the most famous BattleMech in the BattleTech universe (which spans at least ten computer games, dozens of novels, a few different tabletop games, and even a TV series). It is the BattleMech featured in the first two pictures on the BattleTech article. Nevertheless, I don't think we should start having articles on the dozens or hundreds of different kinds of BattleMechs, and this article doesn't do anything to convince me. It's not even the "proper" name of the 'mech. TomTheHand 18:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per TomTheHand. --DelftUser 19:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per TomTheHand. Failing that, merge into a longer List of BattleMechs or somewhere. Kappa 18:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fancruft. incog 00:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 07:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dreamtrails (forum)[edit]

Vanity for an Internet forum with an Alexa rank of 2,825,298. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:19, 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. - Mailer Diablo 23:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rust Magazine[edit]

Delete. Non-notable, 315 Google hits, advertising tone, no decent information in here (e.g. where is it published?!?) - Gobeirne 18:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable not-yet-published webzine. Stay tuned as www.rustmagazine.com, launches in the near future. rustmagazine is a parked website, enough said. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 06:08Z
  • Delete, nn, non-verifiable. Only mentions I could see about it on the Internet were related to the website, which is just a placeholder. - Bobet 16:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 23:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golee abrishami[edit]

Seems a pretty clear-cut case of a personal agenda at work, at least to me. WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I vote to delete. RJH 18:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I made a stab at changing it to a REAL article about Golee Abrishami, it would still need to survive a notability review, and then be changed to alphabetize the first letter of her surname. Endomion 19:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete new stub as nn-bio. Kusma (討論) 20:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable biography. Can the paper that she co-authored be demonstrated to be influential - citations?  (aeropagitica)  21:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I doubt it, but at least now it's not a hit-piece on Ms. Abrishami by some naughty person. Endomion 23:01, 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. - Mailer Diablo 23:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rose To Fame[edit]

plus redirects at Rose to fame and Sausage incident.

Hoax TV reality show. -- RHaworth 18:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, watch out for Connor Anderson (once signed as CambridgeBayWeather) it's his hoax and he's trying to save it from deletion.
    • If the main editor of the article is going to vote delete, then I change my vote to: Speedy Delete. --DelftUser 20:27, 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 07:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Farrant[edit]

Guitarist found washed up on Orkney as a baby. Hoax. -- RHaworth 18:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete clearly a hoax. --DelftUser 19:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a hoax if ever I saw one. --Connor Anderson 19:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make up your mind Connor, you started with Don't delete moved to delete, then voted again for a save. Either you in on the hoax with Fontaine, or it's your hoax (just like Rose To Fame), either way one of you is a Sock puppet. --DelftUser 20:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save this article is in fact completely factual, i am awaiting some information from a friend of mine so as i can accuratly source the article. -- Paulo Fontaine 20:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save Okay, I think it's safe to give you the benefit of the doubt for the time being. --Connor Anderson 20:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete unverifiable Jcuk 21:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a load of absolute rubbish. i know lee farrant well and this is all just fabricated lies MarkEdwards 01:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save although I cannot verify all the details mentioned i am particurlarly glad i chanced upon this article as I am well aware of the work achieved by the late Lee Farrant from my time spent living on the Isle of Man. May I also express my discomfort with matters of the deceased being discussed in this disgusting 'delete or not delete manner'.(i would also like to wish Mr Fontaine my support in his research regarding this underrated musician) Craig Flowers 03:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, possible hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 06:04Z
  • Delete I am a well-respected music journalist who also happens to be a longstanding resident of the Isle of Man, and I have never once heard of this supposed "musician". I would invite Fontaine to stop making up nonsense about the musical history of an island whose contribution to the world of music clearly speaks for itself. Barbara Osgood 15:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Barbara Osgood is also a sock puppet. I do not think a well-respected music journalist would do this edit. -- RHaworth 19:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, look at this edit. I am getting a headache from Connor & friends. Now I am sure he's connected to Paulo (he once edited Lee Farrant). --DelftUser
I can explain everything. I edited Lee Farrant to remove false edits from 82.46.0.49, who also made suspect edits to this very deletion discussion! My minor joke edit on the informative butter page was designed to see if edits to the main butter page also showed up on the main page, given that butter was the day's article of the day.Barbara Osgood 19:34, 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 (article is no longer a recipe). Johnleemk | Talk 07:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lemon curd[edit]

Recipe TomTheHand 18:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook Rmhermen 21:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per above. --Bachrach44 02:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Please decide whether you want this article here in the encyclopaedia to be deleted. Uncle G 06:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well-known food item. Kappa 18:07, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arts organizations[edit]

non notability, insufficent context Melaen 18:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Arts organizations of where? The World? Dlyons493 Talk 19:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of context.  (aeropagitica)  21:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like the start of something very poorly defined -- arts organizations from Dallas to Rochester. Crunch 01:56, 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 speedily deleted as per CSD A7: unremarkable people or groups. --M@thwiz2020 00:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang Baghra[edit]

no google hit for neoprimitives Banja Luka seems a youth group. may be vanity Melaen 18:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaturvedi[edit]

non notable indian last name Melaen 19:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the article does not even state that this is a common indian surname --Melaen 19:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that in the last 50 years no one of importance was named chaturvedi? If that is so, I will change to delete. --DelftUser 20:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
of course not, I've found two and added them into the article keep --Melaen 22:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, such issues have earlier been also discussed. Please see this one. The contents shall mature over a period of time. --Bhadani 13:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bhadani. Kappa 18:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bhadani. utcursch | talk 12:17, 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 speedily deleted blanked by author --M@thwiz2020 00:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson x.0[edit]

the page was blanked by the creator, the content doesn't seem very notable Melaen 19:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as an obvious hoax/joke (and virtual nonsense). Sending to BJAODN. BD2412 T 21:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Narr'Genn[edit]

There are no results from Google. Is this page made up? Gadig 19:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete using an MOAB. That is just bizzare... --D-Day 19:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. --DelftUser 19:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 00:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Bulfin[edit]

no claim of notability Melaen 19:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Search for "Francis Bulfin" on Google reveals 98 hits, 16 not including similar results. --Nick123 (t/c) 19:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain. The part about "raised the tricolour on the GPO" refers to the Easter Rising, and if he was significantly involved with it, he might be notable. I'd like to see some verifiable sources before voting either way though. If the article remains unsupported before the close of the AfD period, the closing admin may either ignore this or count it as a delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move To Eamon Bulfin as per [26]. The event in the article is a strong claim to notability! Note that I've substantially changed the article from the original version. Dlyons493 Talk 20:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move as per DLyons493. Would be nice to see it expanded a little too. Jcuk 21:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as moved. Good work, definitely very notable and now verifiable. David | Talk 15:20, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 07:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duty-faith[edit]

dicdef Melaen 19:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - important concept in Christian theology. Endomion 20:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Endomion DaGizzaChat (c) 21:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article needs to be completely re-written. It is not accurate at any point. It is not a Reformed doctrine, as distinct from others - on the contrary, it is terminology that is used by certain deviant forms of Calvinism to describe their opponents. It is not hyper-calvinism; on the contrary, it is held by just about anybody who isn't a hyper-calvinist - and denial of it is a mark of a form of hyper-calvinism. Furthermore, this is quirky language that has limited use in reference to a particular controversy. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as you wish, reverting to original form and withdrawing vote to keep. Endomion 22:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yeh, I'll go with Mark - nothing much lost anyway. --Doc ask? 23:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. KHM03 11:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The concept is adequately addressed in proper context under Hyper-Calvinism. Jim Ellis 12:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Flex 16:32, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 07:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V7ndotcom Elursrebmem[edit]

Artifact of search engine optimization contest - not encyclopedic Tom Harrison Talk 19:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Term created for a NN contest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Allowing this to exist lets every couple thousand dollar contest get its own page. there's one on hot 97.1 practically every day.--Urthogie 20:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Achille--Urthogie 22:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even though its for a good cause we can't keep it on those grounds. It has to succeed under the requirements of notability.--Urthogie 21:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is a place people are likely to look for unbiased information on a contest of this type. In the unlikely event that the contest proves not to attract interest or notoriety, the entry can be deleted later. For now, it is a significant piece of net culture. History will later determine whether I am right or wrong on this. Ringbark 22:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Achille--Ringbark 15:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The dollar prize on this contest isn't indicitive of its magnitude. Thousands are blogging about it including a vocal senior engineer at Google and it is a major test of the Google index. --tspencer 21:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have no edits to date, how can this be your first edit? Crossout.--Urthogie 21:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a significant viral campaign. Better uses have an objective source to reference information on it, than leave it to the campaigners to promote their own sites on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.213.59 (talk • contribs)
Anons with no contributions can't vote.--Urthogie 21:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who told you that anons with no contributions cannot vote?O'kelly 22:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is they can vote, it's just up to the closing admin how to evaluate their vote. Tom Harrison Talk 22:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a debate. The bulleted bold terms are only a rough guide for getting consensus. Puppets who repeat the same arguments aren't adding anything. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 05:56Z
My objection was to Urthogie who for some reason decided to strike-through comments by people he decided weren't entitled to their opinion.O'kelly 09:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete contestcruft Dsol 22:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the content of this article is not verified. What is V7 networks, what is its relevance, and why doesn't the article link it? Dsol 23:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The page will be rife with spam until the end of the contest and the original article wasn't even that accurate (the rules are based on a 2nd ruleset setup by another SEO, not the contest's originator). Perhaps re-instate after the closing date of the contest (May 15th 2006) to preserve a historical reflection of the event. The extent of the coverage and pickup will ultimately make this an unique event and worthy of a page, but we're nowhere near that stage just now. Weeboab 00:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This contest IS notable. Unlike mosts contests, there will be much information learned from this one that many will want access to. Wikipedia provides a central point at which to access that information. This contest is part of internet history and certainly worthy of inclusion as other SEO events have also been included. Ccole 00:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ccole (talk · contribs)'s only article-space contributions are linkspam which have been repeatedly revertd. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 06:03Z
  • With such a high profile for spam this page will stay cleaner than much of the Wiki IMHO. Take the lack of a V7N link as a for-instance. Obviously they aren't worthy of a back link and everybody so far has agreed with that assessment. I suggest that this page is bound to be at least as good as thousands of current Wikipedia pages. It also brings considerabe exposure to Wikipedia (that's a good thing? Right?)Ccole 00:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn Incognito 05:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. This is supposed to be an SEO contest, and there are only 10 google hits for the phrase? ridiculuous. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 05:54Z
  • Delete per above. Marskell 09:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why not just have the page rewritten with the proper wikipedia layout and feel as a totally unbiased commentary, then lock it against further editting.Papamaku 09:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you've voted twice so far, why not go for a hat trick? Dsol 09:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People discuss and have interest all sorts of minority things in this life, even dem nasty ol seo types.Why should a topic like V7ndotcom Elursrebmem be any less worthy? The charity thing is good too of course, give the guys a break :)
  • Delete per nn arguments stated by all above. If/when this contest is written about in major 3rd party sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.), it will, in my mind, have achieved notability and can be recreated. Zunaid 11:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wholly disagree that the subject of this article is "not encyclopedic". The definition of encyclopedia decribes it as a "compendium of knowledge, either general (attempting to cover all fields)or specialized (aiming to be comprehensive in a particular field)". The goal of Wikipedia is surely the former is it not? If this is the case then inclusion of an article that is highly significant to the "field" of Search Engine Optimization (as well as historically significant) must be considered valid, noteable, and most of all, encyclopedic. Str0ud 2:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The contest is only 2 days old (hence the lack of Google references to the phrase, although several datacentres are showing 12k+ results - check http://64.233.161.105). There is notable worth from reporting the results of this event, but only after it is finished on May 15th. Weeboab 16:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Even when there are no results showing yet for some, in the meantime the Wikipedia page may be a good page to point to for those who don't want to give any competitors an advantage. As long as it contains valuable information and can be kept free from spam, maybe it should be kept. Philwiki 18:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Alterego 21:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contest aside, we shouldn't keep neologisms around from contests. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 22:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It would serve as a good example of the kind of stupid things people in the SEO world are willing to do for the wrong reasons. This contest is by no means "a major test of the Google index" since it is flawed from the very beginning. After the contest is over, open up the article to a pro/con analysis (moderation will be necessary) of why the contest was valued and why it is flawed.Michael Martinez 23:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article keeps being edited into nonsense and self-promotion, and I haven't seen a single good reason to keep Jfiling 01:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari 04:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to some broader SEO-topic would be helpful. -- 84.176.212.169 13:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per above. Also, a redirect (maybe even a locked one?) will eliminate the temptation to abuse Wikipedia for search enging rank. Eliot 19:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't Wiki. But I will say hold off on a decision. As it appears right now the V7ndotcom_Elursrebme contest is not just a major event in the SEO world, but in internationaally, in blogging circles and perhaps in 'net itself. As it stands today, the contest is in its 4th day and already bigger than the nigritude ultramarine contest of 2004. It has produced newsworthy oddities, as noted by Danny Sullivan and others. It would be best to lock the page until the end of the contest and at that time re-evaluate its worth to Wiki.
  • Delete, completely non-noteable. Tedernst | talk 23:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Redirect to SEO contest. After comparing this article to Nigritude ultramarine and Seraphim proudleduck it seems obvious that all theese articles are repating the same info:
    • It's a search contest
    • It has begin/end dates
    • It has a prize
    • It uses a unique phrase that is not used before
If you remove the "fluff" that is being repeated, you can slim the articles down quite a bit. I propose we merge the following into this page:
Note: Old comment: If you want to delete this article why not delete Nigritude ultramarine and Seraphim proudleduck as well? They are the exact same thing. I'll nominate those articles for deletion myself if this article is deleted. This user has left wikipedia 20:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They should be deleted. It's better to wait though, so people don't have to copy their comments to three pages at once. If this debate results in deletion it will set a strong precedent. Dsol 20:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and nominated all of those articles for merge into SEO contest and creating the apropriate category to list them. This user has left wikipedia


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

This page has been blanked on request. For archive, please see the article history.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. per WP:MUSIC Madchester 15:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vertigo (band)[edit]

NN band, few hits for their song, does not seem to pass WP:MUSIC. Delete. Kusma (討論) 20:11, 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 delete. Punkmorten 00:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HBAnyware[edit]

nn software Hirudo 20:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This software is of little interest to anyone who doesn't use it. Stifle 11:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Incognito 05:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 00:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L'Hôtel[edit]

Not notable enough for an encyclopedia, even though Oscar Wilde stayed there. Arniep 20:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as I can tell, the hotel may well be notable, and I think it is wrong to assert otherwise without good arguments. A hotel of that age in a city like Paris is quite likely, for instance, to figure in film or literature. But the article doesn't explain any notability the hotel may have, beyond the fact that Oscar Wilde lived there his last days (it actually seems that he even died at the hotel[27], but "lived his last days" probably works better in marketing). This is not a bad start, but the article doesn't currently say anything that isn't already in the article on Wilde. Weak delete. u p p l a n d 10:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to keep. That Oscar Wilde quote pushes it over the threshold. Let's have whatever Borges wrote about it in there as well. u p p l a n d 19:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, multiple external coverage, passes WP:CORP. Has other famous alumni like Mistinguett and Jorge Luis Borges. Kappa 18:01, 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 speedy delete. —Cleared as filed. 20:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew wroblewski[edit]

Vanity, attack, nn, the reasons why this should be deleted go on and on. --D-Day 20:18, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Minott[edit]

nn-model, weakly claims notabily by being a model for Sears when he was 8 Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 20:21, 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. Punkmorten 00:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slam pig[edit]

Slang dicdef. WP:NOT a dictionary. Delete. Kusma (討論) 20:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete dictdef Segv11 (talk/contribs) 21:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary DaGizzaChat (c) 21:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't seem to be real --Bachrach44 02:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wiktionary won't take it as it has no documented usage, certainly not for the required one year. Stifle 11:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy kept see [28] therefore claim of crystal ball is false. --TimPope 22:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun the Sheep[edit]

Trying to be a crystal ball. Anabanana459 20:24, 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 07:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justified irresponsibility[edit]

I don't believe this is a functionalist term. I can find no reference to it and it is apparantely not associated with any theorist. Hasn't been expanded and should probably be deleted Ginar 20:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Requires academic citations and references to justify sociological usage.  (aeropagitica)  21:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified. Stifle 11:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I wasn't sure but the comments on Talk:Justified irresponsibility from many months ago convinced me. Nobody's cleaned up the article since then. --kingboyk 02:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. We just went through this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godcasting (2nd nomination). howcheng {chat} 21:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Godcasting (2nd nomination)[edit]

This was previously deleted through a valid AFD, but after being listed at DRV, has been undeleted and now relisted, due to claims that the term is now widely used. No vote from me at present, though the suggestion that it be merged/redirected to podcasting seems somewhat sensible. -R. fiend 20:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regrettably, keep, in that it is notable but I wish it wasn't. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 21:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's been undeleted obviously because there was a consensus to do so. To delete it again would probably just start the whole process over. Jcuk 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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 07:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M96 motorway[edit]

Delete. The so-called M96 motorway isn't a motorway at all - it's a non-noteworthy piece of tarmac that isn't open to the public and is only used for training simulations as part of the UK Fire Service College. The information in the article is largely taken from this article on psuedo-humourous UK roads site Pathetic Motorways. However, since it has this name, it keeps on appearing in motorway lists and is getting confused for a real, functioning motorway. A move to UK Fire Service College could be an option, but that facility must consist of greatly more than just a road traffic accident simulator and this would make a poor article for that title. Erath 20:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom Sceptre (Talk) 20:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making sure to mention that it used to be RAF Moreton-in-Marsh, and linking to the new article from Moreton-in-Marsh of course :-) --kingboyk 00:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC) [I did number 2 myself][reply]
  • Not that the category would have 'mattered', if it was part of the Moreton article, since it's Moreton that is a town in Glos. Anyway, your solution seems fine imho. --kingboyk 00:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above and recategorize. Stifle 11:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep reasonably interesting ;) --TimPope 22:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just got sent a link to a picture of the M96 sign by a friend, telling me that there was more info on Wikipedia... I went to M96, then M96 motorway and all was explained. As the article explains that it is not a real motorway, I'm not sure why it would be considered one, merely because it exists. It should certainly be included on the List of UK Motorways with an explanatory note, as it is. Willkm 22:25, 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 00:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta[edit]

Not really notable in an encyclopedia (as opposed to a dictionary), and is only as long as it is because the author thinks the word is computer slang (huh!?) - IMSoP 20:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The topic would actually make for a beautiful linguistc article on non-standard English grammar, "eye dialect", and grammaticalization (my academic specialty, I can't help it :-) but the alleged link to computer and instant-messenger language is unverifiable original research, unsourced, and incidentally, happens to be quite wrong. Sorry. "Gotta" is much older than instant messengers. As it stands, there isn't much there that could be used for a reworked article, if anybody ever wants to write one. Lukas 21:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The place for discussing grammaticalization is grammaticalization, of course. This would be an inappropriate title for such an article. Anyone wanting to write about this word specifically is welcome to improve gotta, of course. Wiktionary will take all that you have and ask for more. Uncle G 06:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dictdef Segv11 (talk/contribs) 21:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gotta is much much older than the Internet. --Revolución (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as incorrect dicdef article. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 05:50Z
  • 'Delete as unencyclopedic. Stifle 11:41, 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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 07:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fargoth's Magic Boat[edit]

NN Easter eggs in computer games are not encyclopedic. Delete. Kusma (討論) 21:45, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 07:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Joseph of Liechtenstein[edit]

Delete Duplicates Prince Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein, but with less information; nothing links here Colonies Chris 21:42, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insight Studios[edit]

Non-notable company. Article reads like an ad. Nv8200p talk 21:50, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic virgin[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Deville with the reason "slang," which is not a speedy criterion. However, it is a dicdef. Term exists in UrbanDictionary. No vote. howcheng {chat} 21:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Keep. Assuming there are verifiable sources which can be cited, I see no reason not to keep it. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, urban dictdef. Add to Sexual Slang, if necessary. PJM 22:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are other mentions of this on Google but I'll be damned (literally) if I'm going to plow through them looking for a good cite. Endomion 23:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable dictdef. Wikipedia is not UrbanDictionary. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 00:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Add to Sexual Slang. Possibly a redirect to Anal Sex?Tony 03:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 05:47Z
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Urbandictionary. Stifle 11:39, 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 07:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dual gauge for Africa[edit]

In some senses, it's a good article, but I suspect there's a lot of Original Research going on, which is contrary to policy -- RoySmith (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I've put up a 'context' and an 'unsourced' tag; if that gets fixed, it looks like a pretty good article. Should be easy for the author to get sources for it. Lukas 22:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with regret, barring introduction of something to address WP:V and WP:NOR problems. I dropped a note atUser_talk:Tabletop, since that user seems to be the major contributor. Sourcing would turn this from a delete to a keep (of an attractively composed article) in a jiffy, IMHO. (I tried some Google searches and found nothing relevant to this being an actual proposal) ++Lar: t/c 23:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the verifiable non-original research stuff back into the dual gauge article, which would a leave a longish but not overly long section afaict. Delete the rest with regret. If Tabletop were to host this proposal on an external site it would make a very good external link from our article. (If I understand such things correctly, if the page was licensed under the GFDL and linked back to us then they could take the article as it stands(?).) Thryduulf 00:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I understand it, personal websites shouldn't be used as primary sources (see WP:NOR), so even that might not do, unless there were some independent corroboration that this is a proposal that someone or some organisation, that is notable, has made. I'm hoping that this material really DOES have a verifiable source because it's neat/interesting, but neatness does not count. (take that, Mrs Schwartz, and other third grade teachers everywhere). It has to be both interesting and important. This applies whether the material is merged in or kept separate, IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 01:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I should make myself clearer. What I was proposing was that this be taken to an external website where it can be linked to as a "further reading" type external link, rather than using it as a source for an article. Thryduulf 10:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

  • Original material written especially for Wikipedia under GFDL. Does not have a home anywhere else.

Tabletop 09:52, 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 speedily deleted as per CSD A7: unremarkable people or groups. --M@thwiz2020 00:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CONtort (band)[edit]

NN band. Delete. Fang Aili 22:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fr. John Corapi[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion as nn-bio, but the original author requested to have it brought to AfD, so that's what I'm doing. No vote. howcheng {chat} 22:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I would have speedied. What does "perpetually professed" mean? Would be more meaningful if the name of the actress was mentioned and there was some citation. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No vote. "Perpetually professed" is a term-of-art within religious orders, meaning committed forever, but it's true of all Roman Catholic priests (as well as all Roman Catholic nuns who have made a "solemn profession" rather than a "simple profession", which can be for a given time rather than forever), so its emphasis in the article is a bit peculiar. - Nunh-huh 00:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are over 15,000 google hist on "Father John Corapi". I think that this man is actually notable, but the current article does a very poor job of indicating the reasons for his notability. Weak Keep DES (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Fr. Corapi, never told of the actresses name, for privacy reasons. It was only on Wikipedia for a few minutes before being nominated for Speedy Deletion. Thanks to DESiegel, it is now going under a major edit. (If as the creator of the article, I am not allowed to vote, please conside my vote a "No Vote") Thanks. -Tony 23:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Article creators are generally allowed to comment and "vote" normally, of course their natural views in favor of their articles are generaly alowed for. I will be done editing in a realtively short time. The previuous version drew rather too closely on some published accounts of Fr. John Corapi's life, was IMO rather PoV, and said more about his life before becommign a priest than about his preaching afterwards, which is what he is IMO notable for. I am working on that now. DES (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have finished my rewrite. i think this man's notability is rather more clearly estqablished. DES (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn-bio; if kept requires aggressive cleanup (e.g. saying that an ordained minister preaches qualifies for an official "so what?") [ Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 00:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saying that he preaches is not notable, sayign that he has regular radio and television appearences, and that recordings of his work are widely sold is not. Far from every ordained priest or minister can verifiably say those things, I think. -DES 01:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think I completely understand your arguement...Tony 01:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My argument is that he is considerably more notable than your comments imply. He seems to have in effect become somethign of a Catholic televangelist -- at any rate a very popular lecturere and speaker, in paerson, in recordings, and on both radio and television broadcasts, as well as a popular writer, at least within a certian Catholic niche. That is far more than simply saing that he "preaches". He has had at least some mainstream news coverage, and easily passes the google test. I wish that I had found an outside assesment/review of his work by soemone who did not sound so much like a partisan -- I suspect one is out there, but it wasn't in the first few pages of google hits. The article still needs work, but it is now much less PoV and IMO pretty clearly establishes at least basic notability. DES (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, I think I understand you now. Thank you. Tvaughn05 05:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point being that in an article on a preacher it is superfluous to say that he preaches, it kind of goes with the job and in context looks rather desperate, as if there is nothing more that can be said about him. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But not all priests are preachers. Unlike most Protestant clergymen, a lot of Catholic priests never actually get to preach to a congregation. They work all sorts of other jobs within the church. So it doesn't hurt to be specific. Kafziel 14:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-A bit marginal, but not enough so to be a weak keep. He gets recent hits at Google News, 2 hits at Google Scholar, and has a CD at Amazon[29]. Apparently somewhat important in the world of American Catholics even if I've not heard of him.--T. Anthony 03:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct that. I think I've seen him on TV before, but I didn't recognize the name.--T. Anthony 03:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've heard of him, and I'm not even Catholic. The article needs work, that's for sure, but he's notable enough. Kafziel 04:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being one of the top 100 Catholics of the 20th Centuy seems to merit inclusion. Stifle 11:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, "popular lecturer and radio broadcaster" and #98 on the Catholic top 100. Kappa 17:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa and Stifle. . .th rewrite seems to have sufficiently established his notability beyond that of a typical clergy member. TMS63112 20:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seaforth Doom[edit]

A myth, presented in the encyclopedia as a fact. There are no sources on this that pass this off as true, aside from a couple free web pages. Looking at the talk page, someone posted this from a more reputable source, [30]: "There is a long tradition of claims to be able to foretell the future and having the ability to have Second Sight. The most famous of these, was Coinneach Odhar, better known as the Brahan Seer, some of whose visions for the future are said to have come to pass. He foretold the site of the Battle of Culloden, the construction of the Caledonian Canal and the doom of the Mackenzies of Seaforth while the "black rain" on Aberdeen is said by some to be the coming of the oil industry. But his fame rests on a best-selling book by Alexander Mackenzie published in 1877 and there is little historical evidence for the seer or his prophecies!" (Emphasis added) It's a myth, and not enough of a well-known myth to merit inclusion. Raggaga 22:13, 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 07:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amorica (legend)[edit]

Hoax article created a long while ago. It's been sitting awaiting verification for several months, but none is forthcoming, and isn't likely to given it is a hoax. Note that google hits will likely be significantly skewed from Wikipedia mirrors (this article has been around long enough to filter across pretty much all of them), Amorica (album) and typos of Armorica and America. GeeJo (t) (c) • 22:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I created this article, but only to split it off from the album article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acjelen (talk • contribs) 03:29, January 17, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, probably a hoax. Could find nothing except Wikipedia mirrors. Americas used to refer to this but was removed as well. [31]. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 05:45Z
  • Delete per Quarl. Stifle 11:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. or add to Amorica a condensed note how this came about. Now that Wikipedia's misinformation is all over the Web, it would be an additional act of irresponsibility blithely to delete it. My presentation, somewhat in the manner of Lewis Black, of how this all came to be can be read at Talk:Amorica (legend). --Wetman 19:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
to retain incorrect information after it's known to be incorrect is even more irresponsible. Nihilartikels are always removed from encyclopedias, and as far as I know, never mentioned or explained in subsequent editions. If the worry is about mirrors of wikipedia retaining the information after it's been deleted from Wikipedia, an email could always be sent to the webmasters of the sites in question. GeeJo (t) (c) • 19:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable.--nixie 03:31, 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 speedily deleted as per CSD A7: unremarkable people or groups. --M@thwiz2020 00:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CHUGALUG[edit]

non notable organization Melaen 22:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion A7). howcheng {chat} 23:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cabani[edit]

un-notable band , disbanded in 2005. vanity Melaen 22:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as non-notable band. SycthosTalk 22:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under WP:CSD A7, db-band tag applied. Sliggy 23:02, 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 vanity --M@thwiz2020 00:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CONtort[edit]

Speedy delete. This is a "non-redirect" to CONtort (band). Also delete CONtort (band), CONtort (Album), and A Dominator EP. SycthosTalk 22:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC) SycthosTalk 22:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Vanity, non notable, everything that WP:NOT Deiz 23:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Mikeblas 23:27, 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 nn-album by nn-band, csd a7? --M@thwiz2020 00:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CONtort (Album)[edit]

Speedy delete. This is a non-notable album created by a non-notable band. Also delete CONtort, CONtort (band), and A Dominator EP. SycthosTalk 22:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as above Deiz 23:21, 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 nn-album by nn-band, csd a7? --M@thwiz2020 00:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Dominator EP[edit]

Speedy delete. This is a non-notable album created by a non-notable band. Also delete CONtort, CONtort (band), and CONtort (Album). SycthosTalk 22:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as above Deiz 23:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Mikeblas 23:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 00:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cobh Heritage Centre[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion for being linkspam, but it's a museum. I added it as an external link to Cobh but am unsure if this museum deserves an article of its own. howcheng {chat} 22:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: As per my edit summary while putting in the speedy. It had one editor, in august of 2005 which was probably someone from the site linking too it. Alexa gives it a ranking of over 2 million. Keep As per below. --Lightdarkness 00:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've rewritten it as a reasonable stub. The website is certainly not notable, but the centre itself is. Keep my rewrite. If it survives, please move to Cóbh Heritage Centre. I will take and post a photo or two next time I visit it :) Stifle 00:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it not more appropriate to include this information under the Cóbh article? This is because the town's Heritage Centre is dependant on the town itself, so becomes an integral part of the town. It also give the main article more substance. ww2censor 03:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've visited this museum and it is most interesting. Well worth separate treatment. I assume there is an entry for the Louvre - this is the Cobh Louvre. Zymurgy 09:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the National Wax Museum (Ireland) merits an article, then the Cobh Heritage Centre most certainly does. Needs categorising / linking from the list of Museums in the Republic of Ireland, though. Snalwibma 14:29, 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 waskeep - withdrawn nomination --TimPope 22:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bring Back...The Christmas Number One[edit]

Non Notable...Christmas Special?... almost qualifies as CSD {{nonsense}}. J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  22:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Cleaned it up, whether or not the show's notable I'll leave to others. Note that the existence of Category:Television specials does seem to imply that similar programmes are notable. GeeJo (t) (c) • 23:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quasi-reality show designed to boost a certain type of song in the UK music charts. Never happened before, and if it happens again, write an article on this type of media manipulation. Show itself appears non-notable, and any guise of notability comes from Uk Channel 4's attempt to rig the charts. Delete. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 00:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this was heavily-advertised show prior to broadcast, with notable participants. I have also given it a further cleanup on top of GeeJo's good work. For what it's worth, the show also has an IMDB entry. Essexmutant 11:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the new cleanup per Essexmutant. Stifle 11:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sufficient number of notable people involved. --Whouk (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Channel 4 tv show. Kappa 17:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • withdraw Nom after some excellent cleanup by GeeJo and Essexmutant J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  19:09, 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 redirects are cheap. Johnleemk | Talk 07:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty O'Toole (I)[edit]

Incorrectly named, duplicate article. Plenty O'Toole already exists and redirects to Lana Wood, but in the history there is an expanded version of the text in this article. If anyone thinks this is worth an article, they can use that. - N (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have restored the version at Plenty O'Toole so you can compare. - N (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to withdraw this nomination, point this one to the new Plenty content, and voila. Endomion 00:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the easy thing to do ;-) Given the name, I don't think this article is even useful as a redirect, so I'll let the AfD run to see if we can get it deleted if possible. If not, I'll redirect to the correctly named article when we're done. - N (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia does not usually direct articles on fictional characters to the person who plays them on TV. In fact, the other redirect should point to this article so people looking for Plenty get Plenty and people looking for Lana get Lana. Endomion 23:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not be sensible to just use the text in the history of the Plenty O'Toole article and delete this? Nobody is going to accidentally type in "(I)" and nothing links to this article. - N (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing the content of the article. The article is named Plenty O'Toole (I). We already have an article at Plenty O'Toole, but at this time, it redirects to the actor. If you look in the history of that article, it contains more or less the text here and then some, so if somebody would like to expand on that, then they can use the correctly named article we already have. - N (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Duplicate article, inferior version to Plenty O'Toole. Would say redirect, but is anybody ever going to type that in to the serachbox? -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 00:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or redirect, hardly matters), and give a hell of a cleanup to Plenty O'Toole. Awful article, as it stands. -R. fiend 04:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because nobody is ever going to type this in the searchbox. Stifle 11:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - duplicate article, useless redirect. (Looks like someone got this place mixed up with the IMDb). 23skidoo 15:31, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B'ngo[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Trilemma with no reason given. Article is about some software that never got released. howcheng {chat} 23:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete on the grounds that it doesn't even exist. Endomion 23:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not encylopedic. The wording, especially "made" (yes, in quotes) makes me wonder whether it existed or not. Jawz 03:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the fifth word of the article. Stifle 11:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, not even the least interesting or noteworthy - XX55XX 01:00, 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 00:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. TV[edit]

nn college sketch show, only one episode has been produced. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are working on the second episode, and we hope to get it aired on TV. --Radaar 23:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hope to get my book published too, so it will be notable. Endomion 23:25, 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 copyvio. Johnleemk | Talk 07:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Fesmire[edit]

A clear vanity article, created by the subject. Lacks any notability. Hydriotaphia 23:19, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outer Heaven Resistance[edit]

Not-notable fan page. Only 50-some hits in a search.[32] Mikeblas 23:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless some outside sources turn up that show its notability and verifiability. CDC (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Jawz 03:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as very non-notable website. 10 registered forum members. No Alexa traffic rank. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 05:37Z
  • Delete per Quarl. Stifle 11:30, 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 speedy deleted (criteria A1). Thryduulf 00:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comando Supremo[edit]

Article is one sentence long. Vicarious 23:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duel or stfu[edit]

We already have STFU. The article only explains the obvious, that the phrase means "either you are ready for a duel, or you shut up". Austrian 23:37, 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 delete both. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelorette party favor and Party favor[edit]

Combination of dicdef with linkspam. Delete. Kusma (討論) 23:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating party favor for deletion as well. As a near duplicate of Bachelorette party favor, I think the two nominations should be combined, and will redirect the second discussion page here. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 00:21, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T.C. Tolliver[edit]

Vanity piece Jim62sch 23:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless somebody wants to take the very small amount of relevant info and merge it into the Plasmatics page. Deiz 00:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks self promotional. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pushes all the buttons for me of blatant promotion, including having the name regularly weblinked. Stifle 11:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. --Terence Ong 14:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:53, 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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 07:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. state legislature websites[edit]

THIS IS NOW A NON-ISSUE. I have merged the information into the article List of state legislatures in the United States and converted this page to a redirect.

RickReinckens 07:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Instead, these could/should be listed in the external links section of the individual pages in Category:U.S. State legislatures. HollyAm 23:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a webfarm. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nominator. If there is a list of the state legislators anywhere the external links could be added to that entry, or an external page could be added as a single link to a list of... article and/or a general article on US state legistatures - if any of these exist. Thryduulf 00:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — unnecessary list of links alone. — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not a mere collections of external links or Internet directories." Although organized, it is just a collection of external links. Crunch 01:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Terence Ong 14:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CHANGING "STRONG KEEP" TO REDIRECT. I am the author of the article. I expanded the intro to show why this is useful and belongs on Wikipedia.

I created the article only shortly after first using Wikipedia. I have thought about it some more since putting the other comments below and it seems this information does belong in "List of state legislatures". I will be merging the information into that article. That will keep the information and put it in one place.
RickReinckens 05:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, the reason I created the article is that I research the law of multiple states on a regular basis and I have links to a lot of the state legislatures on my computer. I get tired of having to search around every time I need to find a state's law. WestLaw costs us several hundred dollars per month and does not have a way to download entire chapters. FindLaw and all the other "sources" have the same problem.

After almost a decade of Internet research, I accidentally ran across the National Conference of State Legislatures, whose website has a Java application that pulls up legislature links (in far more detail). That is the only site I have ever found with a "central repository" of legislature links. (The "source" I listed is actually one of my websites. I added that page after creating the Wikipedia article in case somebody wanted to complain about "no sources identified".)

Obviously, none of the "delete" people do this type of multi-state statutory research or you would realize why the list is helpful to those of us who do.

I was going to just add an URL shortcut link on my computer and I decided, "You know, it will be only a little more work to put a list of the sites on Wikipedia, and then everyone can use them."

Yes, users could use WikiPedia's Category: U.S. Legislatures to go to the WikiPedia article for each legislature and then search for a link to the legislature.

  • But, a lot of Wiki users don't know that much about how to use it. I didn't.
  • A lot of them won't get into it enough to figure that out. They just won't use it.
  • Navigating around Categories often is pretty confusing and annoying. I have several articles for which I have been trying to find categories and I keep winding up in the wrong places.
  • The Categories approach relies on 50 different authors maintaining the links on 50 different articles, with the link in a different location on each article.
  • Instead of one central location, the Categories approach requires jumping through several steps—for each legislature's website. Pretty annoying.
  • It's not like bandwidth isn't a problem with Wikipedia. With the List of Legislatures' Websites, the user pulls up one Wikipedia page and clicks on external links. With the Categories approach the user pulls up 51 articles and has to scour through each one to get to where he really wants to go.
  • Other than my webpage added after the Wiki article was created, there is no place on the Web that conveniently lists both the name of the state and the URL of the legislature. I didn't just put links, I deliberately put the URLs too. Again, for researchers, because they might want to print that information without having to do massive reformatting manually. If the article is deleted from Wikipedia, I have no real reason to keep it on my site. Which means the info won't be available anywhere. (Try the Java app at National Conference of State Legislatures to see what a pain it is compared to the list in the article.)
  • I deliberately broke up the article into sections with labels, to make it easier to find. Originally it was one large table but I found it more convenient for the user the other way--unlike the List of State Legislatures article.

Another option is merging the List of Websites article into the List of Legislatures article. I am ambivalent about that one for several reasons:

  • People looking for "website" information probably won't care about any of the other information.
  • The "Legislatures" article is already pretty long.
  • Regarding adding an additional cell to each line of the table in the other article, the table is pretty wide already.
  • The articles really have significantly different goals and content. The Legislatures article is about the legislatures--their composition, location, etc. The Websites article is strictly a convenient way to get to the legislature and a list of URLs, for those who want to publish the information (e.g., in a list of Sources consulted.)
RickReinckens 04:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand your position and can see that a lot of effort went into this list, but as previously stated above, per official Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia is not the place for a directory of websites. As a college administrator, I personally might like to see a list of websites for each state's board of higher education, but I will not be putting it here because the Wikipedia community has decided against having mere collections of external links in the encyclopedia, however helpful they may be to certain users. Another example: dictionary definitions and news articles are helpful to many but Wikipedia is not the place for them either; that's for Wikitionary and Wikinews, respectively. HollyAm 04:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1990s a band from Glasgow, Scotland[edit]

Although notability is asserted in this article, through the mention of former members of other bands, but those bands are not in themselves particularly notable afaict - the V-twin article is actually about a type of engine and there is no disambiguarion or V-twin (band) article. They have no releases to date, and the only inbound link is from 1990s.

Also, although not a reason to delete, the article should be at 1990s (band). Thryduulf 00:01, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 07:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb-rocks[edit]

Gamecruft. King of All the Franks 00:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Pikmin already has perfectly good coverage of these, and a redirect is unnecessary. CDC (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Pikmin series if anything left to merge; don't care whether there's a redirect. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 02:26Z
  • Delete as serious gamecruft, i.e. information that is only of interest to a limited number of people with a dedicated interest in a game. Stifle 11:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gamecruft. --Terence Ong 14:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge info into Pikmin --TimPope 22:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partyline[edit]

Was tagged as db-band, but claims notabily because of a couple of tours, No Vote --Jaranda wat's sup 00:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Not notable, only a link to a record label and their site, and a 'band of the week' article that doesn't qualify it for a page by itself. Tokakeke 01:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, touring for bands like this consists of getting in a van, driving a bit, playing at some small clubs for small crowds, and losing money on the entire venture. Not anything like a nationwide tour that the guidelines indicate, and not too much above a guy with an acoustic guitar playing coffee houses in a variety of cities. Wait til they release a real album, then reconsider. -R. fiend 03:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh. Weak keep. While I'm still not impressed with bands that tour with no albums released (they can't have any fans if no one has heard them; the people going to their shows are either going to see another band or are the sort of people who go to all such shows in their local scene), the fact they have at least one member who is just famous enough, and that solitary EP, I guess does it. Would be happier if they had at least one full album. -R. fiend 17:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I marked this as db-band earlier and I stand by my call. Speedy delete as CSD:A7. Stifle 11:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tobakakeke. --Terence Ong 13:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Not only have they done a national tour, but an international tour. [34]. I'm also not sure about the Spin "Band of the Day" note, but I think that qualifies, too. --badlydrawnjeff 14:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Their international tour covered most countries in Europe, every day of November 2005, with no breaks. It included at least 3 European Ladyfest events, and they played 2 shows some days. Partyline's frontwoman Allison Wolfe was one of the organisers of the first ever Ladyfest, and if that's not enough, she was there at the start of the Riot Grrl movement in 1991 with her first band Bratmobile. Fellow bandmembers Angela and Crystal are no coffee-house losers either. --Dublinkid 16:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Spin.com band of the day, "Partyline singer Allison Wolfe is a founding member of the seminal riot grrrl act Bratmobile", and European tour. Kappa 17:31, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_16&oldid=1116878930"