Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 19 January 21 >

Purge server cache

January 20[edit]

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to somewhere. But as Penya points out, this is not an AfD issue; AfD is for discussing deletion, and merges/redirects can be more usefully discussed on the respective talk pages. I will add a merge tag to the article, but will not bother to note this debate on talk. -Splashtalk 21:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suvadiva atoll[edit]

Suvadiva atoll , United Suvadive Republic, History of Suvadives and Suvadiva should all be merged into one article. All the other titles should be redirected. Also this article is somewhat misleading because it uses the map of current Gaafu Alif Atoll and Gaafu Dhaalu Atoll, or Huvadhu atoll and refer to it as Suvadiva atoll. Suvadiva atoll no longer exists and even if it did, it wasnt a one geographic atoll rather three geographic atolls. --Oblivious 14:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Merge. If merger is your goal, then AfD is not the place for this. Peyna 15:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no merge. I agree that most every other one of them should be merged. History should be merged back until it's bigger, the three different spellings for the political entity too. However, the landmass deserves a separate article. gren グレン ? 17:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm, I merged a bunch of them that needed to be merged (same content, etc.) but I do see it was just a historic name for another atoll or three. Not sure what to do. gren グレン ? 17:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Suvadiva atoll separate, merge the others, per gren. What does "Suvadiva atoll no longer exists" mean? rodii 23:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it means that the name was used under a separatist movement... but now that the movement is gone it's called the other names already listed. gren グレン ? 23:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aha. OK, changing my vote to neutral. I bow to Oblivious's knowledge about this. He has done fine work on the Maldives here. rodii 00:07, 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 keep pending investigation of the unsupported allegation of copyright infringement. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fall of the Ming Dynasty[edit]

This article has a Copyright Violation notice on it that has not been fixed in almost two months. NicAgent 18:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I was going to try to see what was not copyvio... but I found the site was in Chinese characters and didn't see where the copyvio came from from googling a few parts of it. gren グレン ? 17:29, 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.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —WikiFanatic 02:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Dowling[edit]

Delete non-notable vanity about member of non-notable band Ruby 23:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as non-notable, vanity bio. Tagged as such. Ifnord 00:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as above. --Deiz 00:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per above. Deadsalmon 00:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7 --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 02:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 under CSD A7 by Lucky 6.9

The Tipplin' Weigh[edit]

Delete this band has zero albums to its credit Ruby 23:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Amazon10x 00:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. This is a tough one. There are good arguments made on both the keep and delete side (exactly one each, actually) and neither seems to overwhelm the other. I fear that WP:BIO may miss its mark on this kind of article, dealing with an author publishing before the advent of the mass media, althought it seems undeniable that the person hasn't made a widely recognized contribution to their field. A combination of facts tips me away from delete: that we are only barely over the two-thirds level that is oft-used (although there are an unusually high number of deleters) and that, on the assumption the article is not a work of fiction, the presence of the address as of 1909 (!) is a strong indicator that, somewhere out there, is a source from which The CA Birthday Book has taken its material. (Incidentally, the copyright for the Birthday book says that it is public domain in the US, so that's ok.) -Splashtalk 22:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Archer[edit]

This article seems to be just copied out of "The California Birthday Book" of 1906. No references in the standard Gale databases, Chadwick's Literature Online, no NY Times obit, no relevant google hits as far as I could tell. Not sure if this person is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry and I certainly don't think this single reference is enough to sustain one. Delete. Gamaliel 00:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nothing notable here. Ruby 00:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I'd need more evidence that this is an article of verifiable importance. NorseOdin 00:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --King of All the Franks 00:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I couldn't reasonably expect a lot on Google for an obscure turn-of-the-century poet. I did manage to at least verify that her book Little Poems is real. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Starblind. --King of All the Franks 01:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 05:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable, somewhat notable. Page needs wikifying. Marskell 09:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment do we need to know her box number? It's not like she's going to answer post. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Varifiable, needs a clean up or some sort - • Dussst • T | C 13:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: borderline verifiable, but without more information it is impossible to establish notablility. WP:BIO test is 'Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?' The book copy at [1] is a numbered subscriber copy, indicating a very small print run, and none of her books are in the Library of Congress (as far as I could tell); essentially, then, she had no impact or contribution at all, which is why information about her is hard to find today. - squibix 14:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Squibix -Amazon10x 17:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There doesn't seem to be enough info on the person at the moment to warrant keeping this article alive. The fact it hasn't been edited in a year doesn't suggest it will be expanded anytime soon either. -Spartanfox86 19:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable article. --COA 20:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Squib. Eusebeus 20:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per squibix. -R. fiend 21:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'd say keep it if it was new, but it's had over a year to grow and it hasn't expanded in content. - dharmabum (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn & unexpandable. Renata 09:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shesca[edit]

Delete - Article asserts its own non-notability Ruby 00:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I happen to be a fan of Full Metal Alchemist and I have seen the whole series, so you might as well take my vote on this as the gospel truth. Anyway, Sciezka is a somewhat minor character, and as you can see, spelling depends on the romanization. The only thing notable about her is her perfect memory of many full books in a library that burned down (this is a major plot point). Anyway, she's not notable enough to get her own article; she can be discussed just fine in the main FMA article or a subsidiary article that covers the characters. Cyde Weys 00:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ruby and Cyde. Deadsalmon 00:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 02:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Blnguyen 04:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, yes, FMA. Delete. - CorbinSimpson 06:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I trust Cyde's judgement, also this looks like animecruft. JIP | Talk 09:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per eloquent argument in the article, and Cyde. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content; don't care whether redirected or deleted. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 10:33Z
  • Delete per Cyde -Spartanfox86 19:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cyde --COA 20:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - dharmabum (talk) 01:14, 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, nomination withdrawn. Punkmorten 13:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krawutschke Tower[edit]

Not too notable tower, and machine-translated anyway. Suggest deletion. Kusma (討論) 00:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I couldn't fix it, perhaps someone fluent in German can save it. Ruby 00:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After repair of the article I still want it to be deleted because it looks like somebody's tree fort. Ruby 19:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can certainly empathise with that :-) Dlyons493 Talk 21:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't find it in either Yahoo or Google; likely not of sufficient importance to merit an article — although perhaps someone with a greater knowledge of German architecture / history can refute this. Deadsalmon 00:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, keeping in mind above suggestions. --King of All the Franks 00:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be a poor translation from de.wiki [2]. Improve rather than delete Dlyons493 Talk 01:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a translation, but a work of the Babelfish. Compare this: [3]. No human work will be lost if this article is deleted. Kusma (討論) 02:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I've done a basic translation. The article should probably be moved. Dlyons493 Talk 05:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep referenced, fairly notable. Found a couple more references: [4], [5], [6], [7] -- Astrokey44|talk 05:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as its been translated properly now Jcuk 09:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as translated by User:Dlyons493. JIP | Talk 09:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but only because there's no obvious target for a merge Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per JzG. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 10:31Z
  • Keep. Maybe tag as stub. --StuffOfInterest 13:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Seems like there could be more to it. Improve rather than delete and stub if necessary -Spartanfox86 19:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nice little article with picture. Piccadilly 22:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the f'ing tower stood in Kansas, it wouldn't even be nominated for deletion, I'm sure. Damn US-centrism. —Nightstallion (?) 23:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's because Kansas is so flat you'd be able to see the Sears Tower in Chicago from the dang thing. Ruby 00:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find it amusing to be accused of US-centrism. I do live in the US right now, but most USAns I know seem to think that I have a German perspective of things. Anyway...
  • Nomination withdrawn, the work of Dlyons493 should not go to waste. Kusma (討論) 01:27, 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 delete (A7). Physchim62 (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George and the Pirates[edit]

nn band, changed to speedy by original nominator Ruby 00:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That was me, thanks for the save, I'm still learning wiki conventions, how to delete, etc. A basic vanity page, it seems to me, thus I vote

Speedy Delete based on vanity, non-notable. KrazyCaley 03:27, 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. -Splashtalk 22:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tereza Kulata[edit]

Possible vanity, certainly nn. 11 Google hits of which only 2 are definitely related to the subject. Everyone loves a teenage eastern European artist but... Delete --Deiz 00:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - if this artist had a more extensive portfolio of published works I would vote to keep. Ruby 00:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 02:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tereza studies(ed) gymnasium, she's talented (she won region's high school competition in English [8]), she had drawn few sketches and someone thankful expressed himself here. No child prodigy, though. Pavel Vozenilek 03:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC): And btw, she's from Central Europe, not Eastern. Pavel Vozenilek 03:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thx for that important correction. Maybe I should have said "Former Soviet Bloc artist" instead... --Deiz 14:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, she was born at the time of Bloc collapse. And even older people do not identify themselves with political regime. Pavel Vozenilek 00:47, 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 deleted by User:Alabamaboy (who forgot to close) as copyright violation —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 08:33Z


Canadian Eagle Outfitters[edit]

Delete because it is advertising for a non-notable entity. A quick visit to their free website informs the reader that they "may not become a business as it was planned" and they do not even have a shop available Fightindaman 00:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as spamvert and crystal ballism. Ifnord 00:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for being formed in the "late 05's" Ruby 00:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as spam, vanity, crystal ball, nn... --Deiz 00:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy - spamadvertvanityblah. Deadsalmon 00:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article has already been deleted. AfD can be removed. SycthosTalk 04:13, 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 merge and redirect. Done. Ifnord 14:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soundclick.com[edit]

Delete and merge with SoundClick. Kenneth Nishimoto 00:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created the SoundClick article (and the Soundclick redirect) without realizing that there was already a Soundclick.com article. I apologize for the duplication. However you choose to merge the articles is fine by me. (BTW, the company's official name is SoundClick, Inc.) archola 12:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (I am also Vanilla Shadoe on SoundClick)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I would choose "SoundClick" as the article title since that is how the website (and presumably others) refers to use for itself. Contrast mp3.com, which is primarily known as "mp3.com" and not "mp3", and amazon.com, whose official company name includes the ".com". I wouldn't choose "SoundClick, Inc", as both articles are about the website, only mentioning the company. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-22 20:28Z
  • Merge and redirect. This doesn't need to be on AFD. -- Jake 05:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted. - Mike Rosoft 01:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ess (test page) (originally titles Ess)[edit]

  • A page used by a newbie as something I don't see what it means. Please delete. (Note that the original title Ess is now just a re-direct to the good dis-ambiguation page ESS.) Georgia guy 00:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possible speedy as Patent Nonsense -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as non-notable group (A7) (it's not quite nonsense). --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 00:33, 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. -Splashtalk 22:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WarioWare, Inc. Revolution[edit]

Pure speculation. There is no proof that this game exists, or is being planned, or is even being considered. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:NOT a crystal ball. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 01:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 02:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Blnguyen 04:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fagstein 04:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with "speculated" int he first sentence? How could it be anything else. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I have to point out, though, that "proof" is not required. A good, verifiable source citation to, say, a mainstream print publication in which, say, a columnist speculates on the game and gives a clear indication that the game will be important when it materializes, would be enough. We need a source and the source needs to be verifiability|verifiable, not "proof." It is sources that we verify, not facts. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, well, that's what I meant. There are no sources for this game. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what dpbsmith said.--SarekOfVulcan 17:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom --TBC 18:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speculate! 5... 4... 3... 2... 1... Deleted! (per nom.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. incog 19:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 06:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terence Laheney[edit]

Delete as a biography of a non-notable person. Deadsalmon 00:40, 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 Merge with John Rogers and Jacobus van Meteren, then redirect to John Rogers. --Deathphoenix 13:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana of Antwerp[edit]

The wife of a very minor historical figure. Doesn't appear to have any individual notability. Delete. Gamaliel 00:45, 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. -Splashtalk 22:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Munya 'David' Jumo[edit]

Not notable - played a little schools rugby. 2Ghits.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 00:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 02:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Blnguyen 04:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable but I would like the join the James Bond Appreciation Society. JIP | Talk 09:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since he is apparently "notable" in my own town and I have still never heard of him. Possible student hoax. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy complete nonsense --Deiz 13:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom --TBC 18:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quickly as a borderline speedy candidate. Hall Monitor 21:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with Hall Monitor. Punkmorten 00:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all aricles about evil reclusive leprechauns. Grandmasterka 20:21, 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 No consensus to delete. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J. Otis Ledbetter[edit]

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.

As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rebuttal: Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted only because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 00:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very untrue. The comments posted above were to question the strength of your argument, as per WP:SOCK it is prohibited to use a sockpuppet to create a illusion of a broader support for your side of the argument. Your "campaigning" comes from you and your sockpuppet, and you even admitted that you use sockpuppetry to aid yourself in AfD. SycthosTalk 05:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A man with a "PhD" from an unaccredited "university", article created by User:Jason Gastrich, prolific creator of articles on alumni of that university all of whom have, despite vital importance to the world of education, managed to escape the notice of other editors. Oh, that's not quite true: one or two were apparently created by a sockpuppet of Gastrich's. Anyway, this article is about a pastor. And, er, that's about it. On the plus side, we do now know that he has eight grandchildren, so the bytes consumed were not entirely wasted. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 01:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no need to pepper your nomination with personal attacks and sarcasm. Furthermore, I didn't create all of the LBU alumni entries. Many were created long before I even came to Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 05:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no personal attacks in that sentence. The word "many" is also misleading: most were created by you or a suspected sockpuppet. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least 5 out of the 11 alumni on the LBU page were not written by me. --Jason Gastrich 10:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non of the books appear to be from well-known publishers or have significant Amazon ranks. Dlyons493 Talk 01:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Very notable author and minister. --Jason Gastrich 01:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable vanity gastrich-cruft from a holder of a fake pHd from a diploma mill.Blnguyen 02:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per Blnguyen. Diploma mills have tarnished the reputations of many. SycthosTalk 03:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. KrazyCaley 03:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --King of All the Franks 03:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with some sort of tag, pov - disputed etc. Seems fairly notable from google 1470 hits -- Astrokey44|talk 05:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, religious figure or no significance. - WarriorScribe 06:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I really don't understand the "diploma mill" criterion. Are we to delete articles on all people who do not have degrees from accredited universtities? Think of the many notable people that would include. This person seems notable enough, despite the POV against his schooling. Logophile 06:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldnt that mean the article be edited to say that rather than being deleted? -- Astrokey44|talk 10:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. And I also don't see that he really claims to be an educator. The article says he has a Ph.D. in education but the claim is that he is an author and "pastor." It doesn't seem to depend on the Ph.D. for that. More importantly, I don't think it's our role to delete an article because we feel that his education is inferior for the position he claims to hold. Can't that be addressed by the article editors? Crunch 07:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some values of author. One or two of his books make it into the top half million in Amazon's sales rank, but others fail to break the million mark. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Astrokey44 ··· rWd · Talk ··· 07:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Not the most notable guy in the world, but this isn't a paper encyclopedia. If you have a problem with the claims of his being an educator, that's grounds to remove them from the article, not delete the whole thing. Rogue 9 10:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be personal vendetta by someone. --StuffOfInterest 12:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain. As soon as this started turning into a Christian vs. everyone else debate I lost interest. Unfortunately, many of those voting keep are claiming that everyone else is anti-Christian. This wasn't so, but if it is repeated enough it may become truth. --StuffOfInterest 15:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Popular Minister.Tvaughn05 12:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per JzG and Blngyuen --Deiz 13:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep For all the reasons above. Also because he's a real person, who has done many notable things (have any of you had books published?). It has an image, which is good. Where is this image going to slot in if this is deleted? This could well be a featured article someday. - 13:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC) The Great Gavini lobster telephone
  • Keep. He's a real person; enough said. Kerobaros 13:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're a real person; where is your article? --Calton | Talk 14:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, not enough said. Please review WP:BIO for criteria to decide whether someone living merits a wikipedia article. Note that "being a real person" is not there. --Pierremenard 09:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Religious media personality and author. I'm also shocked by the sarcasm displayed here. -- JJay 13:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable religious figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs) 14:18, 20 January 2006. Sorry --Calton
  • keep We can't delete people because books aren't that popular on amazon (this is just not relevant as a criteria) or the publishers aren't well known. bio can be verified and individual is arguably notable. Ginar 14:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a perfectly viable encyclopedia article on a public figure that could very well be the subject of someone's research in the future. In such an event, wikipedia would come in handy. That is what wikipedia is for. I haven't heard a single good argument to why this should be deleted. Itake 15:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, his books aren't self-published from the looks of it, including one book published by the seminary press Multnomah. --badlydrawnjeff 14:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination --kingboyk 14:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean he's not notable, and the sarcasm in the nom comes across as POV; his books make him notable, as Google shows. Walkerma 15:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if the article in its current state is fairly accurate, then he's got enough to warrant inclusion. The issues about his quality of education can be addressed in an NPOV manner in the article. Peyna 15:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this is a compact, well-written article with sources and links, and a man with enough books, whether one thinks it is notable or not. Gubbubu 22:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable. Justin Eiler 16:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So he's a pastor of a church. Who cares? He's not notable. Also, someone should go through all these keep votes and see which ones were made by new users... -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 16:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually all the ones I checked seem to be established users. Couldn't find a sockpuppet in the lot of 'em. --Spondoolicks 21:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as the article is NPOV. This is a factual biography of a published author. Wynler 17:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (added sig.)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Itake - Amazon10x 17:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason to delete this article. --Shanedidona 17:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep same as above. --Yonghokim 17:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep I see no reason to delete this article. Lerner 18:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Grimm 18:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep guy just barely passes my notability bar, he's clearly published multiple books, he's been on television... just squeeks by imo.  ALKIVAR™ 18:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As with (US) college professors, being a church pastor doesn't get you in or out. This guy appears to be one of the more notable ones, quoted for example by the NZ Focus on the Family website (so some international coverage). Google hits are predominantly Christian sites, hey we don't discount articles on astronomers just because they appear mainly on astronomy sites, do we? Andrewa 20:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep--Hayson 21:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy. I am uncomfortable with the way this discussion is going, though. Also, Greatgavini, your signature is OBNOXIOUS. rodii 21:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Inclusion is based on notability, not a person's background.the1physicist 21:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Peyna and Alkivar. Perhaps this is a close call, but it does meet WP:BIO guidelines for inclusion. Hall Monitor 21:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - just about passes the notability guidelines for me. --Spondoolicks 21:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another non-notable from our most prolific creator of non-notable bios, Gastrich. FeloniousMonk 22:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hall Monitor. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 22:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per FM. Jim62sch 02:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ATTENTION

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29 "Something very funny happened today. I got two identical emails from Jason Gastrich through Wikipedia. You can make up your own mind as to whether this qualifies for meat-puppetry or stacking the vote. Here's the email. --Cyde Weys 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Hello,
I noticed that you were listed as a Christian Wikipedian. I am, too. I wanted to let you know that in the last 24 hours, someone has nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion. Not only does this seem like bad faith and an affront to a lot of hard work, but I'd like you to come and vote on the entries. These nominations seem peculiar because some people are even presidents of universities and well known authors.
Below are some of the links that need attention. Thanks for your consideration.
By the way, I recently started an organization called Wiki4Christ (see http://wiki4christ.com). If you’d like to join a network of Christians with a purpose on Wikipedia, please see our site!
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim
Thats insinuating bullshit. There is nothing wrong with alerting users to the fact that a bunch of delete-wannabies are attacking articles and demanding they get deleted without having any good reasons at all for the delete except the POV rantings of a guy that for some reason got to be an admin. Itake 01:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that you are addressing those remarks to me, here is the "some reason". - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an author. --Vizcarra 02:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per JzG. And note to closing administrator, please evaluate carefully for sockpuppets/meatpuppets. MCB 02:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see anything in the article that implies notability. He is a pastor...he appeared as a guest on some radio shows...so what? --Pierremenard 05:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He seems to meet the notable author criteria. His affiliation with Focus on the Family is also somewhat notable. Whether or not we agree with his religious stand or tactics should be irrelevant, as should his Ph.D. from an unaccredited university. I don't think we're evaluating this on the quality of his education, but rather on his publishing and preaching which appears to pass the test. Crunch 07:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think his publishing passes the test? He gets a measly 10k hits in google. I don't see any circulation numbers for the books, so I don't see how you can say that he passes the test. --Pierremenard
Based on his contributions to Focus on the Family which is a very notable organization, like them or not. Cumulativel, the circ figures of books may squeek by, but it's his affiliation with Focus on the Family that put me over the edge on this guy. Crunch 13:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. Do you think every person employed by Focus on the Family is notable? --Pierremenard 21:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. suggest admin verify legitimacy of all votes. Dbchip 07:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There are many ways to try to rig an AfD. Heh heh heh. Fortunately, they're all based on the assumption that the ungodly can outthink the admins. Heh heh heh. Contributors can make the admins job a lot easier by following the procedures and policies, and by not being drawn into irrelevant debates on AfD pages, and a (significant) little easier by doing some of the work (e.g. flagging suspect sock puppet votes with links to their contribution histories is something anyone can do, not just an admin). But don't stress too much. We're human, but we're not quite as stupid as some would wish. Heh heh... Andrewa 10:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't know what's going on here exactly, and it sounds like a personal feud between two people started this whole thing, but the fact that this man is a published author of multiple books and has worked with Focus on the Family makes him at least somewhat notable. Someone's degree status can't be made into a criteria of notability, as was stated above. In any case, Wikipedia has all kinds of articles on fictional characters , Internet trends, etc. It would seem hypocritical to keep them and yet delete biographies of peole who couldn't prove their academic credentials valid. Evan Donovan 17:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is not a personal feud, and it's also not a vendetta against Christians, as some people would like to portray it. It is a conversation about what makes a person notable, and there is a serious issue about how, in such a highly polarized environment, to distinguish POV pushing and linkspam from honest, good-faith efforts to create encyclopedic articles. Vote-stacking, throwing around accusations of feuds and vendettas, and jibes about people's motives just serve to polarize things more. I think it's obvious that this many-headed hydra of an argument is not going to lead to an overall consensus here and now, but there's no reason to poison the well for future discussions. rodii 17:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. He's notable enough for me. By the way, this sort of POV pushing, especially e-mailing people to "rally to your cause", is unacceptable. The idea here is that people can make rational, non-POV decisions on whether this guy is notable enough or not. Rodii has absolutely the right idea. Grandmasterka 20:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as POV-pushing Gastrichcruft. Stifle 00:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If he's writen stuff then he should at least have a little slice of wikipedia? I mean, Wikipedia is huge, everyone can have a share can't they? Everyone thinks that because he isn't in the news, that he shouldn't be included in wikipedia, the so called "sum of all human knowledge". But how do we know he isn't influencial? He effects hundreds with his words..... Further Note: I was brought here, like many others by Wiggins2, or as he wants to be called, "Wiggie". I think we shouldn't be so quick to shoot him down, as I, & probably many others, are grateful for his post to draw our attention to this subject. I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same. But we cannot ignore the fact that this is defintely going to open wikipedia into two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. However, this should not be about religion. I would be ashamed of the christians on here if they only voted to keep the articles because they were christian orientated. This should strictly be business as usual, even though it does seem strange an editor would nominate so many christian articles. Maybe a hidden agenda? If an article's crap, then it should be deleted. Being an inclusionist, I will probably keep the most mundane article. However, the list of notable people list is like many others, & should not be here. To do so would be obvious bias. I ask everyone to not be drawn in with a strict "You're wrong, I'm right" situation, but be open & find a way to keep peaceful.... Spawn Man 04:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...[reply]
There are two reasons why your comment above is wrong. The first is, I am a Christian. Much as you might have been told that this is a vendetta against articles on Christians, that is the POV of one man - which brings me to my second point: Wiggins2 is a probable sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (and has been blocked as such). In my experience the number of genuinely notable people whose articles rely on padding like the number of grandchildren is very limited. I checked out the books, they have Amazon sales ranks in the hundreds of thousands or, in some cases millions, none of them are by major imprints. This is just another pastor, just like all the rest, I see nothing special about him at all. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiggins2[edit]

Click the link and learn [9] Jim62sch 02:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. Unnotable being promoted for people to buy books. Does not meet Wiki standards of notability, no sources, and as demonstrated with the vote stuffing, this is solely an article to promote a certain religious and a certain unaccredited diploma mill (Louisiana Baptist University). The vote stuffing is very serious and something should be done to protect this type of action. The stuffing throws the whole communal mechanism at Wikipedia into serious jeopardy. Arbustoo 02:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The individual clearly exists. Kurt Weber 15:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And? Arbustoo 00:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable enough to merit inclusion.--Alhutch 00:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Ashibaka tock 18:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon systems[edit]

Advertisement. Probably doesn't meet WP:CORP but that's unverifiable as it doesn't release figures it is believed to be one of the largest full service EDI providers is asserted.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google provides no evidence of notoriety. Fagstein 04:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising per nom Dakota ~ ε 06:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blatant advertising. JIP | Talk 09:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I really did want to vote Keep because I like EDI (in a geeky kind of way) and they do look as if they are doing a valuable job, but in the end the tone of their advertorial (which forms a lot of the highest Google hits, of which there are in any case very few) really doesn't make the case. I love companies where you get to talk to a techie, but "we don't have a helpdesk" sounds a lot like "we don't have enough customers to need one". If anyone can verify a sizeable customer base (they claim "many", which is not quite the thing) then I'll change my vote. Provided the linspam goes from the section heading. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:21, 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 --a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Pack[edit]

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.

As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rebuttal: Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted only because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Director of a redlinked institution, editor of a redlinked magazine, graduate of an unaccredited university, reported to have broadcast to an audience of 250,000 (which is too small to sustain a programme on a British terrestrial network, and does not even indicate if it was the network or the programme's viewing figures - this could be garden-shed cable). One of a numebr of vastly important people whose existence had not been doucmented prior to the creation of a list of alumni for Louisiana Baptist University, an unaccredited colege with which the article's creator is associated. Article resorts to high school trivia. Oh, just read it, you'll see what I mean. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 01:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Very notable figure. --Jason Gastrich 01:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable vanity gastrich-cruft from a holder of a fake pHd from a diploma mill.Blnguyen 02:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. KrazyCaley 03:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I should have nominated this one a few days ago with the others: a Google test reveals mostly stuff about a tech guy of the same name. A.J.A. 03:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. - WarriorScribe 06:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Marginally notable. Logophile 07:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ehhhh. Like the nomination says, it has to resort to some pretty obscure stuff to even make him stand out at all. KrazyCaley 07:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per well-reasoned nom. This is almost borderline db-bio since nothing in the article asserts sufficient importance. Zunaid 08:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. I note this article's weaselling: "is read in 14" countries could easily mean a total of 14 people of different nationalities read it, etc.. Sliggy 13:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per JzG and Blngyuen --Deiz 13:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some of these Gastrich articles I've voted to keep, but this one doesn't meet the WP:Bio criteria. Contrary to the nomination, I don't think the fact that he graduated from an unaccredited university matters for his notability. The problem is that he hasn't done enough to make him recognizable outside his circle. Publishing booklets isn't the same as publishing books. --Thunk 13:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nomination. --kingboyk 15:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Harvestdancer 17:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Per Thunk, however I lean towards inclusion. Wynler 17:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see little reason to delete this article. --Shanedidona 17:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG. PJM 17:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN Grimm 18:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete <300 Relevent Ghits MNewnham 19:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nominator, in line with Thunk's reasoning. Hall Monitor 21:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Spondoolicks 22:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another non-notable from our most prolific creator of articles on non-notables, Gastrich. FeloniousMonk 22:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep "with a listening audience of 250,000 people" I think that clearly qualifies as notablility.the1physicist 22:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment.Someone verify this claim. Does this make the stock-market-report guy on the 11.30pm news notable?Blnguyen 04:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Of course. If someone can prove the 250K figure is significantly inaccurate, let me know and I will reconsider my vote.the1physicist 14:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per JzG. This attempt to include all sorts of people of highly questionable credentials and notability does not reflect well on Wikipedia. MCB 02:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. --Pierremenard 05:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I can't find anything on "Spirit of Prophecy" magazine. (There should be a weblink about it in the article anyway.) Furthermore, 250,000 people listen to him... On what show? It doesn't say. The burden of proof falls on the article editors and those who would wish to keep the article. I voted "Weak Keep" on the last Gastrich article, but this one is almost totally unverifiable. Grandmasterka 21:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete with preference to merge. Un notable, but would be great if he's merged....Further Note: I was brought here, like many others by Wiggins2, or as he wants to be called, "Wiggie". I think we shouldn't be so quick to shoot him down, as I, & probably many others, are grateful for his post to draw our attention to this subject. I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same. But we cannot ignore the fact that this is defintely going to open wikipedia into two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. However, this should not be about religion. I would be ashamed of the christians on here if they only voted to keep the articles because they were christian orientated. This should strictly be business as usual, even though it does seem strange an editor would nominate so many christian articles. Maybe a hidden agenda? If an article's crap, then it should be deleted. Being an inclusionist, I will probably keep the most mundane article. However, the list of notable people list is like many others, & should not be here. To do so would be obvious bias. I ask everyone to not be drawn in with a strict "You're wrong, I'm right" situation, but be open & find a way to keep peaceful.... Spawn Man 04:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...[reply]

Very Stong Delete. Unnotable does not meet Wikipedia standards of notabilty for article. Arbustoo 00:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Unless those TV channels were major ones. - Hahnchen 01:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThunderCS[edit]

Delete. Not notable, as per WP:WEB; article confirms this by defining the series as "not-so popular". Grandfather Clock 01:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. This is split pretty evenly between keep/merge with almost no support for outright deletion. Keeping/merging can be thrashed out elsewhere. -Splashtalk 22:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in Iceland[edit]

The article itself claims non-notablility by saying that Iceland has the world's lowest number of Muslims. Also, it doesn't really give any real content or even a dicdef. In comparison, even Islam in Iraq doesn't have an article. King of Hearts | (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unreferenced. Even if referenced, merge to Islam. Dlyons493 Talk 01:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into whatever article is appropriate for counts of Muslim population. Ashibaka tock 01:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Iceland has Muslims? Wow. Merge into Islam, that's an interesting tidbit, I always thought that Iceland was 100% homogenous in most cultural categories, I guess they're just at the high 90s. Karmafist 01:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read it's mostly like some construction workers and engineers from Turkey and Pakistan or the Mideast. I'm not sure they are even citizens. (I read an article about immigrants to Iceland during the Bobby Fischer deal. I did not create this article though)--T. Anthony 02:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Ashibaka --Bletch 04:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Muslims in Western Europe, as long as it's clear the numbers aren't from The Economist. Nateji77 05:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Ashibaka -- Zen611 05:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Islam (it has a section on demographics). Fagstein 05:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it has changed from current version. If this was merged it would make any article it was merged to worse. I searched online but couldn't find any information except for anecdotal talkes from Muslims in Iceland. gren グレン ? 06:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)I didn't use those sources because I feared they weren't scholarly at all... but, good enough to make me keep. gren グレン ? 07:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure they are either, but the government report should be close enough. Oddly enough I still don't think this amounts to much and personally I'd say Merge to Religion in Iceland which I just created.--T. Anthony 07:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Haha, I would agree with you but I don't think it can be merged anywhere without throwing off an article. Iceland really doesn't matter in terms of Islam. It'd be like merging some of the pissant towns in the U.S. to their counties. Some things are just irrelevant in the larger context. However, it is valuable in the sense that X religion in Y country is valuable. That's why I'm against merging. gren グレン ? 09:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete merge per Ashibaka Dakota ~ ε 06:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Important for covering religion in Iceland. Merging it into a list will not serve that purpose. Choalbaton 07:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's a whole series of "Islam in ..." articles, and this one makes for an interesting complement to that, exactly because it's about a country where Islam is marginal. That's not making it "non-notable", in my view. Since comparable info for other countries is distributed over that series and not centralized in one article, there also seems to be no obvious place for a merge. The article is decently written and sourced. Lukas 08:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lukas. Article is short but concise, as well as being referenced and properly categorised; it comes close to being the perfect stub. Shortening and/or merging into a list would defeat the purpose of the article which is to expand on the info available. As mentioned, it is well-categorised so adding it to a list would be redundant as well as throwing away information that can only be presented in an article form. Merging it to some other article does not fit in with the intention of creating a series of "Islam in..." articles. Zunaid 09:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. "The article itself claims... that Iceland has the world's lowest number of Muslims." doesnt that make it notable? BL kiss the lizard 09:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lukas and to counter systemic bias. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I need to use my powers for good instead of just silliness:) This article was just a sentence, and an inaccurate one at that, then I decided what the hey. Still how can this be justified as an article in its own right when there are so many more important "Islam in" articles to do? I think it'd make more sense to have a Religion in Iceland article and put this in. If you're worried it'd be lost until then, don't be. I did much of the work here and I can copy this to my talk page until a Religion in Iceland article is ready.--T. Anthony 11:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm missing one of my books on Iceland that could really fill in the stuff on Pietism and all. Oh well, maybe later.--T. Anthony 11:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its been expanded greatly since the one sentence substub that was afd'd -- Astrokey44|talk 11:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. We have Islam in the United Kingdom and Islam in Germany. Whether Iceland has the lowest number of Muslims is inconsequential - it's still a notable topic. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Only because tradition seems to allow a "(religion) in (country)" for each notable grouping. Hmm, maybe someone should start setting up "Atheism in (country)" articles. --StuffOfInterest 13:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about a merge into Religion in Iceland, a fine start on an article by User:T. Anthony, which links this article but doesn't have any islam-in-iceland content itself. I see the "(somereligion) in (somecountry)" articles as being subarticles of "Religion in (somecountry)" - that is, they're useful if there's a lot to say about somereligion in that country, but otherwise unnecessary. Also, wouldn't the Vatican City probably have fewer Muslims? CDC (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think so. I have a hunch Tuvalu also has less Muslims. They are listed as a nation of 11,468 people that's 98.4% Protestant and 1% Bahai. So if I did the math right they can't have more than 70 Muslims.--T. Anthony 13:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few history and other books on Iceland. The Reformation part is still pretty scant and I think a few other sections need improvement.--T. Anthony 01:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Religion in Iceland. Good work, T. Anthony. –Sommers (Talk) 21:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge and redirect to Religion in Iceland. Do NOT delete- information is perfectly good, very notable and should be kept. Do NOT merge into Islam- it's way too big ang general a topic to merge it into, and it would do both a disservice. -- Jake 05:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I copied most of information in this, most of which was by me, to the Religion in Iceland article.(Also by me) Although I can cut that out if it survives. The point though is that it won't be lost either way.--T. Anthony 05:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy DeYoung[edit]

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.

As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rebuttal: Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted only because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 01:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it's good to know that the subject's webmaster approves his bio to appear here, it woudl be better if there were some evidence of actual notability per WP:BLP. As it stands what we have here is: he's an evangelist. He evangelises. Here are some of the places he's evangelised. Did we mention he's an evangelist? Seriously, I can't understand what this is doing on the 'pedia. Oh, wait - he's an alumnus of... yes, you guessed it! Louisiana Baptist University. Creator and (save for the odd bot and various tags) pretty much sole editor is an anon with little other history. In the end I read this biography in some detail and still don't know what he's supposed to be notable for. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 01:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First rate spam IMMHO. I particularly liked "he facilitates Christians to see where they are in God’s timetable and encourage them to ready themselves for Christ’s imminent return". Moriori 01:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vanity spam. I am seriously getting annoyed with Jason Gastrich's attempts to flood Wikipedia with articles of Christianity. I have nothing against Christianity, but he clearly knows that WP:VAIN takes priority. Yet, Jason relentlessly creates non-notable articles for his organization Wiki 4 Christ and refers others to influence the AfD votes, others who don't understand the entire situation. I suggest all of you take a good look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Louisiana Baptist University people (second nomination) as well. SycthosTalk 02:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 02:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 02:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. KrazyCaley 03:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn vanity diploma mill self awarded pHd. Blnguyen 04:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable biography. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 05:16Z
  • Keep. Notable enough. By the way, I do not know Jason Gastrich and have had no communication with him whatsoever. Neither am I directly involved with these people or their school, although I am vaguely familiar with some of them and with their work. Logophile 07:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is somewhat more notable than a lot of the people on the LBU list, but I think he falls short. Such relatively obscure figure need, I think, a little less reliance on clique-cruft, thought some of the figures on the list, as in the Chuck Missler deletion debate, do seem to show themselves worthy. KrazyCaley 07:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep has tv and radio shows, interviewed international leaders, 500 google hits. Though needs severe editing to get rid of POV phrases like "As a result of this God-given desire of his heart". -- Astrokey44|talk 11:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as vanity. Who's joining me in Wiki4Satan? --Deiz 12:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If for no other reason than to show how much collective life religous zealotry sucks out of the world. --StuffOfInterest 13:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain. As soon as this started turning into a Christian vs. everyone else debate I lost interest. Unfortunately, many of those voting keep are claiming that everyone else is anti-Christian. This wasn't so, but if it is repeated enough it may become truth. --StuffOfInterest 20:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I didn't want to vote this way, keep. He has a syndicated radio program that reaches a number of states [10], and has done his thing worldwide. That's fairly notable for me. --badlydrawnjeff 14:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; while some of the claims to notability might warrant inclusion (best-selling author), I can not verify them. Peyna 16:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per JzG. This attempt to include all sorts of people of highly questionable credentials and notability does not reflect well on Wikipedia. MCB 02:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with the statement that the article needs editing, to better reflect NPOV, but he should be represented in a comprehensive encyclopedia -- the TV show "Day of Discovery" is shown every week on our CBS affiliate station, with him as a major contributor.[11]1diot 18:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Once again, folks, the stuff in the article is almost entirely unverifiable. The claims there are extremely non-specific, and the little bit about WNYM I haven't been able to verify. (The station has had several incarnations.) If someone can put SPECIFIC AND NOTABLE CLAIMS in the article that I can verify, let me know and I <might> consider changing my vote. Grandmasterka 21:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There may be a kernel of verifiable info in there somewhere but as the article stands it's hard to find. Crunch 22:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete unnotable. Arbustoo 02:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cyde Weys 02:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs a clean up, but I think we can do it without deleting it... Further Note: I was brought here, like many others by Wiggins2, or as he wants to be called, "Wiggie". I think we shouldn't be so quick to shoot him down, as I, & probably many others, are grateful for his post to draw our attention to this subject. I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same. But we cannot ignore the fact that this is defintely going to open wikipedia into two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. However, this should not be about religion. I would be ashamed of the christians on here if they only voted to keep the articles because they were christian orientated. This should strictly be business as usual, even though it does seem strange an editor would nominate so many christian articles. Maybe a hidden agenda? If an article's crap, then it should be deleted. Being an inclusionist, I will probably keep the most mundane article. However, the list of notable people list is like many others, & should not be here. To do so would be obvious bias. I ask everyone to not be drawn in with a strict "You're wrong, I'm right" situation, but be open & find a way to keep peaceful.... Spawn Man 04:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...[reply]
    • 'I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same', 'Two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. ' As somebody who has voted to delete most of the nominated articles, I take great offence at that sweeping and hugely incorrect generalisation. I vote delete on issues of vanity, non-NPOV, non notability and sockpuppeteering and will continue to do so. --kingboyk 13:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly my point. This shouldn't be about religion, only about what's best for wikipedia... Doesn't anyone actually read what I've written? Sigh..... Spawn Man 02:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --kingboyk 13:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Delete. DeYoung is unnotable and there are no sources to demonstrate that he meets Wikipedia standards of notability. Arbustoo 00:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the user that put this bio up in the first place. Dr. DeYoung is a notable speaker. He is the cohost on Day of Discovery, which is a nation-wide show. He is heard on over 1000 radio stations in North America. He is a published author, a radio talk-show host, a television cohost , and, yes, an evangelist. I am not a sock-puppet of anyone. My name is Chad Smith - I haven't added a lot of stuff, that's true, but I'm a real person. If you check the links in the article, you'll see that the info is on the up and up. If you think the links have been put up to support a fake article, check the web archive for them. Dr. DeYoung has a large number of listeners, his web site gets tens of thousands of visitors per month. Just because you haven't heard of him, doesn't mean he's not notable. There are plenty of notable people in fields that are outside my interests that deserve to be on Wikipedia. The same is true for each of us. Dr. DeYoung is in the Pre-Trib Study Group that Tim LaHaye started, as in the coauthor of the Left Behind series. Is Tim LaHaye in the Wikipedia? Yes. Granted, Tim LaHaye has more mainstream success, but Tim LaHaye thinks enough of Dr. DeYoung to include his notes in the Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible, in which Dr. DeYoung's is cited as a contributor, and has an entire article included. His article is on page 973 and is entitled "Israel Today" if you'd like to go to a bookstore and check it out, and the list of contributors in the front shows that this is the same Dr. Jimmy DeYoung of Shofar Communications that I am referring to in this article. It may be true that this article should be cleaned up. It was my first addition of an article, and only the 3rd or 4th one I've worked on. But please don't remove it. I don't even know who this Jason person is. I've gone through it a little bit and tired to clean it up, and make it more acceptable for Wikipedia. I'm sure more work can be done, but I wanted to at least include some of the verification sources to help keep it on the Wikipedia. Chad78.
  • Delete. Vanity, non-NPOV, non notability. This reads like a press release, not an encyclopedia entry. 12.210.85.52 02:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC) (sorry, hadn't logged in yet.) Zen611 02:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being the co-host of a syndicated TV show (even a fringe one) is sufficient notability to my mind. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. To produce any other result would require discounting of raw votes on such a massive scale that I can't possibly countenance it. -Splashtalk 22:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Gothard[edit]

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.

As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rebuttal: Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted only because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 01:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This guy seems mainly notable because he is leader of the Institute in Basic Life Principles. Which, it turns out, is mainly notable because it's run by... well, you can see where this is headed. I would say merge to the IBLP article but I have a suspicion that both should be merged to the bitbucket. No, just for a change, this one was not created by Jason Gastrich, just one of a number of poeple with tenuous claims to notability from the Louisiana Baptist University alumni list. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 01:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge This guy, unfortunately, has a fair number of followers. I've heard there used to be some in my own church until they heard Gothard condemned beards and the pastor refused to shave. A.J.A. 03:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Condemned beards? It's not just a more, like... "the clean-shaven appearance is nice" sort of thing? ^^ Weien 04:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, he condemns beards EXCEPT for those who are adherents to the Mennonite faith. My dad had to ask if he could keep his mustache when we were in ATI. Dick Clark 15:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply

Deletion? Well, I think Bill Gothard is more the "founder" of IBLP than anything, though you're right about it being his foremost, um, "item of achievement," so to speak. But while the Institute in Basic Life Principles is unofficially aka the "Bill Gothard thing," it's something that has reached millions of people (over 2.5 million have attended IBLP's various Seminars alone) and is still an important thing to many on a daily basis. The Institute is relatively huge, all things considered. But even if the main thing about Gothard is IBLP and vice versa, does that by itself warrant deletion (yea, newbie here)? True that both articles do overlap significantly though, particularly in the many areas that stress the "highly controversial" aspects of Bill Gothard and IBLP.

On another topic, maybe both articles should just be left alive solely because of how much work various Wikipedians have put into them already? Or is there another reason for deletion that I'm missing? Thanks for any clarification-- Weien 04:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Blnguyen 04:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As noted above, this guy has a very large following, including quite a few people I personally know. I am not one of them, but we should base inclusion or deletion on the person's notability--not whether we like him or not. Logophile 07:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 50k google hits. I think rather than going on a crusade of afds against these articles, it would have been better to put disputed tags on them -- Astrokey44|talk 11:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Institute in Basic Life Principles since they are essentially the same article, and have affected a significant number of peoples' lives. Sliggy 13:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Huge amount of material on this guy via Google. Someone going to a conference where he is a speaker is likely to read an article like this. Use it to give the whole story rather than just blanking it. --StuffOfInterest 13:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain. As soon as this started turning into a Christian vs. everyone else debate I lost interest. Unfortunately, many of those voting keep are claiming that everyone else is anti-Christian. This wasn't so, but if it is repeated enough it may become truth. --StuffOfInterest 20:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, covered in Christianity Today, a notable magazine. --badlydrawnjeff 14:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, failing that Keep. This person seems rather more notable and the article a little more balanced than some of the others nominated. --kingboyk 15:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In light of the following comment, I would suggest that any merger should be into this article, since Mr Gothard seems to be more notable than his Institute in Basic Life Principles. Alternatively, I'm quite happy for the article just to be kept if that's the concensus. --kingboyk 18:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no problem with that. I can see that I have got this the wrong way round, it is indeed the organisation which is the sideline. I still don't see we need two articles, I think this will be a keep so I'll go for a merge at the end. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 00:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, anti-Merge, Since Gothard has caroused with Boris Yeltsin (wouldn't include this in the article as it is original research, but I saw him shake hands with Yeltsin on stage at the '92 ATIA conference in Knoxville when ATIA assumed responsibility for some public schools in Moscow), has personally led numerous seminars with >15k attendees, and has been instrumental in the publishing of numerous books, periodicals, and homeschool curricula. As someone who considers himself a "victim" of Gothard's legalism, I do have a POV on this (which I would be remiss in omitting). Nonetheless, I think Gothard's notability is virtually unquestionable. Dick Clark 15:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also add that the IBLP largely emerged to take advantage of the popularity generated by Gothard's "chalk talks" (where he speaks as he is drawing a landscape of some sort, and then, as a visual reinforcement of his conclusion to the talk, changes the lighting to reveal some sort of Christian imagery). IBLP's "Basic" seminars in later years usually featured a video of Gothard speaking if he was unavailable (which was more frequently the case as the Basic seminars in became more popular)Dick Clark 19:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, anti-Merge. Gothard is a very recognizable figure within Christian fundamentalist circles, and his influence is quite broad and controversial. (I would predict that a random poll would find more people recognize Bill Gothard by name than any of his related organizations.) You would not merge Pat Robertson with the 700 Club, since the person is as newsworthy as the organization, sometimes more so. Similar thing here, as Gothard has a broader influence than just IBLP.--Gandalf2000 20:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per everyone else. Hall Monitor 21:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another non-notable from our most prolific creator of articles on non-notables, Gastrich. FeloniousMonk 22:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't create this entry (just like the nominator said). Besides your word, what makes Gothard non-notable? --Jason Gastrich 07:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per JzG. This attempt to include all sorts of people of highly questionable credentials and notability does not reflect well on Wikipedia. MCB 02:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Arbustoo 03:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- notable within the fundamentalist Christian world as an activist for extreme right-wing values and as an accused cult leader. Admittedly a niche personality, but not an insignificant one. Haikupoet 04:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Seems notable enough. -- DS1953 talk 06:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Gothard is extremely notable for his seminars and teachings. He's been in the national news and is highly regarded in evangelical circles. --Jason Gastrich 07:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Gothard and the IBLP have had a major influence in Christian fundamentalist circles and beyond, since the 70s. While a merge would make things neater, we really need both articles just as Gandalf noted above. --DDerby-(talk) 16:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, much as would like to see more citations. This is notable enough. Grandmasterka 21:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, off you go. Stifle 00:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This guy has quite a web presence, news references, even a number of anti-Gothard campaigns, websites, etc. I don't support him or his ilk, but he is a considerable somebody in several circles. The fact that Jason Gastrich (or his ilk) promotes/advocates this article should have no bearing its appropriateness. If he (Gastrich) is abusing the system, I would support efforts to deal with his abuse. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 18:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Not just because I support him as a Christian, but also because he's well known.--ViolinGirl♪ 13:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would a fan of John Piper support Bill Gothard? I don't understand. A.J.A. 00:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The guy is sure controversial, also among Christians, but that's doesn't make him not noteworthy, on the contrary. There has even a 380 page book been written about him: Veinot, A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life which has 70 customer reviews at amazon.com and was worth an article for ChristianityToday. apologeticsindex.org gives him and his institute a whole page, rickross.com has an articles collection on him, So an article in Wikipedia is deserved but needs to be watched closely for NPOV. --Irmgard 00:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, so keep. Looking at the arguments without trying to perform a strict "vote count", I see that the arguments and consensus to keep or delete is roughly 50-50. The allegations of meatpuppetry and solicitation are serious, so I wouldn't be against a re-AfD, but only after taking a breather first. --Deathphoenix 14:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Missler[edit]

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.

As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rebuttal: Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted only because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 01:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bible teacher. And he wrote some books, published by a missionary press, one or two of which break the half million in Amazon's sales rank, but not by much it seems. In this article we find out that he turned to God after a business deal went tits-up, he held un-named "prominent positions" with some big firms and got a PhD from an unaccredited university (bet you can't guess which one). So now he combines a background in cryptanalysis with 30 years of Biblical teaching. Which would be really handy if the Bible weren't printed in clear... OK, he might be notable. It's possible that those "prominent positions" are indeed prominent. In which case some citations and actual details would not go amiss. Otherwise this is just a garden-variety minister with added resumé padding. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 01:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As Branch Chief of the Department of Guided Missiles would he have been responsible in any way for the 39 Scud missiles that Jimmy DeYoung weathered? God moves in mysterious ways! Dlyons493 Talk 01:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has 11 published books and a radio ministry, and if you delete this article it will soon be "resurrected", so to speak, by a Calvary Chapelite. Ruby 03:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This one actually does seem notable, based on the wide variety of external links acknowleding the subject and his confirmed prolific publication. I still don't much like the trend, though. KrazyCaley 07:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity self awarded pHd nn. Blnguyen 04:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Should a subject's education be the determining factor for an article's inclusion or deletion? I don't think so. This guy is fairly notable. I hate to say it, but I am detecting bias against ultraconservative Christians in these nominations for deletion. Logophile 07:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 11:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's more than one person nominating them, and actually the bias is against the use of wikipedia as a way of boosting the profile of Southern "fundamentalists" (who are not "conservative Christians", that would be the Catholics). You'll note that I have given a fairly extensive rationale above, I did take the trouble to go out and try to verify the significance of this person (and the others). It's a walled garden: these people are "notable" by reference to others (people and institutions) who are "notable" by reference back to them. They all seem to come with a full set of minor books published by fundamentalist Christian presses, studio photographs, and a resume which includes degrees from (and teaching in) unaccredited universities. It looks to me very much as if the 'pedia is being used to promote something. And there is some evidence to support that idea, see [12]. So I apologise for the interruption to your encyclopaeding pleasure, but I think it's time we reviewed the whole lot, pruned the dead wood and stamped out what looks a lot like an infestation of fundamentalist ground elder. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Roman Catholic, but I have friends in Real Life and on USENET who are in the Calvary Chapel, and this guy is as notable among them as Chuck Smith or Greg Laurie. Even the Bible Answer Man is ordained in the C.C. Your suggestion that we go on a rat hunt to root out leaders who happen to ascribe to the Five Fundamentals is disturbing to say the least. Ruby 12:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall saying any such thing. What I said was, we have an apparent invasion of cruft. A walled garden of people who are important only to each other. I absolutely do not discount (including in this nomination, explicitly) the possibility that some of them may be notable outside that community, on the other hand there is good evidence that several of them are not, and this is no different to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam rooting out linkspam: the idea that just because someone is a Christian they won't abuse Wikipedia to push a POV or "sell" the product is naive. I am a Christian and if you see my user page you will see that I am quite open about my strong opinions. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 00:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of your objections is the low Amazon sales rank of Missler's books. Surely this method of determining notability only applies to recent books, since books written in, say, 1994, long before Amazon stated selling books, would only experience back-catalog sales on Amazon, introducing a bias into the test. Ruby 00:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed that comment at the time. See this [13] book published in 1985 and still hovering round the 100,000 mark on Amazon. I read it as a set text at school shortly after it was published, I remember it still. That is one of my personal benchmarks for a notable book (of any sort). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Religious writer. -- JJay 13:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs cleanup to remove heavy POV and should probably be flagged as such. Saying someone is not notable only because they are notable within a Christian sect you don't agree with doesn't seem right. And this is coming from someone who thinks all religions are nuts. --StuffOfInterest 13:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain. As soon as this started turning into a Christian vs. everyone else debate I lost interest. Unfortunately, many of those voting keep are claiming that everyone else is anti-Christian. This wasn't so, but if it is repeated enough it may become truth. --StuffOfInterest 21:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I dunno whether these nominations were researched outside of reading articles that might need cleanup. This guy is an internationally syndicated radio host [14]. --badlydrawnjeff 14:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Reviewing the syndication list (thanks badlydrawnjeff) shows that in fact the only place his radio shows are syndicated outside the USA is Australia, where he is broadcast on radio stations that cover areas with a population density of 1 person/square mile or less (Perth excepted). Indeed here in the US he isn't broadcast anywhere in my mountain time zone, and is probably on less than 30 stations nationwide. The rest of the article probably has the same puff factor. MNewnham 19:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When did the US annex Canada again? He's on 42 US stations, for the record. Not a real valid comparison given the style of radio, but in 2004, Howard Stern was on 44 US stations. --badlydrawnjeff 20:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the thorough nomination. --kingboyk 19:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per JzG. This attempt to include all sorts of people of highly questionable credentials and notability does not reflect well on Wikipedia. MCB 02:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • ATTENTION

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29 "Something very funny happened today. I got two identical emails from Jason Gastrich through Wikipedia. You can make up your own mind as to whether this qualifies for meat-puppetry or stacking the vote. Here's the email. --Cyde Weys 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Hello,
I noticed that you were listed as a Christian Wikipedian. I am, too. I wanted to let you know that in the last 24 hours, someone has nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion. Not only does this seem like bad faith and an affront to a lot of hard work, but I'd like you to come and vote on the entries. These nominations seem peculiar because some people are even presidents of universities and well known authors.
Below are some of the links that need attention. Thanks for your consideration.
By the way, I recently started an organization called Wiki4Christ (see http://wiki4christ.com). If you’d like to join a network of Christians with a purpose on Wikipedia, please see our site!
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim
  • Strong Keep This is starting to get ridiculous. Chuck Missler is a household name in some circles. Also, fancruft isn't necessarily a bad thing.the1physicist 19:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, although it would need to have citations added and be expanded a bit. Let's see, on LBU alumni articles my score so far is: 3 weak keep, 2 delete. Grandmasterka 21:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You just picked the wrong fundie this time. Ruby 00:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, JzG makes an excellent argument. Minimal notability within small, sectarian groups isn't enough to make that same person notable on a larger scale. = WarriorScribe 01:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Agree with JzG on this. --Censorwolf 01:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, Wikipedia is not a promotion tool for an unknown to sell books and videos. Arbustoo 02:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Missler is a keynote speaker at Christian Bible conferences, a very well known author, and a prominent prophecy scholar. Plus, he has a large ministry and a radio show. --Jason Gastrich 03:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing in the article implies notability. --Pierremenard 13:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not because I have any opionions about this guy, but only because I just came upon some published material by him and consulted Wikipedia to find out who on earth he is. I would have been disappointed if there was no entry. Having said that, I think the POV elements in the article need removing, but keep the basic factual information. I only ended up at this page after trying to find out who this Missler is - and I'm sure I'm not the only person in the world who will turn to Wikipedia for unbiased information when they encounter something about this Missler guy. And as for the claim that he is only known in USA and Australia, I'm writing from England - these days, information doesn't stop at national boundaries. Euchiasmus 18:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just been reading the guidelines (I'm a relative newbie) and tried the Google test - Google gives 106000 pages for "chuck missler" in quotes - but I'd rather read an unbiased account about him in Wikipedia! Euchiasmus 18:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:POINT Jim62sch 19:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep]] - This case is someone who is notable. I've come across this name on Usenet:talk.origins before. -Harvestdancer 02:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - discussion should be case-by-case. Charles Matthews 09:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he published all but one book himself. Self-published is the same as not published as far as notability of authors go. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete FeloniousMonk 06:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anyone who can generate this much controversy is worth keeping. Besides, I'm an anti-deletionist; as long as Cassie Newton has her own Wikipedia page, this guy may as well have one too. Lawrence King 15:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC) — P.S. I happen to find the meat-puppet solicitation quite offensive, and therefore I have no current plans to vote on the other deletions in this list. However, I am curious. Can someone explain why twelve similar pages were flagged for deletion all at once? I oppose meat-puppetry, but if there has been some sort of collusion between current active Wikipedians to coordinate their votes for deletion on several similar pages, I can understand why someone who put work into all those pages would feel that he is being ganged-up on. Lawrence King 15:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason they were nominated together was that Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) created an article with a list of "notable" alumni from Louisiana Baptist University, an unaccredited university with which he is associated. Some of these articles already existed, some were created by Gastrich or known or suspected sockpuppets of Gastrich (see the RfC above). A.J.A. went through them all and nominated those which, in his view, were not notable per WP criteria. I checked Gastrich's contribution history and found a couple more, including this one. If you read some of the comments above,. and the nomination, you will note that I tried to verify the claims of notability (e.g. "prominent" positions) but did not find any reliable sources for them. I also checked the Amazon entries and sales ranks for his books, and found them to be way off the radar. Another editor has tracked them through to their publisher and found that they are self-published, which means that as far as WP is concerned they don't count (unless they prove to have unique authority, like Robert Gunther's self-published history of early science in Oxford). Gastrich called in the meatpuppets. We also have on here the usual smattering of inclusionists (nothing wrong with that) and tactical deletionists (remove-all-Godcruft), which more or less balance out in most cases. Does that answer your question? Or have I misunderstood what you are asking? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this does answer my question. If I didn't have inclusionist leanings, I would probably have voted to delete most of these. As it was, I voted to include this one since it seems more serious, and ignored the others. Lawrence King 00:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete This is in conclusion after looking at some of the behavior, and because of a 62% vote to delete (even without discounted votes). --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Morey[edit]

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.

As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rebuttal: Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted only because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 01:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted by an anon via Articles for Creation. Serious problems with NPOV, several dubious claims and rebuttals, but no actual indication of why the hell we should care who this guy is. The section arguing about the legitimacy of his claimed doctorates is far and away the most interesting part ofg the article,and that only to see just how POV it can get before someone steps in and speedies it as an attack. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 01:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable - Amazon won't even gift-wrap The Trinity: Evidence And Issues. Dlyons493 Talk 01:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lol. I haven't said lol in some time. Nonetheless, I find your criteria for inclusion quite amusing! --Jason Gastrich 07:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Much more notable than the Ali Sina types. NPOVing is important though, sorry if my keep vote gives anyone more work. gren グレン ? 02:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another one I probably should've nominated a few days ago. A.J.A. 03:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right . . . because you're the Christian who wants to get rid of Christian entries on Wikipedia; even obvious keepers like Thomas Ice and Grant Jeffrey. Makes sense to people from outer space. --Jason Gastrich 10:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He wants to keep relevant and notable Christian entries. The debate is the relevance and notability of the subject, not whether or not the A.J.A. is attacking "christian articles". -Harvestdancer 17:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, if I were more concerned with promoting Christianity I would've voted to delete the Gothard article. A.J.A. 20:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, someone nominated Gothard for deletion. They must have been sniffing the same glue that the guy was sniffing who nominated Grant Jeffrey and Thomas Ice for deletion . . . just kidding. Kinda. --Jason Gastrich 07:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We don't delete because an anon submitted an article, or because of POV problems. He certainly seems to be of interest to some people. Logophile 07:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What exactly is this guy notable for? NOTHING in the article seems like really encyclopedic info. Zunaid 09:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Notable figure with plenty of interesting, encyclopedic information that indicates he is notable. --Jason Gastrich 10:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep published author, referenced -- Astrokey44|talk 11:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable over-claiming preacher. Sliggy 13:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article still has a lot of POV, but some attempts are being made to offer balance and criticism. Seems to be part of a concerted campaign by a few editors to censor out a particular community. --StuffOfInterest 13:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain. As soon as this started turning into a Christian vs. everyone else debate I lost interest. Unfortunately, many of those voting keep are claiming that everyone else is anti-Christian. This wasn't so, but if it is repeated enough it may become truth. --StuffOfInterest 21:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep, or perhaps merge to a larger Faith Defenders article. --badlydrawnjeff 15:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn --kingboyk 15:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per JzG. This attempt to include all sorts of people of highly questionable credentials and notability does not reflect well on Wikipedia. MCB 02:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable charlatan, with self-awarded-and-styled diploma mill degrees, of no academic worthiness and none relevant to poltics/theology overlap. Blnguyen 04:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should part of this biography be blended into an article about California Biblical University and Seminary? Arbustoo 06:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Good job, this one actually has some citations. LBU "alumni": 4 "Weak Keep", 2 "Delete". Grandmasterka 21:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG, Gastrichcruft. Stifle 00:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and I agree...the way we keep having to accommodate for people of questionable credentials (and questionable morals) is troublesome for Wikipedia. - WarriorScribe 01:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cyde Weys 02:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since it looks like this article is going to be deleted, I created an article about Morey's California Biblical University and Seminary Is this okay with everyone? Comments? Arbustoo 03:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If he's writen stuff then he should at least have a little slice of wikipedia? I mean, Wikipedia is huge, everyone can have a share can't they? Everyone thinks that because he isn't in the news, that he shouldn't be included in wikipedia, the so called "sum of all human knowledge". But how do we know he isn't influencial? He effects hundreds with his words..... Further Note: I was brought here, like many others by Wiggins2, or as he wants to be called, "Wiggie". I think we shouldn't be so quick to shoot him down, as I, & probably many others, are grateful for his post to draw our attention to this subject. I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same. But we cannot ignore the fact that this is defintely going to open wikipedia into two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. However, this should not be about religion. I would be ashamed of the christians on here if they only voted to keep the articles because they were christian orientated. This should strictly be business as usual, even though it does seem strange an editor would nominate so many christian articles. Maybe a hidden agenda? If an article's crap, then it should be deleted. Being an inclusionist, I will probably keep the most mundane article. However, the list of notable people list is like many others, & should not be here. To do so would be obvious bias. I ask everyone to not be drawn in with a strict "You're wrong, I'm right" situation, but be open & find a way to keep peaceful.... Spawn Man 04:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...[reply]
  • Delete - The problem with this is the lack of information given about his notability. Who published his "works"? Self published? Vanity press? I mean, how can you receive a phd in Islamic Studies from the Louisiana Baptist University? - Hahnchen 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article is extensively cited and recent edits seem to help move it towards WP:NPOV. His works may be specialized, but I don't think it sets a good precedent to delete published authors because of the fields they write in. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Merge with California Biblical University. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete FeloniousMonk 06:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC) More Gastrichcruft[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by User:Alabamaboy —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 05:15Z


Unelfy[edit]

Dictionary definition of a neologism. keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 01:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Article has already been deleted. AfD can be removed. SycthosTalk 02:29, 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. -Splashtalk 22:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lanfil Entertainment[edit]

Non-notable label. I refrained from speedying it because it did appear to assert notability. Google gave me nothing and it seems that an endeavor so new would be on the internet. Not a definitive test but, we do need evidence to the contrary. Remember to remove from List of independent record labels if deleted. gren グレン ? 02:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination- it doesn't even say WHERE the label is based. KrazyCaley 03:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete warpozio 08:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --kingboyk 20:04, 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. -Splashtalk 22:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fry Mumia[edit]

No evidence of widespread usage presented, and in any case this can be dealt with in a single line in the Mumia article. Gamaliel 02:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep See http://www.thoseshirts.com/mumia.html that the phrase is in common use, and please allow the article to actually be written. Are you all the same person? Morton devonshire 03:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: No, we are not sockpuppets or sockpuppeteers because we have the same point of view. Fry Mumia fails a Google test with only 1,050 hits. ThoseShirts.com sells many shirts, but not all phrases or slogans are notable because the fact that a phrase or slogan is printed on apparel does not justify common use. SycthosTalk 03:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strawman argument -- didn't allege sockpuppetry based on similar point of view. Allegation is based on instantaneous syncophantic support on each other's talk pages, and the ganging-up without giving the article a chance to mature. Rather than delete it, edit it. That's the Wikipedia Way. Morton devonshire 16:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nom. --Bletch 04:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Photography by DECLAN MCCULLAGH says otherwise. He's a journalist and editor of news.com. Here's a book on Google: Executing Justice. Did anyone bother to check this out first? Kmac1036 05:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One guy writing it on a sign at a protest doesn't say much. The book you show has one sentence where it quotes someone with "Let Mumia fry!". I'm not convinced. Peyna 02:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight merge to Mumia article. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 05:13Z
  • Dicdef. Transwiki and delete. Fagstein 05:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --—Viriditas | Talk 05:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, only needs one line at the Mumia article -- Astrokey44|talk 11:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom and above. --StuffOfInterest 13:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism not in wide usage at all. Probably not even worthy of mention at Mumia. I can get a t-shirt with my name put up for sale at that site, that doesn't make me worthy of an article in Wikipedia. Peyna 16:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no merging needed here except for a single sentence. Also, I'm annoyed that whenever people share opinions, Morton devonshire immediately assumes/accuses them of being the same person (see above, and [15]) and has a habit of martyrdom [16] on this topic. Also, re below: A picture of a slogan by a notable journalist (if he is) does not make the slogan notable. --Golbez 16:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not newly coined as alleged -- see the McCullagh photo cited above. Morton devonshire 16:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect. Free Mumia should probably be a redirect too. —Charles P.  (Mirv) 17:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because the Cult of Mumia told me to. J/K. I think Mumia Abu-Jamal could use more coverage of the anti-Mumia movement. I just don't think an article on a T-shirt slogan is the proper place to put this coverage. Morton if you would like to improve Wikipedia's article on Mumia Abu-Jamal, feel free to edit it. Rhobite 17:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight merge and redirect - I think the phrase can be mentioned in passing under his detractors. Don't merge the picture and don't merge and make sure it's in passing. gren グレン ? 17:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mention briefly in Mumia Abu-Jamal if desired and see whether the editors of the article think it's important enough, but my vote is a simple delete because the phrase itself is not yet notable. A proper "merge and delete" is way too much work of the closer. Whoever edited the article can independently add a mention in Mumia Abu-Jamal. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable slogan. Also admittedly POV fork: Tried to add a reference to the main article, but it was removed by the Mumia-protection-society.. Guettarda 17:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn slogan User:Zoe|(talk) 17:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per various above.--SarekOfVulcan 17:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • D Fawcett5 18:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there is room for an examination of these social issues. I can imagine an article that talked about public perception of injustice, popular movements to correct that percieved injustice (Free Angela!, for those of us who of a certain age), and the reaction to those movements. Okay, Fry Mumia isn't the title for that article. I'm not qualified to write such an article anyway; But let's leave open the possibility that this content, under another name, could be the stub of a good article. Tom Harrison Talk 18:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And mention on Mumia's article if evidence can be found supporting it's use being common. I've yet to see that. - Taxman Talk 19:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --kingboyk 20:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless article on a pointless subject. --BadSeed 00:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Mumia Abu-Jamal. I agree with the nominator — though I'm not sure why he took it to AfD in the first place — that a single sentence on "Fry Mumia" as a "humorous" response to "Free Mumia" would be enough. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think it would be fine to have more general info on the anti-Mumia movement, to the extent that there is one (I'm not knowledgeable on this point), in the main Mumia article. However, I haven't seen anything convincing me so far that this phrase in particular is more than the coinage of an individual, so at this point I wouldn't even see a need for the one-sentence merge some have suggested. Catsv 05:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have redirected the page to Free Mumia Movement, in an effort to try to find some balance. My hope is that editors will discuss the political phenomenen which is the Free Mumia Movement, which is larger than the man himself and his case. Please help me to do this by removing the Afd and other tags. Thanks. Morton devonshire 05:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote still remains delete; the new page has even less info than the previous one. Really, any of this can just be put into Mumia Abu-Jamal until it gets too large and requires its own article. That's typically how this is done here. --Golbez 16:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Free Mumia Movement and see what can be made of it. Keep Fry Mumia as a redirect. Tom Harrison Talk 16:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mumia Abu-Jamal already covers the Free Mumia Movement and covers it's opposite in detail. Free Mumia Movement and Fry Mumia are not needed until/unless the main Mumia article becomes too large to manage. Peyna 17:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Mumia Abu-Jamal but with a caveat: Is this vote for Free Mumia or Fry Mumia? I came across the AfD at the top of the Free Mumia entry, yet it says Fry Mumia at the top of this page. If Free Mumia is a keeper, I think Fry Mumia should stay as well.-HroptR 03:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless, it's still a POV fork created because the author's attempt to add information to the original article was removed by the Mumia-protection-society. (i.e., it was created because the author was unable to get consensus for his addition to the main page). POV forks are not allowed, as per policy. Guettarda 23:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok, a "merge" and / or redirect would be sufficient, in the name of saving some server space. Kmac1036 23:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable slogan. Also admittedly POV fork: POV forks are not permitted. Look, I live in Philly and am intimately aware of this case and the furor and the angst, nonetheless, the article needs to go. Jim62sch 23:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Populationx[edit]

1400 members in five years is pretty good, I guess. Not sure if it's Wikipedia-worthy. What say you, fellow wiki workers? - Lucky 6.9 02:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable forum. -Will Beback 02:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this place would be worthy if it provided a link. KrazyCaley 03:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable web forum. 1,400 members is not notable in my opinion, and populationx.com has no Alexa traffic data. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 05:10Z
  • Delete NN Website, article was created by website owner, shameless advertising. --Lightdarkness 17:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of the reasons stated above --TBC 18:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity advert. --Terence Ong 05:31, 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 about to be speedy deleted as an attack page, per User:Quarl. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iadipaoliphobia[edit]

Hoax/nonsense "condition" Drdisque 02:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Iadipaoligize (AfD discussion) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 05:08Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faces (software)[edit]

Speedy delete. Already deleted. Sleepyhead 11:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete It's a repost. dcandeto 11:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, tagged as such. Removed confusing reposting of old AfD. Proto||type 13:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alhazi Invasion[edit]

Delete. It's one of three stubs about an obscure game, entered four months ago by an unlogged user who have since not done any Wiki work. Thomas Blomberg 02:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no evidence of notabiltiy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 04:18Z
  • Delete as per nominator. Blnguyen 04:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom --TBC 18:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 05:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a copyvio among other things. Renata 10:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A side note: Speaking as the ... author of the original text (on the Finnish website), I don't actually care about the copying thing, and in general I don't mind the text being around on Wiki. But yes, the game was pretty "obscure", not particularly special in its genre. --Methem 14:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was I'm gonna speedy delete this nonsense. It's a blatant attack page. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy muney[edit]

  • Delete - Complete Vanity. Notice in the history tab, the creator is "crazy muney" himself. Calicore 02:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vanity and obvious advertising. The creator attempted to link the article onto MySpace. SycthosTalk 03:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely speedy delete as vanity and borderline patent nonsense. KrazyCaley 03:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Blnguyen 04:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as non-notable vanity biography, and attack page ("famous for having anal sex with his cousin"), and unverifiable (no Google hits for name). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 04:31Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 06:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PaulStintzi[edit]

Not notable autobiography. Delete or move to user page. --Dual Freq 02:55, 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. -Splashtalk 23:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruiner[edit]

Delete. It's one of three stubs about an obscure game, entered four months ago by an unlogged user who have since not done any Wiki work. Thomas Blomberg 02:59, 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. -Splashtalk 23:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drus[edit]

Delete. It's one of three stubs about an obscure game, entered four months ago by an unlogged user who have since not done any Wiki work. Thomas Blomberg 03:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. This is one of those where it doens't really matter how I read it (or, horror, count the votes) there just isn't enough agreement here to produce a mandate for anythin from this debate, other than that the material should probably not stay as it is. I suppose it should probably be merged or something. -Splashtalk 23:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Prower[edit]

Only claim to notabliy is dying during the voygage of the Mayflower as a baby but still nn, no sources nither Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 03:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Quarl. --Terence Ong 05:20, 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 as no consensus to delete. Ifnord 00:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuperOffice[edit]

Company with Eur30m turnover, wholly owned subsidiaries in several European countries, produces CRM software and is listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange. I undeleted this a few days ago after what I regarded as an inadequate AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperOffice. Apparently the feeling was that it didn't have enough google hits! Since there is some concern about my unusual action in undeleting I've decided to relist.

  • Well of course I think it should be a keep. We don't delete articles about companies with this kind of turnover without a very good reason. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. KrazyCaley 03:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote Keep because it seems notable compared to other articles we have. Note however that this company does not meet WP:CORP which says a ranking such as Forbes 500 would qualify but just being publicly traded would not; and I couldn't find any media coverage. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 04:10Z
    • I agree that it isn't in the Forbes 500, but if that's the reason why we're deleting articles about companies like this, then the guideline is wrong and should be ignored until somebody comes up with a more reasonable one. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The Forbes 500 is an annual listing of the top 500 AMERICAN companies produced by Forbes Magazine. I have no idea if this particular company is American or not, but why are we basing notability on an American list in the first place? Your average Venezualan company (it seems to me) are likely to fail simply because they dont appear on this list? Or am I reading this all wrong? Jcuk 09:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I said "such as Forbes 500". I did my research; I know it is a Norwegian company and I know Forbes is American. If I had said "it is not in the OSEBX" I doubt it would be nearly as widely understood compared to saying "such as Forbes 500". —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 09:38Z
          • I never heard of the "Forbes 500" before today. I aint signed in so I'll sign manually. Jcuk
  • Delete as not encyclopedic. Yay, they sell some stuff. They fail WP:CORP which actually represents the consensus opinion of a whole lot of editors. I don't see any evidence of citations in media as being at all notable. Always happy to change my mind if some actual evidence presented, but please spare us any further rhetoric. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They seem to sell a LOT of stuff from what I can find, so I think they're far from irrelevant, and them seem to satisfy WP:CORP in my own humble opinion. Still, I most definitely agree that we need to see some resources. KrazyCaley 07:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm always happy to change my mind: how do thay satisfy CORP? The only thing I can even see as a possible stretch is the "multiple published works" and that says " non-trivial". - brenneman(t)(c) 07:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here you go. Partnering with Microsoft, announcement made by Microsoft's CRM industry manager [18], and here's the partner page on Microsoft's website [19]. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are thousands of these, and that they are submitted by the company themselves. Please note the little text at the bottom: "The inclusion of a solution does not imply endorsement of Microsoft of the solution." This is advertising.
          brenneman(t)(c) 07:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Read the press release. Those words you are reading in quotes are from Microsoft's CRM manager, not SuperOffice. Microsoft is an active partner in the deal. SuperOffice and Microsoft jointly market solutions involving a combination of SuperOffice and Microsoft products. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, Tony, you're incorrect here. I can speak with some authority when I say that anyone can be a Microsoft partner, and wethey don't have to participate at all. Avriette 00:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Avriette, I've cited a press release in which Microsoft's own CRM manager actively promoted SuperOffice. It may be generally true that this is a passive relationship, but in this case there is activity on both sides. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And another partnership deal: customers who buy SAP's BusinessOne product in Norway automatically get SuperOffice. SAP Norge chose it as their CRM module [20]. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but expand it soon.--MONGO 06:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant enough in a Norwegian context. Choalbaton 07:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: more confusion between encyclopedic and notable. Can we do some research and find out what the Norwegian equivalent of this Forbes 500 would be? I'm assuming this is something like the FTSE 100? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • FTSE is London; this company is on Oslo. No way a company with market cap < 100 million USD is on a stock index. (The #100 company on FTSE 100, Yell Group, has market cap of 7 billion USD.) The WP:CORP criteria are VERY high, I doubt half the companies that currently have Wikipedia articles meet it. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 11:54Z
      • Actually, the WP:CORP criteria are quite low. Any kind of independent published works will do, as long as they are more than simple directory listings or incidental mentions. Items sourced from the company itself, such as its press releases or things published by the company on its own web site, don't count, however. Uncle G 12:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • ... so this SuperOffice FAQ written by a reseller counts, albeit that it is about the product, not the company. Uncle G 13:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suggest that if our guidelines exclude a company listed on the Norwegian Stock Exchange with an appreciable known turnover, they're probably rather too restrictive. I agree that there's little in the way of independent literature about this company, but that is not to say that it is negligible. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Only editors who haven't actually read our guidelines in the first place would think that our guidelines contain any such exclusions. Editors who have read our guidelines will have read footnotes #4 and #6 to them, conversely. Editors who approach Wikipedia from the direction of "Wikipedia should include individual articles for all companies with turnover X/that are traded on Y" will find Yellowikis or some other directory of companies more in line with their goals. I strongly recommend instead the approach of actually performing research to find non-trivial independently sourced published works, of the sort that Sam Vimes has below. Uncle G 15:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it seems reasonably notable enough to me. If it fails WP:CORP, then I'll suggest that WP:CORP is too restrictive. InkSplotch(talk) 14:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per brenneman. No evidence presented that this company meets any of the recommended inclusion standards at WP:CORP. Press releases and sales literature (whether by the company itself or any reseller) do not count as verifiable evidence. Rossami (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:CORP is the opinions of a handful of editors not policy. Such oversimplified notability guidelines shouldn't trump common sense. older ≠ wiser 18:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you suggesting that Rossami and I have no common sense. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The irony of that baseless argument is that this company satisfies the "oversimplified notability guidelines", as pointed out below by editors who actually took the tack of addressing the subject of the article and performing some research to see whether it satisfied the guidelines, rather than the tack of attacking the guidelines themselves and simply assuming that the company would fail to satisfy them without apparently putting any effort at all into checking that. Uncle G 15:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, publicly listed companies are of interest to readers. Kappa 18:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As mentioned on deletion review a company with only 180 employees someone would have to present some serious evidence that it is an influential company beyond being listed on an exchange. (apparently it's a lot easier to go public in Norway, I don't think 30 million in revenue would get you very far on a larger exchange.) My back of the envelope calculation is with only 500 million people in the world workforce there would be 2.7 million potential companies this size. That is certainly not feasible nor a good use of our time currently to have articles on companies that size. - Taxman Talk 22:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously there aren't 2.7 million software companies with wholly owned subsidiaries in half a dozen European countries, selling into the US market and securing nationwide franchise agreements with the likes of SAP. The reason I bring this up now is Jimbo's recent WikiEN-L comment about this kind of AfD phenomenon: [21] So you haven't heard of them and you wrote some numbers on the back of an envelope. Is it possible that your numbers aren't the whole story? Why do we want to delete this? By my calculation there are at least one billion potential boy groups with four members, but we're not stampeding to delete the article about The Beatles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No but being a software company matters not. The beatles have easily documentable wide ranging influence. Next. - Taxman Talk 08:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again you're being dismissive, ignoring the company's SAP Norge franchise. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Look I don't have an ax to grind here, it wouldn't be the end of the world if we kept this (or deleted it). Your innapropriate repeated undeletion out of process is besides the point of whether this should be kept. I just don't see how it makes sense to have an article on a company so small and with no verifiably significant influence. And wtf is a SAP Norge franchise (the article doesn't say) and why would it matter?. - Taxman Talk 18:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • See SAP AG; it's an absolutely huge software house that specialises in workplace software integration. The franchise means that every company that licenses SAP's Business One product in Norway (the agreement is with SAP Norge) automatically gets SuperOffice. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • By my reading of what is actually written above, nowhere did Taxman base xyr argument on the assertion that xe hadn't heard of it. That argumentum ad Jimbonen is a straw man. Uncle G 15:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For the policy-sticklers, they meet criterion one of WP:CORP: The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself., by significant and regular coverage in the Norwegian business paper Dagens Næringsliv [22] [23] [24], and in the leading Norwegian web-only business news source, imarkedet.no [25]. Sam Vimes 14:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An obvious keeper as a major Norwegian listed company with thousands of customers. -- JJay 18:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Move content to no:SuperOffice. Avriette 00:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' With thousands of customers I am sure this is notable to someone.--God of War 05:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This rather small computer company is vitually unknown, even in Norway, and it receives almost no media attention whatsoever. Just being on the Oslo Stock Exchange does not make it more significant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are those things Sam Vines linked to? Kappa 09:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dagens Næringsliv is a business newspaper, so just about any company would be mentioned in it some time or another. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think being covered in a business newspaper is enough to exclude tiny companies which no significant number of people care about, so WP:CORP is doing its job. Kappa 10:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, you have convinced me. Does meet the WP:CORP guidelines so Keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Guettarda 21:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's amusing to see some editors criticising the "oversimplified notability guidelines" when this company actually satisfies the primary WP:CORP criterion. It's saddening to see that some editors think that locating independent secondary sources and adding them to articles is something that they only need to do in extreme cases, to satisfy "policy sticklers". The coverage presented by Sam Vimes appears to be non-trivial and not sourced from the company itself. Although it is not really in-depth coverage, such as can be found for Hewlett-Packard, with the additional support of the aforementioned FAQ this company appears to satisfy the primary WP:CORP criterion. Keep. Uncle G 15:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goughism[edit]

nn Neoleigsm or dic-def, 332 goggle hits, from mostly wiki mirrors [26], what's worst is this page survived more than a year without being discovered Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 03:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. I'll get her tickets to what she needs simply makes no sense. SycthosTalk 03:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable - no Google hits. If verified could merge without redirect to Badly Drawn Boy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 04:00Z
  • Delete nn. Fagstein 06:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Quarl. --kingboyk 20:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as patent nonsen per nom. --Lockley 21:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom--Bob 00:49, 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. -Splashtalk 23:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsdot[edit]

Purely non-notable weblog, no alexa rank [27] for a site that been running for more than a year. Fails WP:WEB Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 03:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable website. Could xlink from slashclone if it were slightly notable but lack of Alexa rank makes it completely non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 03:58Z
  • Delete as per nom. --King of All the Franks 03:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Fagstein 06:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --Bob 00:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I vote keep. Alexa rank is a good indicator of the masses traffic, but aren't most sophisticated users blocking Alexa by now? 17:23 January 24 (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. Ifnord 00:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tally Solutions Ltd[edit]

Bangalore-based Accounting software company that is one of two or three giants, and probably the leader of those, in its home market. Numbers among its customers half a dozen illustrious names including two auto companies, the Reserve Bank of India, and the Indian software giant Infosys. Fairly well known in the UK market, also sells into the Middle East and Far East.

I undeleted this a couple of days ago after what I regarded as an inadequate AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tally_(accounting). The reason to delete was that it looked like an ad and the company had less than 500 google hits. Well that's silly but the article did need overhauling, which I've done.

I'm relisting this because there seems to be some concern about my unusual action in resurrecting a deleted article.

  • Obviously keep. We don't delete articles about this kind of company without a very good reason. Wikipedia isn't some silly bloody game, it's an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. KrazyCaley 03:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tony Sidaway, though the article could some more editing/NPOV. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 03:56Z
  • Delete as not encyclopedic. Article did get a nice couple of paragraphs in an eleven page article in Wired ten years ago... but anything else? I'm not seeing evidence that is satisfies WP:CORP, and the use of the words "The company claims to have..." are sending up some serious WP:V warning flags to me. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: maybe you should check out the definition of encyclopedic, since I suspect that you are confusing it with the oft-misued term notable. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They won the PCQuest User's Choice award for Accounting software ten years in succession[28]. I think they won the 2004 award, too, making it eleven. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but expand soon.--MONGO 06:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily important enough to keep. Choalbaton 08:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: even I've heard of this one. Why do I get the impression that some people like using {{afd}} rather than {{cleanup}} and {{npov}}? —Phil | Talk 09:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no reason not to -Doc ask? 14:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Doc, because he's my first edit conflict :) InkSplotch(talk) 14:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per brenneman. Take it to yellowikis if need be. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:02, Jan. 20, 2006
  • Keep. Clearly satisfies WP:CORP #1. --Fastfission 17:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously. older ≠ wiser 18:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough media awards here to support inclusion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tintin Talk 00:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Bilodeau[edit]

According to the link at the bottom of the page, the primary source for this story is the National Enquirer. No notability asserted besides her alleged relationship to Kennedy. Delete. SarekOfVulcan 03:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete assuming paternity test results and/or a confession is not forthcoming from Ted. I see no current firm evidence for the article (or her story) being true aside from circumstantial and mostly unusable related data (Teddy's previous scandals, for example). I can tell the media that I fathered George W. Bush, but that does not make it true without factual evidence. ;) → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 07:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The paternity connection to Kennedy is pure speculation. She is not notable otherwise. Crunch 07:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obvious keep. Dwain 19:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until it is proven for a fact. There are too many "real stories" in tabloids to have articles on them. Renata 10:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteas non-notable. Not because of validity (the Enquirer has a checkered past but tends to be more credible than people think). Ifnord 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual underground[edit]

One line substub on Non-notable message board, not sure if it's a speedy though so I'm placing it here. Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 03:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: THIS ONLY DEFAULTS TO KEEP. DO NOT CITE THIS AFD ALONE AS A REASON TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE A MERGE/REDIRECT/WHATEVER. Johnleemk | Talk 15:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wbjb[edit]

Original Research, Personal Essay on a Small non-notable community college radio station, This is not a article Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 03:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 23:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mariposa, Rio Rancho, New Mexico[edit]

Looks like crystal ball on some houses that are going to be built in the future, WP:NOT a crystal ball Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 03:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. SycthosTalk 04:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. South Bay, Boston, Massachusetts, a 10-acre "planned bunch of houses" was kept by consensus. This is a 6500-acre planned bunch of houses with 15,200 Ghits for mariposa "rio rancho". Fight systemic bias. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 07:44Z
  • Keep Major development and the future event tag covers any uncertainty. Choalbaton 08:03, 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 Speedy Delete. BJAODN --Madchester 04:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Chuck Norris[edit]

Delete this piece of idiocy. Not funny enough for BJAODN. Dbtfz 04:01, 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. -Splashtalk 23:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shorindokai Karate[edit]

While this claims to be a fighting style, all I can figure out is that it's the name of a karate business in South Carolina [31]. Doesn't really seem to be documented or covered anywhere meaningful. Information is sparse and meeting WP:V (with good sources) seems to be difficult. --W.marsh 04:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable fighting style. The article blatantly states that Shorindokai Karate is "a blended fighting style developed by Master Instructor gary ownes of Greenville, South Carolina." SycthosTalk 04:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable/unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 04:20Z
  • Delete 128.100.33.138 17:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Punchcruft. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article contains POV material - other martial arts are about point scoring? No Karateka or Jujutsuka that I know trains for sport. It also fails to properly define the subject of the article - what are the 'best points' of Shotokan and Jujutsu that are 'blended' to produce the hybrid style? Delete to save the confusion of all readers.  (aeropagitica)  21:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I like to think that I know enough about martial arts to be an expert, and I've never heard a thing about this. Efforts to look it up don't seem to support its notability (or reality). KrazyCaley 23:31, 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. -Splashtalk 23:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save Our State, The Real Story[edit]

Save Our State is trying to get around the NPOV editing that is going on in the real Save Our State Entry- they want a wikipedia that they alone edit that is "the truth"- aka from their perspective only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elzia (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. Forked off of Save Our State. Evil saltine 04:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as duplicate. SycthosTalk 04:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 04:19Z
  • Delete as POV fork as per nomination. — CJewell (talk to me) 04:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. Save Our State is protected while editors come to consensus. Other editors are invited to pitch in. Cheers, Will Beback 05:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 05:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork in clear violation of policy. FCYTravis 08:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eesh... Grandmasterka 09:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POV fork. JIP | Talk 09:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete completely forked. BL kiss the lizard 09:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Save Our State, a semi-literate racist's perspective -- GWO
  • Delete: POV Dynayellow 12:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any time the word "Real" shows up in a title I'm likely to be suspicious. --StuffOfInterest 14:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT Delete. This entry is a reaction to the vandalizing of the first SOS article that was initially posted by the same author. To most prudent people, this article was informative and worth being here. What ever happend to wiki articles being informative and neutral? I found it both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.148.142.231 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as unnecessary fork. The POV issues in the original article should be resolved instead.KrazyCaley 23:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Evilsaltine. BTW, the user who voted against deletion claims that "the first SOS article that was initially posted by the same author", which is untrue. Check the history and you'll find that the first version was a POV stub, and the rest of the language (with minor exceptions) is MINE. Not that I'm possessive or anything 8).--Rockero420 00:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; POV fork; always delete POV forks. Antandrus (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV fork. Calling themselves a civil rights organization is absurd, as well. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blatant violation of WP:FORK. Cyde Weys 05:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Patti Newton, and probably NO CONSENSUS on Lauren. -Splashtalk 23:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Newton and Patti Newton[edit]

All the information I believe to be true, but I do not think that it is sufficient to be notable simply because her father Bert Newton is a TV icon/institution and she is engaged to swimming star Matthew Welsh. As for her mother Patti Newton, there is little claim of notability, aside from being in a lot (unspecified) theatre productions, and that she was on her husband's show (in what role??)Blnguyen 04:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Patti Newton, as she is a well-known Australian television identity. I'll abstain on Lauren. Cnwb 06:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lauren. Nn IMDB entry]. --Perfecto 06:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Patti Newton, while it is a stub she is fairly well known in Australia. Since I wrote the Lauren Newton article I would prefer it stays, however if Lauren is believed to not be important enough I will not make a fuss. Matthew kokai 08:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Patti, redirect Lauren to one of her parents.--nixie 02:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I know the reason that a wikilink to a woman should forward to her parent? --Perfecto 02:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: -- FWIW, Lourdes Ciccone, whilst not yet a woman, was brought to VFD, with the result being her article redirected to her more notable mother, Madonna. I think redirecting to one parent and not the other though is presenting a POV. -- Longhair 09:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Whilst Lauren may not be as big as her parents, she still has celebrity status. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • New information The Herald Sun today reported that Lauren may move to Channel 9. Sources say that auditioning for the weekend weather reported role. Matthew kokai 07:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mushroom 13:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ali malik[edit]

High school football players are usually not notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Rhobite 04:24, 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 MERGE to RuneQuest; I'm going to hold on to the redirect as is usual in these cases. -Splashtalk 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broo[edit]

According to the one page that links to it, this is the only species from RuneQuest (RPG) that has its own page. The RuneQuest page is not that long itself. So merge there or just out and out delete. pfctdayelise 04:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. there's a lot of information there we really dont need. if the RuneQuest page mentions Broos it can do so a lot more succintly. Nateji77 05:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge without Redirect. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 07:40Z
  • Merge with Redirect --Bob 00:51, 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 DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space Crabs[edit]

Non-existant as far as I can see. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please Delete this is a joke i made up during a recent space holiday. Whilst it is factually untrue the details mentioned are worthy of further investigation. (Paulo Fontaine 12:47, 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 Redirected. Jaranda wat's sup 17:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dayboy[edit]

Dic Def Move to Wikinary if it's not there and Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 04:35, 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. Mushroom 13:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iadipaoligize[edit]

WP:HOAX. Unverifiable (no Google hits). Possibly construable as attack page. Article creator also created Iadipaoliphobia (AfD discussion) and other already-speedied nonsense/attack pages. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 04:44Z

  • Delete as nonsense.Blnguyen 05:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's not a hoax, it's still speedy delete as per WP:MUSIC. "They have as of yet made no songs but are currently working on the following titles..." Lukas 10:50, 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. Mushroom 13:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Thomas Howard[edit]

Suspected nn-bio / vanity. Page was created by User:Johnhoward68. Google results are too littered with other John Thomas Howards to ascertain validity Cnwb 05:05, 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.

He exists. Type in 'Finders Seekers ABC' in Google and for pages in Australia. The program was produced and aired for the first time in 1988.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duy Nguyen[edit]

I have grave doubts about the notability of this person, or if he even exists(hoax?). Presuming he was 12 at the audition, then that would be at least 1977 +12 = 1989 when the show happened, not 1988. IMDB shows a 1991 production by the ABC in Australia, which on the credit list does not give this person. Google for "Duy Nguyen" and actor yields some pages in the US, but for Australia only, the hits aren't for this guy.Blnguyen 05:15, 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. -Splashtalk 00:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Mazzella Jr.[edit]

Although I just wikified this a bit, I'm still nominating it. Dying in a famous event does not in and of itself make one notable. pfctdayelise 05:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I'll move it as suggested, though. -Splashtalk 23:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nasir Bin Olu Dara[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and this LP doesn't even have a label to release it yet. Nas is my favorite rapper and all, but this should probably be deleted until the record's existence becomes a little more concrete. FuriousFreddy 05:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 07:36Z
  • Keep although Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, Nas did mention some details about the album officially, thus concluding that there is a chance for release of the album (after all, I doubt that the artist of the album doesn't know anything about it). It would be unnecessary to delete the page until Nas calls it off. --I Am Ri¢h! 02:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC) Changed vote to Redirect. --I Am Ri¢h! 03:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a chance, yes, but it's not a definite one just yet. It'd probably be better to redirect the album title to Nas (rapper) until Nas figures out who he is going to sign with. --FuriousFreddy 18:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I can agree to that. In this case, I will now change my vote to Redirect. --I Am Ri¢h! 23:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this because as of today Nas has signed with Def Jam and developments on this album will be coming soon. Nas has mentioned details about this album already therefore it is not "unverified" information. If you want to delete pages because of speculation then delete pages about the Illuminati and other whacked conspiracy theories and leave this alone. --B-Raff
  • Comment Since the album finally has a label to release, I don't suppose the page needs to be deleted or redirected anymore. I do, however, think that the article needs to be moved to the proper captialization of its title -- that is, Nasir bin Olu Dara -- once the AfD proceedings are over. --FuriousFreddy 02:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amman Model Arab League[edit]

An article about Model Arab League would be notable (if it existed). However, a standalone MAL event is probably not. Punkmorten 12:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep - there is a MAL, and it's an American event, the AMAL has been publicsized by the Jordanian embassy, so thats notable enough for me. --Irishpunktom\talk 22:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, at least. Stifle 00:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 05:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic, nn, and unverifiable to boot. Eusebeus 20:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Bob 00:52, 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. -Splashtalk 23:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Hunter[edit]

Delete: Apparently self-written vanity page for not-yet-noteworthy film production assistant/self-published novelist. Tverbeek 20:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vanity page for non-notable writer. See WP:BIO. Recommend the author see WikiMe for writing autobiographies. Stifle 23:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 05:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable vanity biography. Notability claims are internships and such. IMDB lists him as "miscellaneous crew" with job titles of "assistant", "secretary", etc. His book is unverifiable/not-notable (not on Amazon, etc). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 07:34Z
  • Weak keep Weak delete - his notability all comes down to the book. It is widely available, including on Amazon (first Google result). I don't know how we can possibly tell, but it may well be in the ballpark of the 5000 sales recommended by WP:Notability (people). ×Meegs 10:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops! —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 11:08Z
    • Listing on Amazon is not inherently notable; all that takes is buying an ISBN. And for what it's worth, his article for the book was just deleted. Tverbeek 12:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I changed my vote above. Of course anything can get on Amazon; the important piece of information is that the book is self-published (with a company named Author House). You'd mentioned that in the nomination, but I missed it. By the way, here is the book's AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navy Blue Eyes. ×Meegs 12:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nn self-published author. MCB 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 KEEP. -Splashtalk 23:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FlashGet (second nomination)[edit]

non-notable download manager, also give advices to getting rid of advertisements without paying the shareware software --Melaen 21:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlashGet —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-15 03:20Z
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 05:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plug: Please come develop a guideline for articles such as this: see Wikipedia:Notability (software) --Perfecto 06:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on principle. Even though I feel that FlashGet is popular and well-known enough to be written about, this article is just about empty and reads somewhat like an ad. Zunaid 09:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's widely-used software, and had a lot of support in AFD six months ago. Seem like more than an advertisement to me, esp. after Quarl's treatment. ×Meegs 10:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have a philosophical problem with relists purely for the sake of taking another shot. If there's something new, thats one thing. in this case, still seems all the original AfD arguments can apply. (sorry, forgot to sign in) Phantasmo 14:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well-known download manager. See also FlashGot, the Firefox plugin (which you shouldn't think about nominating for deletion either). Rhobite 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it is a well-known and widely used software. Carioca 19:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cleanup if it sounds like an ad. FCYTravis 05:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it's reasonably well-known software, but definitely improve the article. If it remains in its current form, it's hardly encyclopaedic and should be deleted. - Axver 08:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rather notable piece of software. I don't think it was the first "download accelerator" but it was probably the first to get it right. Its Site Explorer feature was very good, too. Cyde Weys 05:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known, been around a while. Article could be improved, but deletion certainly won't do that. -- Jake 05:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Yeah, I see it's a copyvio, but the debate here is obvious enough, and it shows no sign of gettng permission during the CV process. -Splashtalk 23:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital management[edit]

I proposed moving this article to Wikibooks on January 8. No feedback since then, so I moved it there. It's original research and not appropriate for Wikipedia. Tim Pierce 05:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as original research. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 07:32Z
  • Delete per Quarl -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 16:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. I tagged this with a db-copyvio speedy and blanked the content, since it is copied from a commercial content provider that is selling the material online for $26.28 plus tax. That sort of thing needs to be dealt with quickly. MCB 02:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, the speedy did not stick due to the 48-hour rule, so I listed it for non-speedy copyvio. MCB 02:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I didn't list it as a copyvio in the first place because the original poster of the material appears to be the author. Tim Pierce 04:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. The diff in which Quarl merges is [33], but I can't see that material having come from this article in any revision before Quarl's edit. (Also, very small fragments of text are not generally copyrightable anyway.) -Splashtalk 23:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proprietary open source[edit]

Neologism/original research.

  • Delete. Nominator. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Open-source software, where I have merged a sentence. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 07:30Z
  • Delete, but put a mention of the term and a link to Peren's paper in dual license. scot 15:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Rhobite 17:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Also, article doesn't really make any sense. Haikupoet 04:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, The article doesn't warrant existence even as a redirect. It's not a commonly used term even in the "open source" community, likely because it is ambiguous or with no clear definition if any. --Ashawley 20:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EyeSore Angels[edit]

Appears to be a vanity page for a band. Not quite speedy deletion material I think. Nothing links to it besides this AFD discussion. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:43, Jan. 20, 2006

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Home Wrestling Federation[edit]

Does not assert notability, poorly organized. Well-nigh indecipherable in parts. --zenohockey 05:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. Not much to find via Google. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 07:22Z
  • Delete per above. Essexmutant 12:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Poorly written article, but the topic might be of interest to some. No need to delete verifiable information just because only a few people will ever find and read it. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 23:16, 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. An unusually clear debate for this kind of topic. -Splashtalk 23:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient persecution of non-Jews by Jews[edit]

See reasons on Talk:Ancient persecution of non-Jews by Jews that reflect a consensus that this article is a POV attempt at "blame the victim" racism. It is also full of shoddy original research, citing "examples" from vaguely "Jewish" groups in Yemen and Africa. In sum, this short sorry excuse for an article is pathetic and should never have been allowed to exist this long. IZAK 05:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC) IZAK 05:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --Rachack 16:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IZAK 06:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and also for being flame/hate bait. That said I think an article on persecutions by Old Testament era Judah or Israel could be appropriate.--T. Anthony 06:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - what's the argument for deleting the article? The article is just fine and it provides sources. Why call it pathetic? --Candide, or Optimism 06:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Candide: Simple, it's full of garbage, not worthy of an encyclopedia. IZAK 09:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My reasons would be slightly different. The article as written is a nonsensical bunch of largely rumored statements, but that's an argument for improvement not deletion. However this doesn't merit the effort to improve it for several reasons. For starters virtually all persecution by Jews, and here's where I part company with many here as I think there probably was some, occurred in ancient times that are hard to verify. We don't deal with ancient religious persecutions because of that and because no one had an idea of religious freedom then. I know some prefer to believe that in pre-Christian times everyone was tolerance and sweetness, but in reality most empires or kingdoms punished those who rejected the official or civic religion. I don't see any reason to think the Jewish kingdoms of ancient times were any worse, or also enough better, to merit any special attention on this. Also I don't entirely approve of any of these "persecution by" articles as there a recipe to say "Aren't XYZ terrible!" and heap on. Lastly it really is non-notable and an opener to a hate-fest as mentioned.--T. Anthony 14:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ancient Persia was tolerant and allowed people to worship whatever they wanted. They were too tolerant, if you ask me. Rome was, for the most part, also tolerant, but they also required that you sacrifised to the Emperor. It doesn't matter if sources from ancient times cannot be verified as well as other sources. They are sources and Wiki allows those sources to be used. If those sources would not qualify, then we would have very few articles about the ancient world. But, as usual, when it comes to criticizing Jews, it is not allowed; what is allowed is to say how Jews were persecuted. Yeah, okay, I got it. It's quite obvious that you guys are organizing yourself on Wiki. I've noticed this on RfCs and I've noticed this here. You message fellow Jews to support your side. --Candide, or Optimism 06:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll give you Persia, mostly. However Shapur II of Persia and a few other Sassanids persecuted religious minorities. I won't give you Romans because this is one of those "polytheists are wonderful" mythos. By their own admission Romans desecrated other faiths on conquest, drove people to genocide, and punished religions that could not reconcile or syncretize with the Roman pantheon.--T. Anthony 00:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about treatment of non-Jews and Jewish heretics under traditional Jewish law, for instance? What about treatment today of those brought up as Orthodox Jews who then cease their observation of Jewish law? Has there been any systematic analysis of this? The Shulchan Aruch states that if a close relative dies who was a heretic, then rather than observing the normal week of mourning, one should wear white clothes and celebrate the end of an enemy of God. Doesn't this deserve mention somewhere (along with the fact that this prescription is rarely observed, and the question of what exactly a "heretic" is)? This is a perfectly reasonable topic to write about, an interesting subset of Jewish history. The current content is probably lousy, but the topic is fine. Work it out, don't just delete it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't oppose any and all articles concerning periods or movements within Judaism that are more militant/persecuting. However what you're talking about is largely fights within Jewish culture.(Who is Jewish, how do you treat "heretics", etc) What concerns other things I think can be dealt with in other ways. Perhaps something on the Jewish kingdoms or on debates among Jewish people. This is too open to abuse I feel. Added to that ancient persecutions are too difficult to prove or even understand in our day.--T. Anthony 00:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this title, refactor any solid material. See my lengthier remarks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contemporary persecution of non-Jews by Jews. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this exercise in WP:POINT. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perpetual renaming is a good evidence that this "article" is nothing more than a disparate collection of "anything fishy about the Jews". ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this tripe. I thought we'd taken care of this rubbish already. Tomertalk 07:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is absolutely rediculous, it's articles like these that give wiki a bad name. 70.48.174.244 08:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pertinent material can be summarized in two sentences at History of Judaism. dab (ᛏ) 08:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hard to believe somehting like this ended up in wiki. Kempler video 010:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rachel1 08:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV propaganda. Kuratowski's Ghost 09:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All those articles in the "religious persecution" series seem a little suspect to me, maybe we need to take a look at all of those too (there are so many of them...) Grandmasterka 09:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    yes please!! to begin with, Persecution of Heathens and Persecution of Wiccans can probably safely merged in Persecution of Californians :oP dab (ᛏ) 11:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the "Persecution by" articles are probably the more contentious ones. "Persecution of" doesn't necessarily lead to blaming any religion, but the "persecution by" leads far more easily to agenda-driving. I know of some people who dislike all the Abrahamic faiths and would be happy to read about all of them persecuting people to "prove" they are so awful. Related to that there isn't any "Persecution by..." Hindus, Buddhists, etc articles.--T. Anthony 14:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Enough of this rubbish. We are writing an encyclopaedia. -- Olve 10:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ches88 11:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gilgamesh he 11:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: What's the point? There was an argument made by the other VFD mentioning that the author took a broad list of killings and attacks and sorted it by religion. How is this beneficial? If someone is doing a report on that, they can do the research themselves in periodicals and other sources. A list like this isn't needed, it gives you very little information and provokes anti-semetic feelings. --Hersch 12:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Basically agree with what has been said, and with T. Anthony in particular. — Hillel 12:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A few incidents gathered together to make the point that Jews are capable of persecuting. Please delete with extreme prejudice. JFW | T@lk 12:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article contains no substance gidonb 14:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any verifiable information to appropriate article. Delete the rest. Any group be it religious, ethnic, or other will persecute someone else. It is sadly a part of human nature. --StuffOfInterest 14:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I suppose one can say the article discredits itself, but we should still strive to only have good articles in Wikipedia. --Leifern 14:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very boring flavor. Klonimus 14:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously. DLand 15:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite. I don't think censorship is good for wiki. Lapinmies 15:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in principle, but I would be uneasy about this while Historical persecution by Christians, Historical persecution by Muslims and Historical persecution by atheists remain. In covering all of history, all four articles tend towards making a point. --Vjam 16:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, even though the article shouldn't exist, since the Muslim and Christian articles have survived AFD. The need for consistency one way or the other should override. Suspect I may be onto a loser here, but it doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia if it refuses a casefile against only one religion. Should it be kept, it needs a substantial rewrite. --Vjam 16:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is determining where to draw the line between persecution by religious people (which is what the name of the article suggests), which is singularly unencyclopedic, and persecution by governments which is done in concert with or as a result of religious authorities urging them to do so in an official capacity. Even in Biblical times, there were no such persecutions by Jews or Jewish-run governments, nor are there even today. The only point in keeping such an article, in fact, would be to say "This phenomenon doesn't exist" or something similar thereto... Tomertalk 17:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's unnecessary to be a 100% consistent on this if there's no reason to do so. As we have Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses do we also need Persecution by Jehovah's Witnesses? As Anti-Shaker survived do we need an article on Persecution by Shakers or Prejudices of the Shakers? I mean JWs do have internal bickerings and disfellowships. For that matter so did the Shakers. (Internal fights seems to be the main justification for keep voters) Anyway where do you stop on this?--T. Anthony 14:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Avi 16:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Eranb 17:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the information there is probably in other articles, anyway. I mean, it has happened, although not to the extent many people allege. I'm kinda reserving judgement on it, but my gut feeling would be to say delete - although weakly. XYaAsehShalomX 17:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per above. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Polemic, anything of value can be used in other articles. Jayjg (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and merge with Historical treatment of non-Jews by Jews (currently undergoing AFD). To copy my statement from there: While all Jews are obviously different, this is a facet of Judaism that's absolutely substantial enough to write about by itself. Things it could note: Biblical commands to wipe out Amalekites, Canaanites, etc.; any findings on how those of other religions were treated under the Maccabean Kingdom and later; how apostates and non-Jews have historically been treated and are treated today (e.g., see if we can find news stories about tolerance toward and/or ostracism of those who "went off the path", and instructions from halachic authorities such as the Shulchan Aruch on how to deal with such heretics); non-Jews' status in Israel; and non-Jews' status under traditional, Conservative, Reform, and other variants of Jewish law. There's a great deal to discuss here, every bit encyclopedic, and it shouldn't be thrown away just because the current content is incomplete.

    For those who've noticed the remarkable prevalence of Jews here, I would like to note that User:IZAK e-mailed me to point out this page, which of course doesn't show up on his edit history. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Simetrical needs to apologize very quickly here and now for his highly offensive comment that "...For those who've noticed the remarkable prevalence of Jews here..." which is totally disgusting and out of line. What is he saying, that Jews should "shut up" ? This just reinforces the need to delete articles of this nature that are poisonous magnets that attract the wrong kind of misinformed and twisted debate and responses. IZAK 08:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To copy my response from the other vote: I'm certainly not apologizing for commenting on there being a remarkable prevalence of Jews here, because there is. How on Earth is that offensive? Stop trying to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is an anti-Semite—you've lost an RFAr on that already for good reason.

        I was pointing out that you were electioneering, nothing more. You deliberately attempted to skew the proportion of Jews to non-Jews here to well over normal levels, thereby making the vote unrepresentative, and you know it. Don't get upset where you're called out. Not that such electioneering is necessarily prohibited on Wikipedia, but it could be taken into account by the closing admin if the vote were closer than it is. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        • I didn't find it offensive exactly, although it did make me uncomfortable. I don't like the implication that it's mostly or largely Jewish people voting delete. It seems a bit patronizing or something. Many of us who voted delete are Gentiles. In my case I've known very few Jewish people in life. However a few things make delete sensible. For starters we don't do "Persecution by" articles for other religions that generally lacked a political apparatus to persecute and represent less than 1% of the world's people. There is no Persecution by Sikhs article and there's almost certainly not going to be either. We also don't do ancient persecution by articles either. We could do an article on "Religious persecution in ancient times" and include the Jewish kingdoms, but that's a different issue. As it stands it seems like unfairly singling Jewish people out as any persecution they did is just not as noteworthy as that of Muslims or Christians.(Or Buddhists or Confucians for that matter)--T. Anthony 14:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't mean to imply that this was a reason for calling off the vote or anything. I just find it appropriate, whenever someone contacts me to vote on something, to note that that person contacted me. Clearly non-Jews as well as Jews seem to feel that this article should be deleted. (I'm an Orthodox Jew myself, in case you don't know.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Simetrical: There is process and method and then there is meaning and intent. While there may be disagreement about what is the best process and method on Wikipedia, there is no disagreement about the meaning and intent of the phrase you used "...For those who've noticed the remarkable prevalence of Jews here..." which you now compound (for the worse) by saying "...You deliberately attempted to skew the proportion of Jews to non-Jews here to well over normal levels..." (implying that Wikipedia works with some sort of racial or religious "quota system", which it does not). Most impartial and knowledgeable people would say your comments are truly unfortunate and VERY nasty, to say the least. I have not and did not use the words "anti-Semite" here and I have not accused you of being one (so quit playing "victim" please). I merely brought your attention to the fact that you continue to make tasteless and disgusting slurs, considered insulting by many people -- not just Jews -- that would be deemed beneath contempt and not to be uttered in polite company, which you should apologize for, and not, as you continue to do, reinforce and self-righteously "justify". Furthermore, you make it sound that I am running for some sort of office by using the word "electioneering" which is all rather strange. Oh, and I am not getting upset, do you think I should be? IZAK 07:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia does not have any kind of "quota system". However, AFDs are theoretically supposed to derive their authority from community consensus, and therefore they should as much as possible represent a cross-section of the community. Jews are, I would expect (although I could be wrong), a lot more likely to vote delete here than other groups, and therefore you skewed the demographics of the vote considerably by mass-informing Jews of the debate. This may not have made a difference, of course, but I still find it distasteful, particularly when you did it untraceably.

            You never used the word "anti-Semite". You just called my statement "disgusting", "out of line", "highly offensive", "misinformed", and "twisted", and suggested that I was implying that all Jews should "shut up". Now, might you have reacted the same way if I had remarked on a preponderance of Shinto in an AFD for a hypothetical Persecution of non-Shinto by Shinto article? Perhaps. Based on your past actions, I'm inclined to think the contrary.

            The term electioneering is generally used in actual elections, but can be used to refer to other votes as well. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic; what content could be included under this rubric is better loctaed elsewhere. Eusebeus 20:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic. Ynhockey 20:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pewr Jayjg -- Yid613 22:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per IZAK and Jayjg. 172 22:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with no redirect Anything that is actually good in this article should be moved elsewhere, the rest of it should vanish. KrazyCaley 23:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per SlimVirgin & Eusebeus. -- Nahum 06:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Evolver of Borg 10:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete all "Persecution by" articles as per T. Anthony. Yoninah 18:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or not... I have edited the article to reflect greater accuracy and a larger overall perspective. Of course, the article in its current state sounds like a joke since the two major claims of "persecution" are debunked. So it probably should be deleted, but if it stayed up, I don't know if it would do much harm. RabbiSimon 17:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per SlimVirgin. Absolutely useless "article". --Michaelk 08:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per IZAK and Jayjg. --maayan 15:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There doesn't seem to be any "here" here, as they say. If somebody wants to address the treatment of apostates and heretics under Judaism, that's a different matter. Gzuckier 16:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete--196.206.213.71 20:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There were tidbits of actual history and lots of filler that came out of a dumpster. If this article is kept, someone tell me so I can get out my hacksaw and carve out all the garbage. Hiergargo 03:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete content but I am open to the idea of such a page. Most religious movements with such long traditions have caused the persecution of people... but, not in this way. I am worried that all of these "Persecution by" articles have a lot of rubbish in them... this one just seems to have more of it than the others. gren グレン ? 06:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with most of what has already been said. This article is complete rubbish. СПУТНИКССС Р 12:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything unbiased and factual with History of Judaism.
  • Delete per pretty much everyone else. And to those saying "merge" ... please consider, someone is actually going to have to go through and merge. If you don't want to do it yourself, just vote delete. Cyde Weys 05:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rework? The topic should have a place in Wikipedia just as Historical persecution by Christians and Historical persecution by Muslims are valid. I would vote for the creation of Historical persecution by Jews (not just a redirect to this article) and populate it with bits of both this article and the one of "current" prosecution. There is always some POV when discussing religious matters (or arguing, as my Conservative Jewish Father does with his Othodox Jewish brother-in-law). The Torah, lay history and the news all contain instances of persecution at the hands of Jews and it should be documented, albeit in a more encyclopedic, NPOV light. Grika [[User talk:Grika]] 17:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What encyclopedic content do you foresee this article including? More to the point, what encyclopedic content parallelling the content of the Persecution by Muslims and Persecution by Christians articles do you foresee this article including? Some badly-behaved charedim in the Old City who spit on Christians don't really qualify. The destruction of `Amaleq is hardly "Persecution by Jews" as it was a war against an enemy bent on destroying the Jews. And therein lies the critical problem with arguing that Persecution by Jews is a parallel to Persecution by Muslims or Persecution by Christians: as I've said before, to qualify for comparison, Jews would have to (a) be in power somewhere and (b) have that power directed by religious authorities. Except during a brief period with the Maccabees, that has never happened, anywhere. While mention of the Maccabees incident is encyclopedic, it belongs in History of the Jews (where it is, btw.) ... The idea that this article (to say nothing of two articles!) needs to stay as some sort of "balance" is just silly. Would you support a Persecution by Mormons article? Persecution by Jehovah's Witnesses? Persecution by Quakers? Persecution by Druzes? Persecution by Bahá'ís? (don't be fooled by the blue link...that's actually a redirect to "Persecution of Bahá'ís!) Persecution by Jains? Persecution by Sikhs? Persecution by Amerindian spiritualists (that one might actually be interesting and possibly encyclopedic)? "Balance" in this case is moral relativism. While moral relativism is encyclopedic, it's not a synonym for WP:NPOV, especially not when, as in this case, it requires WP:OR. Tomertalk 18:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is such a dispute in the works about Mormons, found here: Mountain Meadows massacre, and I don't see any great clamoring to make a separate article about it. If there is a strongly held conviction that every religious group should have an article titled "Persecution of non-<religious group> by <religious group>", then we should prioritize it by the size of the religious group, in which Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Confusian adherents, etc., are covered before we get around to the Jews. --Leifern 19:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • First off, I didn't realize people had to take a number before submitting an article. In response to TShilo12, if there is valid information on any topic, shouldn't there at least be a stub about it. There are plenty of news articles supporting claims of Jewish intolerance be it from non-secular news sources, non-Jewish religious news sources or even Heeb Magazine and groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace. Obviously both of the "persecution by Jews" articles are filled with non-sourced, sometimes outright, bigoted statements, but that shouldn't condemn a topic as valueless, just it's current content. And just so you know, I wouldn't support any article simply because someone might have this or that viewpoint and is using Wikipedia as a soapbox, but if the topic has merit by virtue of undeniable observables then it deserves mention. And as to its encyclopedic credibility, would it not be true that if a topic can conceivably be the source of a respectable college thesis, then it deserves to be in an encyclopedia? Grika 21:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 useless after it was added to the main article. JIP | Talk 09:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civilization IV/Civilizations and Leaders Chart[edit]

This was a subpage that was transcluded into the Civilization IV article, which seems to be a silly and generally discouraged thing to do in the article namespace. I've substituted the table into the article. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:04, 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. -Splashtalk 23:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary persecution of non-Jews by Jews[edit]

See Talk:Contemporary persecution of non-Jews by Jews for arguments regarding the unsuitability of this topic that seems to aim to accomplish a POV cynical goal more suited to the Anti-Zionism article. There is already an article about Zionism and racism in any case, so this article seems suspiciously placed to portray Jews as "villains" -- more of a "blame the victim" syndrome routine, than a work of unbiased scholarship. What a shame that it has been here so long. IZAK 06:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--Rachack 16:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IZAK 06:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm switching as Status of religious freedom in Israel seems to be dealt with in Religion in Israel, including the stuff that was in this article and seemed germane.--T. Anthony 07:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - what's the argument for deleting the article? --Candide, or Optimism 06:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm open to discussion here, but my instinct would be to refactor any well-cited material that is not elsewhere, and delete this, along with other articles like Historical persecution by Muslims, Historical persecution by Atheists, and Historical persecution by Christians. All of these seem to me to rely on muddled categories: they pick out a broad religious affiliation, and then seek out persecutors who happen to be of that affiliation. And "persecution" is such a loaded word all around, especially when applied (as it is here) to a private citizen spitting at someone. I could imagine a useful article on human rights of non-Jews in Israel (which seems the real thrust of this), but not one focused primarily on violations of those rights. If violations are prevalent, that would come out in such an article; if not, so would that. More drastically, on a related article, even in a contemporary context, any coverage of "Muslims" ranges from Indonesia to Saudi Arabia. It's hard for me to imagine that any meaningful pattern of persecution ranges over such divergent societies. All worthwhile material here should be regrouped in ways that don't lend themselves to one-sided articles, whether this is organized by time-period, or on some other principle. I don't usually monitor AFD these days (although I'll watchlist this page), but if someone wants to nominate any of these related articles for deletion, you may feel free to contact me via my talk page, and I will cast essentially the same vote on any of them. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if I want to read about Muslim, Christian, or Jewish persecution of other people, where would I go? --Candide, or Optimism 19:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kafir (Islam), Islamism, Category:Inquisition, Category:Religious persecution, Witch trial, Amalekites, etc should all indicate who's doing the persecution in least in the article.--T. Anthony 00:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to go for deleting all these "persecution by" articles I could go for that too. I created the one on atheists as there were all these others already, but all of them gone is okay by me too.--T. Anthony 07:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that these "Religious persecution" articles have been brought up for deletion before. I'd be more than happy to vote to keep them again, because the topic is an important subject in human history. :) — RJH 17:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "The vast majority of Jews believe" is nonsense alone. Most of the rest of the article is unsupported and vague, but is also contained in other articles, making this one redundant. And I agree with Jmabel. jnothman talk 07:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this. I thought we'd already gotten rid of this tripe. Tomertalk 07:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: consider Persecution of non-blondes by blondes instead. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Word. Let's hurry up and get this over with. It's nearing Shabbat and I'd like to enjoy my time and relax, and specifically not worry about bickering of something so simple. --Hersch 12:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the content (at least those parts that aren't grossly pov) are already covered elsewhere 70.48.174.244 08:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very good explanations aboveKempler video 09:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV propaganda. Kuratowski's Ghost 09:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All those articles in the "religious persecution" series seem a little suspect to me, maybe we need to take a look at all of those too (there are so many of them...) Grandmasterka 09:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. We are writing an encyclopaedia, not a hate magazine. -- Olve 10:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ches88 11:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Let me be bold: there's no need for an article that basically has nothing to cover. Jews might not be better than other people, but "religious persecution" seems not to be one of their flaws. I can see that the article itself admits that (at least in my interpretation?) but our tendency to try to write something educated about everything turns this acknowledgment into a pretty awkward text. Also, why do some people always have to mix everything in the same bag? — Hillel 12:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spitting attacks are persecution? The fact that the State of Israel may be doing things that some would call persecution does not equate with "Jews", as these acts are not performed as a function of the state's "Jewish identity" but for political reasons. In other words: everything is POV, out of balance and will remain so whatever changes are made. JFW | T@lk 12:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • /me persecutes this article... Tomertalk 13:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I give my permission to copy this vote into any nominated "Persecution of ..." article's AfD entry. Confusing Manifestation 13:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others gidonb 13:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment author(s) seem(s) utterly confused between Israelis and Jews. Also Law of return is not a treatment of non-Jews but rather of Jews and their immediate families. gidonb 19:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge appropriate information to appropriate article. Delete anything that is left. --StuffOfInterest 14:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is what is known as begging the question. --Leifern 14:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very boring flavor. Klonimus 14:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a good example of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. DLand 15:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the article itself points out, this is more about Jews as a nationality than as a religion; and there are no other nationality-based articles, about the right of return of Germans to Germany, for instance. The other persecution articles linked are religion based, and the best that can be cited here in that category is that sometimes orthodox Jews spit on nonJews, possibly as often as once a week? (apparently I wasn't logged in when I posted this originally)Gzuckier 16:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Full of POV Avi 16:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Eranb 17:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - garbage XYaAsehShalomX 17:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per above. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Polemic, and most of it is already in Religion_in_Israel#Religious_tensions. Jayjg (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep under new name (Historical treatment of non-Jews by Jews). While all Jews are obviously different, this is a facet of Judaism that's absolutely substantial enough to write about by itself. Things it could note: Biblical commands to wipe out Amalekites, Canaanites, etc.; any findings on how those of other religions were treated under the Maccabean Kingdom and later; how apostates and non-Jews have historically been treated and are treated today (e.g., see if we can find news stories about tolerance toward and/or ostracism of those who "went off the path", and instructions from halachic authorities such as the Shulchan Aruch on how to deal with such heretics); non-Jews' status in Israel; and non-Jews' status under traditional, Conservative, Reform, and other variants of Jewish law. There's a great deal to discuss here, every bit encyclopedic, and it shouldn't be thrown away just because the current content is incomplete.

    For those who've noticed the remarkable prevalence of Jews here, I would like to note that User:IZAK e-mailed me to point out this page, which of course doesn't show up on his edit history. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm confused as to why you moved the article to that new title. The contents have little to do with the new title, and it doesn't seem to make sense to move articles while they're being discussed in AfD. Jayjg (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Put before IZAK's earlier comment to make the indentation less confusing:) The contents were a subset of the topic covered by the new title, since persecution of non-Jews by Jews is inherently a subset of the historical treatment of non-Jews by Jews. Articles should never present only one side of a story, and therefore I moved the article to a name that didn't inherently restrict the article to one side of a story. And since articles are routinely edited during AFDs, and regularly are kept due to their improvement over the course of the AFD, I see no problem with moving pages either. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have reversed Simetrical's highly manipulative move there, which he should not have done as long as this vote is underway. Furthermore, Simetrical needs to apologize very quickly here and now for his highly offensive comment that "...For those who've noticed the remarkable prevalence of Jews here..." which is totally disgusting and out of line. What is he saying, that Jews should "shut up" ? This just reinforces the need to delete articles of this nature that are poisonous magnets that attract the wrong kind of misinformed and twisted debate and responses. IZAK 08:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, I would like to know why moving a page under AFD should be verboten any more than editing it. And I'm certainly not apologizing for commenting on there being a remarkable prevalence of Jews here, because there is. How on Earth is that offensive? Stop trying to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is an anti-Semite—you've lost an RFAr on that already for good reason.

          I was pointing out that you were electioneering, nothing more. You deliberately attempted to skew the proportion of Jews to non-Jews here to well over normal levels, thereby making the vote unrepresentative, and you know it. Don't get upset where you're called out. Not that such electioneering is necessarily prohibited on Wikipedia, but it could be taken into account by the closing admin if the vote were closer than it is. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

          • Simetrical: There is process and method and then there is meaning and intent. While there may be disagreement about what is the best process and method on Wikipedia, there is no disagreement about the meaning and intent of the phrase you used "...For those who've noticed the remarkable prevalence of Jews here..." which you now compound (for the worse) by saying "...You deliberately attempted to skew the proportion of Jews to non-Jews here to well over normal levels..." (implying that Wikipedia works with some sort of racial or religious "quota system", which it does not). Most impartial and knowledgeable people would say your comments are truly unfortunate and VERY nasty, to say the least. I have not and did not use the words "anti-Semite" here and I have not accused you of being one (so quit playing "victim" please). I merely brought your attention to the fact that you continue to make tasteless and disgusting slurs, considered insulting by many people -- not just Jews -- that would be deemed beneath contempt and not to be uttered in polite company, which you should apologize for, and not, as you continue to do, reinforce and self-righteously "justify". Furthermore, you make it sound that I am running for some sort of office by using the word "electioneering" which is all rather strange. Oh, and I am not getting upset, do you think I should be? IZAK 07:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 20:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SlimVirgin. -- Ynhockey 20:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DLand -- Yid613 22:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per IZAK and SlimVirgin. 172 22:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything that is worthy with other appropriate pages, get rid of the junk.
  • Strong Delete per Izak et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SlimVirgin. -- Nahum 06:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Evolver of Borg 10:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article is not so much an encyclopedia entry as an anti-Semitic diatribe. Yoninah 18:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Absolute useless tripe. SlimVirgin's answer says it best. --Michaelk 08:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per IZAK and Jayjg. --maayan 15:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Delete No comment.--196.206.213.71 20:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Revolución (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Though in most, if not all, groups there are those who are prejudiced against outsiders, and you could definitely dredge up a few incidents, most of the material in this article is at best tangential to the topic of contemporary persecution of non-Jews by Jews, concentrating on the State of Israel instead. Whoever wrote this article could have at least bothered to look up the views of the various Jewish groups and movements on the topic. If this article somehow is kept, someone please tell me, and I'll be happy to hack out the irrelevant trash. Hiergargo 03:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per everyone's comments; this article is complete garbage. If I had seen it when it was newly created, I probably would have added the {{nonsense}} tag to it. СПУТНИКССС Р 12:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything factual and/or relevant, and delete the rest. Ingoolemo talk 19:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. If anything, it's the the Jews who have been repeatedly persecuted (have we forgotten The Holocaust already?!) Cyde Weys 05:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A group can be both persecutor and persecuted in different times or circumstances. I voted delete, but I don't think being victimized in the Holocaust makes a group incapable of being victimizers. Serbs were slaughtered by the Croat Ustase, but Serbs also slaughtered people in the civil war decades later.--T. Anthony 16:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. --Mrfixter 00:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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. -Splashtalk 23:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intrealistic and Minisculate[edit]

Words made up by a not-very-notable person. Kappa 06:26, 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. Mushroom 13:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Svelglistigor band[edit]

Band vanity, zero search results for +Svelglistigor +band. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:40, Jan. 20, 2006

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stream TV[edit]

Clearly Commerical Advertising, is absolutely not a "notable product" per Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) -- also worth mentioning that the article was put up by the person who wrote the software, not by a neutral 3rd party. the stream to file forum should give some idea of the level of activity around this product. AdamJacobMuller 06:42, 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, I don't see much point in relisting this. -Splashtalk 23:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lolli aPOPalypse[edit]

Has nothing to do with the aPOCALYPSE pRODUCTION cREW, rather, it's a non-notable or hoax art movement with zero (0) google hits. Delete as bollocks. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:24, Jan. 20, 2006

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vemiesiire[edit]

Delete. The contents of this article are non-verifiable, original research, and obviously a case of vanity. No sign of notability either: 0 ghits for the name of the conlang, 13 for the name of the author. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 07:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI know someone that speaks it (they know the woman that wrote it somehow). I think it's kind of interesting. I say don't delete it, people where I live know about it. I don't or I would edit.

  • Delete Non-notable, not sourced (at least not to anything I would look to). Makemi 17:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepYou probably didn't find any hits on it because the title was just decided. The working title was Kokopelli.

Comment The previous unsigned comments were by 206.106.97.98 Makemi 17:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that "Kokopelli" generates a lot of ghits, most of them apparently related to some kind of flute. A google for "kokopelli+heidewald" gives only three hits, obviously not related to the language either. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 17:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also search:Kokopelli and "constructed language" gives absolutely no relevant hits. Makemi 17:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because it isn't interesting to you doesn't mean it doesn't matter to the people that speak it. It seems like a useful article, has an example of the language and everything. IJzeren Jan seems a bit of a hypocrite to me, seeing he has his own constructed language and he fought so bitterly over that site not being deleted. It's a language some people obviously speak, if this one goes then many others need to be cleaned out, including IJzeren Jan's language, where the outside link attached is his website! Wikipedia is all about have people use their specialized knowledge to inform other people! --Menner8 19:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be verifiable, just not published all over the internet. Looks fine to me, doesn't hurt you any. Keep.

The preceding two comments are both by User:Menner8 (1 edit, to this page), who also added the word "Keep" to the other two unsigned comments by User:206.106.97.98. Please don't use Sockpuppets. Makemi 20:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting personal, Menner8? Well then, let me explain a few things:
  1. Indeed, I dó have a constructed language. Several even. What's the difference? I'm very interested in conlangs and I do care for them. If you don't believe me, just look at the Portal:Constructed languages that I've co-created.
  2. I didn't start the article about Wenedyk myself. It was started by someone else. What I did do was making a few edits later on. Besides, I have never claimed my language is notable, but others apparently do. And honestly, I don't care much if the article is there or not; it is not supposed to be learned by anybody anyway.
  3. I didn't fight bitterly over that article in particular. At the time, there was a massive attack against a whole series of conlangs, mine included, and the reason for these attacks was pretty moot. So I stood up for all of them. If the vote had been about Wenedyk only, I would have abstained from voting.
  4. The outside link points to my website. So what? At least, there is something on that website!
  5. I know that Google hits are not the only measure for significance, but for fairly recent phenomena like young conlangs it is about the only source we have. The problem with V. is simply that there's nothing that would even confirm that the language exists at all. No grammar, no dictionary, no info about its creator, nothing! If there's a book about it, then please mention the title and the ISBN number. It the press has been writing about it, ditto. But the way it looks now, the whole thing might very well be a hoax. My point is: there's nothing to substantiate the article.
  6. Saying that there are several people who speak it is easy. So, where are these people? Who are they? Can you prove it?
Regards, —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 20:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the language is not only a beautiful sounding language, it also is a well-constructed language with simplified grammar. I am glad to hear that it has some speakers already and hope to read more words in Vemiesiire when the dictionary goes on-line. From Wikipedia user, Jeanette Neher

  • Here I am, author of the article. I am here, I suppose, to defend what I wrote and explain a simple yet beautiful concept. It doesn't matter as much to you as it does to other people. I want the article to be included because I think it has information interesting to a specific audience. This is a real language, and all information I included is drawn right from its dictionary, comprised of thousands of words. I don't feel the need to verify its authenticity or provide you with names of speakers willing to write e-mails flexing their skills (although I easily could, if you would like). I don't feel the need because I don't think this discussion is even really about Vemiesiire, and I think a more general stance on conlags should be defined for Wikipedia, so we can have order and reason and not just personal vendettas and unnecessary hurt feelings.

In the meanwhile, I stand by its authenticity and will always delight to share my specific knowledge with the world, and hope others feel the same determination. Keep. --Erika00177 21:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion regarding policy regarding conlangs has been, and in a way still is, going on. See WP:CONLANG. Look, this is not about constructed languages in general, not even about yours. And this has nothing to do with any personal vendettas. To be frank, I even like your language, and I would certainly like to hear the soundbytes. It's about the question whether or not an article here in WP is warranted. And the arguments I used (lack of verifiability, original research, vanity, no sign of notability) would make one suspect that it isn't for now. You saying that it's all true doesn't change those facts. I agree with you this information is interesting to a specific audience, but that's really not enough for inclusion! Like I told you on your user page, there are several more specialised places for that. I even took the liberty to transwiki your article to the Conlang Wiki (here it is; feel free to do with it as you please). —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 22:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Weak Delete The author does raise a point that conlangs should not be deleted a priori, but the fact remains that conlangs must be NOTABLE to be included on WP. I could make up a very poor conlang in 10 minutes, but that wouldn't make it article-worthy. Alternately, I could make a very good one over several years, but if no one spoke it and it was generally irrelevant, it still wouldn't be a WP article. Author/article must show that this conlang is significant in some way (are there institutes that teach this language? are there provably a large number of people who speak the language? etc.) If this is done, I would be strongly in favor of keeping this article. KrazyCaley 23:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Google hits! No langmaker entry! It doesn't even appear on Janko Gorenc's list! Delete! Wiwaxia 10:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research has no place here. Also it should be noted the use of sock puppets to influence this vote.--Alabamaboy 00:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-verifiable rubbish. incog 19:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epoxy resin band[edit]

Delete. I don't think this band exists, no AMG entry, 0 Google hits tying "Epoxy resin" to the band members or the album, plus it talks about "30 minutes" of fame and "parallel universes". Bruce1ee 07:28, 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. Mushroom 13:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kite Flying Society[edit]

Google count: 783 From the results: term is also used by some actual kite flying societies. No amazon product listing. Fails to meet Wikipedia's music group standard. delete Lotsofissues 07:33, 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 TRANSWIKI to Wikisource. -Splashtalk 23:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton's Letter to ROTC Instructor[edit]

The article is almost entirely made up of unaltered source texts with a bit of personal editorializing mixed in. The substantive issues belong in Bill Clinton. The rest of the content might be an outside candidate for a transwiki to Wikisource, but.... that's not for me to decide. Tom Lillis 10:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (I failed to sign this the first time.)[reply]


Nonsense. The letters are far too long to place in the Clinton bio. Keep. Just looked at the bio of the person who recommended this article for deletion and recommend everyone considering this AfD do the same. No one, from the right or the left, should accept or promote censorship here. That type of "editing" has no place in Wikipedia. Shame on you if that is your motivation. --DaveThomas 07:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The substantive issues belong in Bill Clinton." I said. You're right, the letters don't belong in Bill Clinton. A discussion of the matter which is illustrated by the letters belong in the article. Wikipedia is not a repository of source documents. As for the documents themselves, I again state that the material belongs on Wikisource if anywhere, but I am not an expert on how that works. This is a matter of following our own internal rules on what goes where. Censorship has blip-all to do with it, and I'd ask you to use more care before casting shame upon others in the future. Tom Lillis 10:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or TransWiki. This is not encyclopedic. Zunaid 10:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:03, Jan. 20, 2006
  • Transfer to Wikisource. Gazpacho 11:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transfer. Per above. --StuffOfInterest 14:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per Gazpacho. KrazyCaley 23:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per above, and well put Tom Lillis. Draeco 00:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: letters are protected by copyright; it would likely be a copyvio to put them on WikiSource, but I don't know what their policies are. They certainly don't belong here. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Letters are protected by copyright, but I think these actually came out of the Congressional Record, which is public domain. Tricky, which is why I'm not sure. Tom Lillis 06:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikisource. The article consists of primary sources and a short essay. The primary sources go to Wikisource, the essay gets deleted and its salient facts WRT the primary sources edited into Bill Clinton. silsor 07:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per above. Cyde Weys 05:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names of God (antagonist, deductive definitions)[edit]

Rather confused, unencyclopedic OR. Not much there to be salvaged by merging, as far as I can see. Delete. Lukas 07:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete essay. Gazpacho 07:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this confused essay. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 10:18Z
  • Delete. Original research, and poorly done at that. --StuffOfInterest 14:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research, no references, sources or citations apparent. How is a researcher supposed to find this information useful?  (aeropagitica)  21:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR --BadSeed 01:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete; I added a more informative section, (And cant anyone offer an Alternative Title ? (for article) sat 21 January.MMcAnnisYumaAZMmcannis 23:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Post-note addition: And...How can you complain when YOU are not supposed to Know, or Speak the name of 'g o d' as proscribed by some cultures?..(and today's comments are written post the addition of the A - Z section)Mmcannis 14:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just told someone I would try to use 'humor' (on this revisit). Besides the Law of superposition and the Law of faunal succession which were required to get smart brainiacs to deal better, to cope better with evolution and Anti-/Evolution, there should be some laws for nascent and newly created articles (that are nascent, and or 'young' articles). Like: Law of ,Reading' a ,Delete' article, or Law of visiting 3-times a delete article. Since no one else (at this time) would dare write my approach to this "Name of" article, (or even offer an alternate re-titleing(....theoretically You've read the article and could re-title it?.... ), I can make conclusions about the Voters themselves, (whether (as with a 'god"), whether a He, She, or It)(I'll look and see what the above 5 voters cat is....hmmmmmm..hhhmmm...hmmmm 5 He-category. 5 guys. (As if I didn't already know.) End of humor. I knew it would be only 5 guys.)Sorry now my feelings are hurt. Maybe that's why this was my first vote in Wikipedia. It is too bad none of you 'persons of unknown, knowns,' couldn't/ or wouldn't offer an alternate title for the article-- (In the same vein of The 'god' who must be obeyed (see the Rumpole of the Bailey entry under S)..,,(And if even one She makes a vote, I will be truly surprised-Sorry again for a Pre-opinion, that old POV again)(I would love to say "I apologize" to an incorrect categorization)...Michael(with good intentions, believe me.)Mmcannis 14:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I frankly don't understand the article, nor what it is trying to accomplish. I find the evolution link under "See Also" hilarious, though. Cyde Weys 05:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article supposedly about all the historically significant names of the monotheistic God, that doesn't even mention YHWH or any of the other Judeo-Christian names for God, and instead lists useless synonyms for "god" like "My Lord", "Our Lord", etc. next to Ra ? Not much worth trying to understand... —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 13:01Z
  • Delete as nonsense and OR. Is this not maybe patent nonsense? Zunaid 07:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin James Stewart[edit]

Delete I believe this article to be a hoax. He's not in www.imdb.com and google returns no hits Asa01 07:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rowan Stewart —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 08:17Z
  • Delete as unverifiable, probable hoax. Claims like those about film and being at the 2000 Olympics would be verifiable if they were true. I can't even verify the existance of the magazine. Possibly created as an attack page. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 08:01Z
  • Delete as unverifiable, possible {{db-attack}} material, if this person exists at all.  (aeropagitica)  21:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a non-verifiable attack page. Hall Monitor 21:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax --BadSeed 01:04, 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 BOTH. Don't see the need to relist give the referenced AfD. -Splashtalk 23:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan Stewart and Echoes Of Grace[edit]

Created by In_Name_And_Blood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Neither the filmmaker nor his films are verifiable via Google nor IMDB, possible hoaxes esp. in light of Benjamin James Stewart (AfD discussion). Even if they were verifiable they wouldn't be notable. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 08:04Z

In_Name_And_Blood (talk · contribs) has been methodically adding unverifiable references to the Stewarts to many Australian pop-culture-related articles which Asa01 has been patiently reverting. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 08:14Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (anything useful) and redirect to Hatf-I/IA. --Deathphoenix 14:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hatf, Shaheen 1, Shaheen 2[edit]

Delete - this article is a stub of info already included in the Hatf-I/IA article. Kralizec! 08:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have bundled the AFDs for Shaheen 1, Shaheen 2 at this point. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 10:16Z
  • Merge/Redirect (all 3 to their appropriate parent article). Useful redirect. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 10:15Z
  • Redirect per above. Cyde Weys 05:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mushroom 13:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dane Smith[edit]

Non notable vanity page Ben W Bell 08:49, 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. -Splashtalk 00:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco pina[edit]

not notable. vanity article Jgritz 08:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was also responsible for this deleted article --Jgritz 08:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians--it is time... I can't believe you're not "speed-deleting" this article, considering you know who was the one who had written it. Isn't it obvious that if it's from an un-trusting person like me--you self-centered, mind controlling fuck-hole, good for nothing pieces of shit. You can block my IP but that's not going to stop me from conducting some serious page blanking if this article gets deleted. Sincerely, Your Mother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.182.198 (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 keep (no consensus). Wisewaif pointed out a fairly high ranking among the Yahoo! podcast list, although 75 minutes had fallen to 61st place when I checked the link out. I am concerned with sockpuppeteering and/or meatpuppeteering here, but ultimately some of the "keep" voters have presented reasonable arguments for this podcast's notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

75 minutes[edit]

Podcast with no apparent notability. Stifle 08:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Why delete? This seems to be a quality podcast about independant music, which is always welecome. These non-RIAA artists don't get any promotion and its nice to have a podcast like this that lets people discover new things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.220.45 (talk • contribs) Proto t c 10:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This is my first time hearing about this and I'm a pretty hardcore 'cast fan. This is a relatively insignificant 'cast and unless we Wikipedian brothers start listing every other beginner 'cast, I tag my vote as a strong delete. Anagram 20:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, podcruft. Individual podcasts will never be notable unless Christian Slater starts one. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:01, Jan. 20, 2006
  • Delete as non-notable podcast. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 10:11Z
  • No notability!?!? Why, it's 25% better than 60 Minutes. GWO
  • Delete per Christian Slater and Freakofnurture. --Dragonfiend 15:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as podcruft. Eusebeus 20:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I think podcasts can be here if they can establish that they have a nationwide notability somewhere, within the article. I can think of a handful that would certainly qualify. This one, however, does not, and unless someone can assert its notability it should be deleted. Oh, and very funny, GWO. Grandmasterka 00:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable, one of the more widely-listened internet radio programs. Features interviews with notable artists. --Bk0 (Talk) 03:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Top 60 rated and listened to podcasts at *Yahoo Podcasts. Noted by Yahoo by popularity: *Yahoo. By feed statistics, one of the Top 100 podcasts listed by Feedburner. Global audience of thousands. Most listened to, by download statistics, in 1. The U.S. 2. China 3. EU 4. Canada 5. Australia. Featured in popular music blogs such as Gapers Block, and other music blogs. As said before, is 25% better than 60 MInutes, and as a bonus, no Andy Rooney. The kicker, unfortunately, is that it has 5% less proof than Absolut Vodka. --wisewaif (Talk) 03:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wisewaif, but with a caveat. There is no Arbitron or Alexa for podcasts so far, and it would be rather difficult to build one. If Yahoo Podcasts isn't one of the big fish in the pond, asserting that something is notable for appearing on Yahoo's list doesn't necessarily mean anything. That said, it is Yahoo, and on the scale of big fish overall they're a basking shark, so I'm willing to give this list the benefit of the doubt. I think a combined discussion on the issue of podcasts is in order, especially after the Wehatetech fiasco. Haikupoet 04:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there is even confusion about the potential notability of something, it's not notable. Being a big fish in a small pond is no excuse. Dbchip 08:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What? If podcasting is notable (clearly, given the size of the article) then the "small pond" is notable, therefore being a "big fish" in it is more than adequate justification for an article. I think wisewaif has given sufficient evidence that 75 Minutes is among the top English-language podcasts, as far as it can be determined. --Bk0 (Talk) 12:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep best podcast/radio program available--Schwab002 09:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This vote is this user's only edit. --Hosterweis 02:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As noted by wisewaif the show is widely listened to. --Metrodus 14:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This vote was this user's first edit out of two. --Hosterweis 02:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "If there is even confusion about the potential notability of something, it's not notable." that makes no sense, a complete logical fallacy. how many people outside the u.s. have heard of Harper Lee? she wrote one novel in her entire career, and released it at the perfect time. point being, many (who never read the book in high school) would question the potential notability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dreamer.redeemer (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep Definitely notable. Determining the notability of podcasts is hard though, even harder than notability for musical artists. Gaining nationwide (or rather: global) notability isn't really an important thing for a podcast that focusses on music that is more or less underground. I see 75 Minutes as more than just a radioshow: it has a sense of community that reaches out to underground musical scenes in all parts of the world. The show is notable not so much for the wide variety of listeners, but mainly for the wide scope of scenes and genres it covers. Rather than marking this for deletion, an overall discussion (as suggested above) on the notability of podcasts is in order. To make a comparison with musical notability again: my stance would be that articles are okay as long as they are objective. Ie: "This band consists of four members" is okay. "This band is awesome!!1lol" is not. PoofBird 18:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like a reasonable explanation of what the site in question is all about; "notoriety" is awfully subjective, don't you think? Maniaclives 14:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just wanted to point out that this podcast has released 35 shows (25 weekly + 10 bi-weekly) and it has very high production values. Furthermore, the program is 100% not-for-profit, so how could the article in question be an advertisement? Have any of the delete voters actually listened to the show before knee-jerk voting against it? It is a top-notch podcast and there is no reason it shouldn't be represented on wikipedia. Maniaclives 17:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "How could the article in question be an advertisement?" — it doesn't have to be for-profit to be an advertisement; it's an effort to gain listeners, and thus, an advertisement. --Hosterweis 23:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, nn podcruft with what looks like an invasion of sock puppets voting keep. incog 01:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, This site is supposed to have decent information, no jokes. --blackman 02:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Alexa ranking of 1,316,523 - just another podcast taking up space on the wikipedia. non-notable advertisement. -- Hosterweis 02:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alexa?! You're kidding, right? --Bk0 (Talk) 02:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alexa is used as a metric for popularity in nearly every AfD. There's no need to stop using it now just because you disagree with it. --dj28 02:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alexa isn't too useful for podcasts -- podcasts use different distribution mechanisms from webpages, so a different metric has to be used. I don't think that metric exists yet, so some more ad hoc intermediate metric needs to be created. In the meantime, I would think Yahoo Top 100 is as good a system as there is at the moment. Like I said above, I think a centralized discussion on the issue is in order. Haikupoet 23:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Further, some of the accounts voting to keep look suspiciously like sockpuppets. --dj28 02:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable. Determining the popularity of a podcast is hard because nobody actually listen to them. -- Femmina 02:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to me to be a pretty important podcast. And keep in mind Alexa rankings aren't a good way to get an idea of a podcast's notability, because Alexa rankings are for the world wide web and podcasts generally exist outside of the world wide web in services such as iTMS or RSS. Cyde Weys 05:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really believe this podcast is important? Do you actually use it? Or you just find out about its existence after it reached the articles for deletion? --blackman 15:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point me to the policy page that states that 50,000 is the accepted standard for notability? Thanks. --Bk0 (Talk) 00:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mushroom 13:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Viereck[edit]

it is an article about a real person that does not assert (Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles) the importance or significance (WP:BIO) of the subject. (CSD A7). I added Template:nn-bio, which was removed by User:69.253.210.185 --Austrian 08:59, 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. -Splashtalk 00:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy till[edit]

Doubtful notability (WP:MUSIC), unverifiable outside of his own website. Geogre's law applies. Stifle 09:00, 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. -Splashtalk 00:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan MacPherson[edit]

Vanity bio of someone who is notable only for being in some sort of improvisation group. I'm not asserting that the group is non-notable, not yet anyway. Userfication is possible. Stifle 09:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --kingboyk 19:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. He's also vandalized a page (2 (number)). —Wknight94 (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The group's article is up for deletion, as well (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scriptless In Seattle). -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, indeed. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 01:00, Jan. 21, 2006
  • Hi, I suppose I'm the main author of the Scriptless In Seattle page as well as this one. I understand the deletion of this page, and infact I will take out the links from there to here, but I still disagree with the deletion of the group page. I don't understand how deletion works here (if you need more votes, or more time, etc. etc.) but you have my endorsment to hurry the process concerning this page. Hope that helps! AMac2002 01:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • del Derex 01:31, 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. -Splashtalk 00:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antifrost[edit]

List of releases from a non-notable record label Stifle 09:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - with no list, it's now just an advertisement. Ruby 14:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. incog 00:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Kafziel 07:10, 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 waskeep. Ifnord 00:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Loeb[edit]

No verifiable notability, musician, possible vanity. Stifle 09:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable vanity biography. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 10:05Z
  • Strong Keep : Folks, put Chuck Loeb in amazon.com's search. He's got 8 or 9 albums out, and a fair smattering of user reviews. A second tier artist, sure, but definitely a notable jazzman, and passes WP:BAND with flying colours. See also [34] [35] -- GWO 12:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: lots of albums, performances with many notable names, and a mention in the New York Times. - squibix 17:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, but the article seems to be a copyvio. - squibix 17:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, that's a different matter. -- GWO
  • Keep per above and rewrite any copyvio content. 23skidoo 20:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even shallow research reveals a good bit of notability.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-2000s Rock Movement[edit]

Looks like original research and/or POV forkage that somebody forgot about. Maybe this exists, but nobody calls it that, nothing links to it, and nobody edits it. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:36, Jan. 20, 2006

  • Delete as unverifiable and/or original research. As of the end of 2005 the shift in tastes in rock music has yet to attain a name as the movement is not yet realized or even proven to be a true shift from post-grunge. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 10:04Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jovonn alexander[edit]

This might be verifiable (170 google hits), but the page reads mostly like a vanity page, promoting his own music. Poulsen 09:37, 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 REDIRECT to Mitigation. -Splashtalk 00:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitigate[edit]

disambiguates between two redlink dictdefs. BL kiss the lizard 09:39, 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. -Splashtalk 00:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Nineties[edit]

Non-notable neologism for the 2001-2010 decade, delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:42, Jan. 20, 2006

  • Delete as non-notable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. Contains original research/opinion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 09:59Z
  • Delete - the article is wrong, the Aughties are the New Forties (9/11 anyone?). Also, this is the second article I've seen on AfD to promote the theory that the current decade is basically an extension of the 1990s, we're talking about someone with a persistent agenda here.Ruby 14:26, 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. Mushroom 13:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None Left Standing[edit]

This orphaned article appears to be a band vanity page. Their "official website" is at Myspace.com, the parking garage of garage bands. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:54, Jan. 20, 2006

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cabana forums[edit]

Seems to be nn forum vanity. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 10:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - all of this user's other contributions to date have been speedily deleted already as patent nonsense, this is little better -- Francs2000 10:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without compunction Draeco 00:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn garbage. incog 00:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and teach the person who started the article when not to capitalise! - Axver 08:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Mushroom 16:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scriptless In Seattle[edit]

Improvisational acting troupe, see Results 1 - 1 of about 2 for +"Scriptless In Seattle" +improv. A less refined search yields false positives, as this seems to be a pejorative term for a certain sappy romantic comedy film. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:24, Jan. 20, 2006

  • Delete - normally I would vote to keep, but the section with bios on the troupe members looks like serial vanity. Ruby 14:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. The creator has also vandalized a page (2 (number)) reducing his credibility - with me anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I'm the (main) author of the page so far. A member of the team was notified that they had a page on Wikipedia and decided to add the "members" part of it. It seems they treated it more like an online journal, rather than an encyclopedia, but I did my best to clean it up and "wikify" it. Any advice on more to do to keep it would be appreciated, but for now I will continue to try to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMac2002 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 21 January 2006
  • Delete per nom. Note that the article about member Alan MacPherson has also been nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan MacPherson). -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete hate to do it, but wikipedia is not the place for this. you have as yet no widespread recognition even locally, as indicated by google at any rate. I'd suggest getting a website & domain for $20 (at godaddy for example) and putting up all the info you want. Derex 01:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, I respect all your decisions, but still you can understand how I want to keep this up. Secondly, I was judging validity by basis of the "List of improvisation theatre companies" note , as we meet all of those requirements. At the very least, I request you not take us off THAT page (leaving Scriptless In Seattle with a red hyperlink), but I still feel the page is warranted. In any case, if I you still must delete it I will understand but please keep it on the list page. Thank you! AMac2002 01:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and Delete I think this is entirely appropriate for the user's talk page, or a subpage thereof. --Hansnesse 01:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grimmy Moonflower[edit]

Non-notable/vanity created by Grimmy Moonflower. Only one sentence and multiple quotes. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content added. Was stub, previously. Character is notable within confines of virtual world Grimmymoonflower

  • Delete. Vanity by a griefer. Non-notable character by any standard. Sarg 13:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sad, really. Uucp 14:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nostalgia is so silly! Grimmymoonflower 4:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn virtual worldcruft. MCB 06:09, 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 deleted by User:Freakofnurture —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 11:45Z


Elliott durham school[edit]

No meaningful content, just some POV remark. Might even qualify for db-nonsense (I'm not sure, but feel free to add the tag if you think so). –Sommers (Talk) 10:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think so. Current content is "This School Is The Secret Training Ground For Terrorist Activity". Kappa 10:43, 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 and REDIRECT. -Splashtalk 00:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super8[edit]

Non-notable band. Seven google hits for +Super8 +"Ernesto Vidal", the latter being the frontman. Simpler searches return a multitude of false positives. Delete and redirect to the disambiguation page Super 8. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:41, Jan. 20, 2006

  • Delete/Redirect per Freake of Nurture. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 11:44Z
  • Speedy Delete and redirect. No assertion of and no apparent notability --kingboyk 15:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect, non-notable per Freak of Nurture. -- Dragonfiend 15:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect per Freake of Nurture. Draeco 00:08, 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. Sorry, but the article itself is just so poor that keepers don't make nearly enough of a case. -Splashtalk 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Physics envy[edit]

Article apparently about one person's POV. We already have articles about "hard science" vs. "soft science".

BTW, mathematician response to physics envy:
  • The biologist wants to be a chemist.
  • The chemist wants to be a physicist.
  • The physicist wants to be God.
  • God wants to be a mathematician.
—Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 11:42Z
  • Delete per Quarl --BadSeed 01:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this term is frequently used to describe problems in the social sciences and biology through trying to be like physics. It needs more work, but give it time to see whether more work is done. Bduke 04:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think this falls under the neologism category--it's a common enough phrase, I think, if not among the general public then definitely in academia. A quick search of some academic and science blogs indicate this. On the other hand, I don't see how much more could be added to the article; maybe putting its information into another article would be ideal? --Pharazin
  • Delete as POV commentary. Crunch 22:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Crunch. --Perfecto 06:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- this is a term definitely actively used in academic corridor conversations (though I think I've probably heard it applied to sociology a lot more than to biology). AnonMoos
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:Ambi —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 11:40Z

Rose and the Jacksonettes[edit]

Delete:Unverifiable. Anyone want to ring up Rose Jackson and ask her what NOLS' new name is? Fifelfoo 11:17, 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. -Splashtalk 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batragchaa Ragchaa[edit]

28 year old lawyer? No google hits of course, but no statement as to why this 'new lawyer' group is influential either. It's theoretically possible for 20-something lawyers to be important in countries undergoing rapid change, but I feel there is no sufficient claim for notability above the average lawyer established here, and no citations to enable verification. Average Earthman 11:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no indication of whether that position is a notable one. Gazpacho 11:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as bio with no claim to notability. --A D Monroe III 21:26, 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. This has nominal two-thirds to delete, and WP:MUSIC will ensure it hasn't a prayer if I relist it. -Splashtalk 00:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portable folk band[edit]

Neglected article about a band that self-released one album. No evidence of notability. No AMG entry. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 11:36Z

  • Keep Even if a subject is non-notable to most people, it might be notable to some. What is lost by keeping an article that will hardly be visited anyway? If an article contains verifiable information, I'd say keep it. Wiki is not paper. However, the article does need to be cleaned up to conform to WP:STYLE. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 12:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:NMG. PJM 13:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Self-publishing usually isn't worth anything in the overall context of the industry. Very few reviewers will touch it, music shops won't stock it except maybe under "local interest". It's supremely difficult to get recognition outside the industry, and usually that's something a music group has to go through in order to achieve notability. It can be done -- ask DJ Dangermouse or the friends of the late GG Allin -- but it's damn difficult and even more rare. Haikupoet 05:03, 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 delete. Mushroom 13:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God free youth[edit]

Delete. This is a statement, not an article. Bruce1ee 11:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 12:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, A1. Tagged. PJM 13:30, 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. -Splashtalk 00:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sullivan Learning Academy[edit]

Advertisement for a bookstore. I couldn\'t find info on where the store is. No google hits and 54 on the web counter of the site. Actually I thought mistakenly this would fit under speedy, so here it is. Garion96 (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 12:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it is not an award-winning book store. Ruby 14:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. -- DS1953 talk 06:25, 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. -Splashtalk 00:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comaudio[edit]

un-notability Melaen 16:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as compucruft, non-notable etc. Stifle 00:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 11:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak keep Even if a subject is non-notable to most people, it might be notable to some. What is lost by keeping an article that will hardly be visited anyway? If an article contains verifiable information, I'd say keep it. Wiki is not paper. However, the article does need to be cleaned up to conform to WP:STYLE. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 12:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not taking sides here, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The text of a speech by the Malaysian Prime Minister may be verifiable, but it's patently unencyclopedic. There are topics, even notable ones, that pass the verifiability test with flying colours but fail miserably when it comes to the test of encyclopedic value. Johnleemk | Talk 15:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The text of that speech might be of interest to someone, so why not include it? Granted, I see your point, but if someone wants to waste their time writing an article on a NN subject, I say let them. Doesn't hurt me. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 18:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because a speech is unencyclopedic. That sort of thing is for Wikisource, a collection of source texts, not Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. Johnleemk | Talk 03:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plug: Please come help develop a guideline for articles such as this: see Wikipedia:Notability (software) --Perfecto 06:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completed software MAY be notable if it is of historic value or extremely popular, but a fricken object library used in compiling other software is NOT notable. Ruby 14:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely non-notable --BadSeed 01:08, 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 MERGE to Manchester Grammar School, which as already been done. I'll activate the redirect. -Splashtalk 00:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Owl's nest[edit]

Article about a barn sometimes visited for school field trips. No claim of notability, and no references or sources provided.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 20:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notability lies in the integral part the barn plays in the life of one of England's most historic and successful schools. I can expand or adapt the article if you can make any recommendations. Philkeble 21:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest you move it into the main article about the school. Deb 21:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that if it is to be merged, it needs considerable improvement. For a start (unless something has changed considerably since my time), it's not a barn, it's a hut. Also, where did this 'Sons of the Owl' thing come from? I've never heard it before. Guy Hatton 22:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 11:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete is illegal under the GFDL, as the history of the content must be preserved. Johnleemk | Talk 11:44, 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. -Splashtalk 00:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pjrpg[edit]

Advocating a non-notable website jmd 12:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Even if a subject is non-notable to most people, it might be notable to some. What is lost by keeping an article that will hardly be visited anyway? If an article contains verifiable information, I'd say keep it. Wiki is not paper. However, the article does seem to violate WP:NPOV and WP:STYLE. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 12:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert for a nn website, Wikipedia is not infinite. --Deiz 13:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are rules for this at WP:WEB -Jcbarr 13:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable website. --Dragonfiend 15:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I was in too strong an inclusionist mood this morning. I still don't care much for the lack of notability, but the article does look too much like an advert and not enough like an encyclopedia article. Delete, unless someone would bother to make it a real article. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 18:21, 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 deleted as patent nonsense. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 13:09, Jan. 20, 2006

DAN STYLE[edit]

neologism. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as nonsense. Cnwb 12:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as above --Deiz 12:49, 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. -Splashtalk 00:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Rich[edit]

Vanity, hoax, or combination thereof. Appears to be five unique google hits for the guy's alleged real name, "Richard Bougere" which don't appear relevant, except one (which is from — guess where — Myspace.com). Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 13:07, Jan. 20, 2006

  • Delete, per Freak. PJM 13:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article has no third-party citation for fact verification. Ruby 14:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 16:21, 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. It is, as pointed out, already in the main article without having been merged there. -Splashtalk 00:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Destinations served from Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport[edit]

Delete - Redundant with "Airlines & Destinations" list already in airport article. Dbinder 13:23, 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 deleted. Mushroom 14:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stoner poker[edit]

NN game, and possibly OR. Delete. Kusma (討論) 14:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - this article conveys no information at all. Ruby 14:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Speedy delete under WP:CSD A1, lack of context. Tag added. Sliggy 14:35, 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. -Splashtalk 00:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hsu[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, and judging from the comments on User talk:Jack71483, this article appears to be part of an ongoing problem of non-notable autobiographies. –Sommers (Talk) 14:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable vanity, does not meet established WP:MUSIC criteria. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs a serious cleanup ... but he did perform at Carnegie Hall in 2000. That alone warrants at least SOME information on the guy. Claims "first place in the yearly annual Nankin Er-Hu competition" that would probably pass as "Has won or placed in a major music competition." He also appears to have collaborated with several independant bands/musicians one of which was signed to Polydor... Per my standards this just barely squeeks by. Of course this all hinges on whether or not this can be verified. Cant be verified ... nuke it.  ALKIVAR™ 22:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Performing at Carnegie Hall is impressive, but lots of people perform there as members of an orchestra or band, and surely Wikipedia needn't have an individual article for every one of them. The article doesn't assert that this isn't the case for Hsu; on the contrary, it implies that he was there as a member of the NYC Opera Orchestral program. If he performed there solo, then yeah, that would be another story. Also, I agree with your point about verifiability; thanks for bringing it up. –Sommers (Talk) 16:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A google search for "Nankin Er-Hu" only brings back the MySpace page this guy created. I can't verify the Carnegie Hall info either. And anyway, I've performed hundreds of shows during my life including at Minneapolis' Orchestra Hall twice, Ted Mann Concert Hall a bunch of times, First Avenue once, and as part of A Prairie Home Companion once, and neither I nor my band could be considered anywhere close to notable... Yet. Grandmasterka 01:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line.Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alkivar. --Terence Ong 11:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply performing once at Carnegie Hall in 2000 is not sufficient. Crunch 12:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparently one in a series of vanity articles created by this person. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 12:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nice music on myspace but unverified. myspace pages do not count as verification -- Astrokey44|talk 15:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 21:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator, does not meet WP:BIO nor WP:MUSIC. Hall Monitor 22:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the Google stuff is his own pages. The two of them are on

[36] but whats that one show? Defunkier 13:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • What about this other guy Akimasa Nihongi - he's got like 65 Googles and the same guy User talk:Jack71483 created the article. He was a student in Berklee OK (sold his bed on their site ;) but is his record stuff for real? Defunkier 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... no news articles on him in Proquest/Newsbank, no notability. Calwatch 04:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. This was probably a speedy A7, so I'm not going to relist. -Splashtalk 00:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endless mic[edit]

Orphaned for seven months and only edited 3 times since its creation. Doesn't seem notable or something would have linked to it by now. search results don't seem relevant or useful, and myspace.com is unsurprisingly among them. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:54, Jan. 20, 2006

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midi Surfing[edit]

Delete as unverifiable neologism. -- Krash 15:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete admits to being an "uncommon term" - can't verify even that (ESkog)(Talk) 21:21, 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 KEEP, it's been rewritten. -Splashtalk 00:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crypto-pagans[edit]

  • Delete - This does not make sense. Without source material this is just vague comments that "some" groups exist that hide "something".
I changed my mind, this could stay if the article was written a lot better. Cuñado - Talk 22:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added some material and some external links that explain in more detail these groups, including some of their own sites. This entry isn't significantly different from the crypto-judaism nor crypto-christianity entries, and has far more information than, say, the entry on Anusim. Nygdan 1-20-2006
      • Crypto-Judaism and Crypto-Christianity. I think Nygdan didn't realize that wikilinks/pages are case-sensitive. I added redirects to those from the lowercase versions.
  • Keep as the article has been significantly improved since nom. -- Jake 05:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death glam[edit]

Neologism. - Deathrocker 00:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Made up genre, to represent and advertise a neoglism of Death Rock and Glam Rock bands from various genres. Leyasu 07:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 00:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway anykey[edit]

Delete: I (the original author) intend for this page to be deleted as it is original work and frankly now that I've been notified of some of your asinine and elitist policies I'd rather not have anything to do with it. Zero DgZ 21:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article seems to have merit. significant mention of this article on google, and product was notable. Phantasmo 19:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and kick some asses of overzealous wikipedia snobs, who scared off a useful contributor, see contributions of User:Zero DgZ and an evidently unwarranted comment at User talk:Zero DgZ. Mukadderat 20:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ease up there. The comment on his talk page is in response to the total unexplained blanking of the page in question here, and was caught by one of our RC patrollers. It certainly wasn't unwarranted, and I can't find evidence of this so-called snobbery either. WP:AGF applies to the Cabal too :) (ESkog)(Talk) 21:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "unexplained" is a good word and applies to both sides. I revoke my unwise term "snobbery". It was rather rubberstamping without looking into the history of contributions of the editor. If someone writes a big article and then blanks it, I would find this worrisome and deserving a meaningful dialog, rather than sending a person to sandbox. Mukadderat 22:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You will not find evidence of snobbery on Wikipedia in relation to this user. I'm afraid I am the source of the trouble - I am very close to the author of this article and when he sent me a link to it via instant message, I scolded him for writing too much about a computer keyboard and using an unencylopedic writing style. (I believe my exact words were "This isn't Epinions") Zero DgZ is a regular user of Everything2 and already harbored some animosity towards the stereotypical Wikipedia user. My apologies for shunning a potential editor and sorry for the unecessary eDrama as well. It was not my intention to have a personal squabble leak into public. Inditalk 15:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup - A little *too* detailed for a general encyclopedia article, but good otherwise. FCYTravis 04:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There is no reason to delete this article except for the request of its author, which is unfortunate but invalid. (Note: After this AfD vote is resolved, the article should be moved to Gateway Anykey.) –Sommers (Talk) 12:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. I agree with FCYTravis's comment in regards to the article containing a bit too much information. It can surely be condensed. Inditalk 15:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a little long, but really not that long. It's well-written and should stay (even if the original author doesn't think so... we don't have article ownership here). Should be moved to Gateway Anykey. -- Jake 06:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 polyvinylidene fluoride, although I'm not sure that's such a hot idea. -Splashtalk 00:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kynar[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge and redirect to polyvinylidene fluoride. Trade names for common materials rarely deserve a separate article. Mukadderat 20:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Mukadderat, merge if there's anything to merge. -- Jake 06:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 a {{db-a6}} attack page of a {{db-a7}} non-notable person. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:53, Jan. 20, 2006

Lee Hotti[edit]

  • Keep

Definitely a keep. There's precedence with all manner of other internet "memes" already listed in Wikipedia, and this one is certainly no small or 'forgettable' one.

  • Keep

How can you say it is a 'waste of Wikipedia space', hmm? There are plenty of articles that would be defined as 'waste of space' by you, but they don't deserve deletion. Cleanup maybe. User:theDingbat 07:53, 20 January 2006 (GMT)

  • Keep --- This is a true internet phenomenon and deserves mention of what can be accomplished in a matter of a few days. Things like this do not happen every day and even if they start to do, this page could serve as one of the first examples --DB0 12:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.83.123 (talk • contribs)
    • Note: Users/IP's first and only edits. --Ragib 07:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the world shown theres people like this really exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.213.227 (talk • contribs)
    • Note: Users/IP's first and only edits. --Ragib 07:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - keep it up. you act like a clown online you deserve for the world to see — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.237.65 (talk • contribs)
    • Note: Users/IP's first and only edits. --Ragib 07:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This has to stay, it's up there with other such great internet crazes that also need rememberance, such as star wars kid and the hamster dance. Play fair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.158.202 (talk • contribs)
    • Note: Users/IP's first and only edits. --Ragib 07:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hamster dance song has A. Been around for 4 years, B. Inspired two songs, C. Been ranked as the number 1 web something or other by cnet. What has this picture done?--God of War 03:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While the article is amateur it is still relevant. The exhibited “forum flaming” has marked history creating a global scale phenomenon in human internet behavior. For the sake of behavioral science….. Keep this entry!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.24.65 (talk • contribs)
    • Note: Users/IP's first and only edits. --Ragib 07:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --King of All the Franks 00:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if you are going to delete this, you may as well delete The Hampster Dance. Fact is this is one of the greatest worldwide internet phenomenons in the world at the moment. There was an article on CNN about this. Perhaps you folks should focus on adding meaningful content to Wikipedia rather than deleting everything you come across. Rogerthat 01:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per the above. Karmafist 00:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per Rogerthat. --King of All the Franks 01:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - With over 1 Million hits in less than a week the Lee Hotti craze has taken just as much attention as many major news events (i.e. Hurricane Katrina coverage). Its an iconic sign of the times that needs to be documented, crazy and pointless as it may seem - Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.229.145 (talk • contribs)
    • Note: Users/IP's first and only edits. --Ragib 07:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although this article needs work, this phenomenon has definite social and anthropological roots
  • KEEP - I think this topic is a classic and now an icon of pop culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.89.90 (talk • contribs)
    • Note: Users/IP's first and only edits. --Ragib 07:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - It has to be done. It's a classic piece of net history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.188.46 (talk • contribs)
    • Note: Users/IP's first and only edits. --Ragib 07:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP!!! - This photo is a treasure... it has an impact big enough to be considered indelible to any deletion/change I urge this keep with every ounce of will in my body...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiseblood1 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP! this is too big to let go of.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.140.2.1 (talk • contribs)
    • Note: Users/IP's first and only edits. --Ragib 07:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Please ignore the meat puppets above. Check their user contribs, this is the only page they have edited. A pic on an web-forum does not make someone notable.--God of War 02:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Global interwebnet phenomena must make more of a splash than 163 google hits. I don't generally like the google test, but it's more than appropriate for memes. It would be easy enough to spam a couple of hundred links about some bullshit in a night's work.James James 02:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While it may be a popular meme among a few web forums right now, the article (and external links [37],[38]) serve mostly to attack the subject. OhnoitsJamieTalk 03:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even though its the funniest thing ive ever seen. Mike (T C) 03:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, 'nuff said.Bjones 03:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only a few days old, looks like an attack page, too. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, non-notable. *drew 04:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I now see it's only a new meme going through the motions. --King of All the Franks 04:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another forgettable meme. — TheKMantalk 07:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Yet another non-notable meme powered by flash crowd of anons. --Ragib 07:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Because it is a waste of Wikipedia space and serves no relevance. The article is in need of serious cleanup, and is very amateur. Matgraham 22:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete same old, same old. -- Francs2000 15:35, 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 KEEP. -Splashtalk 00:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longformacus[edit]

This page was created by a user who later turned out to be a vandal. As such, it is being nominated for Afd as a possible hoax. However, I haven't had time to research it and it may possibly be a valid article. -- Curps 16:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given the creator's contributions record, I approached with extreme scepticism. However, it googles nicely (look at this). I have removed the stuff I can't verify (Clarkson and the name's derivation) which admittedly doesn't leave much, but I vote keep as it stands. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs expansion but very definitely a real place --Deiz 12:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Deiz :: Supergolden 22:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Real place, and here's a source if anyone wants to expand the article: http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/longformacus/longformacus/ Thanks/wangi 09:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep place I know, and I have visited a number of times. Why is it a "hoax"? Because Scottish place names sound odd to some people's ears? --MacRusgail 11:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've corrected and expanded the article a bit, and removed the AfD notice since this is really a speedy keep. Thanks/wangi 11:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Real, verifiable, expanding as we speak and Wangi beat me to it with the Geograph image which I will now delete from my HD :-) Cactus.man ✍ 19:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy redirect, like libtard, to List of pejorative political puns. howcheng {chat} 19:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repug[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. POV and attack. Should be removed. - Mistrmind 01/19/2006

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I've heard people use this before, it's no more significant than other political slurs. Delete, unless we want an article on "demwit" et al. Rhobite 17:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Should already be on the list of pejorative political slogans (or whatever the title is) so no separate article is needed and no need for a redirect either. David | Talk 17:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When are the Donks going to learn not to use WP to attack the Grand Old Party? Ruby 17:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it unusual that Libtard is being marked for deletion, yet this article isn't. It's almost like the Wikipedia is slanting toward the left here? If we're going to define slurs, should there be equal treatment? - Mistrmind 01/20/2006
    • What do you mean? You marked Repug for deletion yourself! And based on this discussion, it looks like it will be deleted. I don't understand your complaint. Rhobite 18:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a place to have your POV and make personal attacks. --Terence Ong 17:46, 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. Mushroom 21:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nedim Hadrovich[edit]

I nearly speedied this but when I looked at the page history it's been around since September and has been edited by more than one user. Google brings up nothing interesting though. -- Francs2000 15:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 16:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. If this were true, it would be an easy keep. --Rob 16:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears this was created by a sneaky vandal 24.215.209.16 (talk · contribs), who changed The Godfather to make this person the director, instead of Francis Ford Coppola (which is an amazing accomplishment, given that the article claims "Nedim" was born long after the film was made). So, that's what the article means when it says he worked with Pacino. Other edits of the same user look ok, but hopefully people more familiar with them, then me can double check those articles. The fake credit lasted a couple days before it was fixed. So, I hope the other edits are legit (or were fixed if they weren't). --Rob 20:59, 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. -Splashtalk 00:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gazeebow Unit[edit]

Non-notable rap group [39], even when spelled a different way. Only article linking to this is the wonderful Skeet (slang). Also mentions the word "blog"... delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:44, Jan. 20, 2006

  • While Gazeebow Unit fame and popularity is limited to a small geographic area, that does not mean that it is insignificant. Their fans in St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada do not think that, and neither does Memorial University of Newfoundland (MUN) professor Philip Hiscock. On November 19, 2005, Hiscock presented a paper at a MUN Folklore Society conference titled "Gazeebow Unit: Local Language And Vernacularity In A St. John’s Rap Group". The conference focused on the issue of Newfoundland Folklore in the 21st century. Hiscock "explains their success by highlighting parallels of cultural relevance between Gazeebow Unit and more traditional forms of folk music", a quote taken from an article concerning the band in Volume 26 of The Muse, the student paper at Memorial. As they are an example of modern folklore in Newfoundland, I vote that their Wikipedia entry stay where it is. Hopefully, the article would evolve to include more concerning the reasoning behind their success and popularity and not just act as a biography of the band. So my vote, is keep it. ---Angelique Davis 08:24, 25 January 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 09:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pirate Alphabet[edit]

Not notable, original work/research, copyvio, and so on. Mikeblas 16:04, 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 09:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shane (slang)[edit]

Is this nonsense, or is this an actual insult? It's difficult to search for. I abstain until further information is obtained. Delete per Mikeblas. Fang Aili 16:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless verified. If verified may be suitable for transwiki. Essexmutant 17:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is something made-up in school one day. Shane Battier is an NBA player. -- Mikeblas 19:01, 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. --Deathphoenix 15:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Malenzi[edit]

Vanity entry on non-notable poker player. Just 6 Google hits (some from Wikipedia and mirrors) and no hits in Hendon Mob poker database Delete Essexmutant 16:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn incog 18:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previtera's Theorem[edit]

Delete. Another page bordering on grotesque. Apparently some math undergrad using Wikipedia as a "pre-print" repository for his "research" (which turns out to be a sub-trivial math statement with little practical use). See this page where the author mentions the Wikipedia article in question, and asks for comments on his new self-named "theorem" on a math forum. Original research, useless vanity, whatever you like. Phils 16:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Deathphoenix 15:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intonako[edit]

Article says they're famous, but i'm not finding any useful search results for +Intonako +band. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:39, Jan. 20, 2006

  • Delete unless someone adds sources that verify the claims that "Intonako" was notable. -Halidecyphon 16:57, 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 --Deathphoenix 15:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bua Loi[edit]

Bua Loi is also on wikibooks Melaen 16:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unless the article can be expanded to be something other than a dictionary definition. James084 16:50, 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. --Deathphoenix 15:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical persecution by atheists[edit]

Delete. Point-making and insubstantial. Part of a series of "Persection by..." articles which are unsuitable for an encycolpedia. -Unsigned by Vjam Here it is: --Vjam 16:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this material belongs in Communism or Atheism. Please sign your edits.- Halidecyphon 16:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cannot be anything other than POV. Atheism is not an ideology, it's a shared lack of belief. It is not possible to group together the actions of atheists and ascribe their actions to their shared beliefs. David | Talk 16:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's about atheists who did persecute non-atheists. It's not really about atheists as a whole joining in, it's about atheist philosophies that did persecute. Historical persecution by Christians is also limited to the Christian denominations that did persecute. Various Christian denominations were isolationalist, apolitical, or opposed to religious persecution in all forms. Added to this Persecution of atheists establishes treating atheists as a group that is presumably persecuted by various theists. This is simply the corollary of that.--T. Anthony 14:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar as atheism is a statement of faith on a subject where evidentiary support is impossible, I can't agree that Atheism constitututes a "lack of belief" - on the contrary, many atheists that I have met have been more devoted to their religious beliefs (viz., "there is no God") than some Christians I have met have been in theirs (viz., "there is a God"). What you're describing is not atheism, but [[agnoticism]. Simon Dodd 23:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on the AfD, but most of the persecutions were committed out of secularism more than out of atheism. So a rename might be in order. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 17:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — because the article content relates to persecution by certain communist governments, rather than by "atheists" per say. But I must certainly disagree with the nominators assertion that the "persecution by" articles are unencyclopedic. — RJH 17:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RJH. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the relationship with atheists as such is not established. What remains are just allegations about real events. gidonb 20:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but move any information to new or renamed articles. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would be in favor of getting rid of the entire "Persecution By" series, but as I understand it, the "Christian" and "Muslim" pages have survived AfD. I think these pages are almost always going to be loaded with POV mischaracterizations. Grandmasterka 01:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the original nominator's statement that these persecution by articles are unencyclopedic. The "atheism doesn't relate" here thing has some merit, but not as much as it's made out. Hoxha declared his state an atheist-state in a way that is different than other Communists and somewhat noteworthy. Other Communists, including Stalin, were occasionally willing to use religions to service some other agenda or pit churches against each other. Hoxha, and the Cultural Revolution, were unusual in the way they went after religion for atheistic aims. The Cultural Revolution article is currently large, but doesn't deal that well with the anti-religion issue. If you prefer "Religious persecution by Communists" though I could maybe see that. I'm going to move it to that if this is tolerated.--T. Anthony 14:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that atheism isn't a unifying belief system and it's not logical to lump together things done by atheists and link that to their atheism. It's comparable to, say, Historical persecution by people with blue eyes: having blue eyes is not a way people group together, because it's not a common belief. Secularism is an ideology which is often confused with atheism, and Historical persecution by secular ideologies might be possible. However, I can't think of a secular ideology which persecuted religion and wasn't also Communist. David | Talk 14:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't move it to "Religious persecution by Communists" if it gets deleted. In fact I can't do that as long as it's on delete. And I'm aware atheists isn't a unifying belief system. However the article is not called "Historical persecution by Atheism" and deals with the fact these are philosophies with atheism as a component. The naming was sloppy, but so is the naming of all these. It can be easily argued that pretty much all Persecution of atheists occurs because of specific political-religion mergers in different nations. This is simply concerning the merger of atheist philosophies with political systems.--T. Anthony 14:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as violation of WP:POINT KrazyCaley 23:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having Abrahamic faiths as the only "persecution by" is already essentially a kind of pointmaking. Also I actually moved this to "persecution by Communists", but moved it back as that screwed up the connection to the delete page.--T. Anthony 03:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a violation of WP:POINT... just a bad article. An important distinction is that the Atheism of the people helped to cause the persecution... the fact that they persecuted and happened to be Atheists is irrelevant. I am open to such an article if it could be well written. gren グレン ? 06:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I did a "Religious persecution in Communist nations" article after this gets deleted, and it uses some of this, would that be acceptable or a violation of the rules?--T. Anthony 14:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know about the rules, but would suggest that an article entitled "Religion in Communist nations" (as far as I can see this doesn't exist yet) might be welcome and less likely to be criticised under WP:POINT. --Vjam 15:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Religion in Communist nations I don't think exists. Although there is Religion in the Soviet Union which comes closest to being such an article. The related Society of the Godless is maybe the closest to being in purpose similar to this article itself, although it's describing an organization within the former USSR. Still nothing on Communist nations in general as far as I can tell.--T. Anthony 16:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. The article isn't very good as it is, but it's a legitimate topic. I don't think it can be objected to because it should be "communists". There's no logical connection betwen belief in communual economics and disbelief in God. The point is that Marxism was, as part of its whole philosophy, atheistic. It was the fact that atheism was the "official religion" of these states that was significant. The reality is that what needs to be discussed is the connection between the rise of "progressive" secularism/scepticism and the emergence of persecutory pracitces from some anti-religious factions. So the title is a problem, and maybe "secularists" would be better, since it would be desirable to include the persecutions conducted by the officially Deist regime of Revolutionary France. However any title might be disputed ("...group X weren't secularists/agnostics/atheists/unbelievers/sceptics/freethinkers..."), and that's not a good reason for disallowing a topic. Paul B 21:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Could be expanded to show modern day persecution, etc through current overtly secular laws, etc. - Gt 13:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A decidedly diffident keep. If the topic is a legitimate one - and I think this one is no less legitimate than the other "persecution by..." articles - but the article is POV or otherwise needing improvement, my maxim would be to improve, not delete. It strikes me as nothing short of lazy to request the deletion an article whose legitimacy is not seriously disputed, instead of taking the time to improve it. Simon Dodd 23:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm willing to rename it "by secularist ideologies" if it survives.--T. Anthony 00:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not a fan of any of the "Persecution by..." articles; atheism could cover a wide set of beliefs and is too often confused with political entities. (Of course, you could say that about any of these other articles too... Not worthy articles.) Grandmasterka 02:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting all the "persecution by" articles would be good by me. Persecution by secularist ideologies seems as historical as the ones that survived and in retrospect I should've named it that. However now that the Jewish ones have died possibly the others are on the ropes too.--T. Anthony 04:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Spaghetti Monster: Spaghettigram Divination[edit]

Not notable and possible spam. Appears to be advertising for book by creator, who has also attempted to insert related linkspam on other articles. Loren 16:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we saved the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but this is just neologism and possiby spam. -- Egil 19:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Can mention that Flying Spaghetti Monster has had "scisms" on that page. --BadSeed 01:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Flying Spaghetti Monster is very notable (and to me, a hilarious but necessary movement.) This, however, is irrelevant since FSM is not intended as a real religion. (Who knows, maybe in the future...) Grandmasterka 02:01, 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 09:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CJCJ-FM[edit]

Advertizing, fails to establish notability.

  • Delete unless rewritten as an encyclopedia article. Halidecyphon 16:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that article has been rewritten and advertizing removed. Withdraw nom. -Halidecyphon 19:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations and per established precedent, articles on radio stations are permitted on Wikipedia. Keep; I'll personally clean it up since Canadian media is a topic I generally focus on anyway. Bearcat 23:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep licensed radio stations. Haikupoet 05:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Conforms to proper article style and content now. --Dogbreathcanada 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precident. --Rob 08:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Property insurance and add a link to Casualty insurance. --Deathphoenix 15:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Property & casualty insurance[edit]

Already exist separate Property and Casualty pages Avi 17:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Delete pn Avi 17:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is a common term in the insurance industry and this article serves a legitimate function, pointing people who look for the term to the appropriate page. Redirecting is not possible; which of the two distinct articles would you redirect to? Finally, since it is a common term, it will undoubtedly be recreated by someone else if it deleted, and the next person may not be aware of the existing articles. -- DS1953 talk 06:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Property insurance and add there a "see also" to Casualty insurance. But not keep. --Perfecto 06:27, 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. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Episodes of 12 oz. Mouse. Johnleemk | Talk 15:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of 12 oz. Mouse[edit]

This is FAQ territory, and not is suitable for Wikipedia. This page is a car wreck, and attracts a lot of confused anonymous users to add information which isn't formatted in a way that is appropriate on Wikipedia. Put simply, we don't need this much 12 oz. Mouse information on Wikipedia. WMarsh 17:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve, or merge back to main article; Adult Swim series are notable, with a large fan base. I don't like deleting an article on the basis of how it might be edited in the future, although I suspect WMarsh has a point. MCB 06:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be the correct action to take in most cases, but sane upkeep of this page is impossible. Suggestions of large edits are met with resistance (see discussion page), and the show fan-base doesn't intersect much with the set of experienced Wikipedians. If this page was re-written there would be very little content left, and it would be a nightmare to maintain. I should also point out that all of this content originally was part of the main article which was later split into episode/character articles when it became unwieldy - merging is just going to bring us back to square one. I came to the main article after the split and made large edits in an attempt to "save" it - I don't think the same will work for the episode/character articles. WMarsh 12:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see little wrong with the current article. Prehapes simply fixing the captions a bit but other than that it it seems fine. N1person 02:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the AfD vote is pointless due most of the votes coming from 12 oz Mouse fans. It would be good if some experienced Wikipedians would join in. WMarsh 02:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes of 12 oz. Mouse[edit]

This is FAQ territory, and not is suitable for Wikipedia. This page is a car wreck, and attracts a lot of confused anonymous users to add information which isn't formatted in a way that is appropriate on Wikipedia. Put simply, we don't need this much 12 oz. Mouse information on Wikipedia. WMarsh 17:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The show is modernist to the most extreme sense....
  • GOD, NO! Please leave this critter up for a while so I have a better shot at figuring this show out. PLEASE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.129.233 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep and improve, or merge back to main article; Adult Swim series are notable, with a large fan base. I don't like deleting an article on the basis of how it might be edited in the future, although I suspect WMarsh has a point. MCB 06:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be the correct action to take in most cases, but sane upkeep of this page is impossible. Suggestions of large edits are met with resistance (see discussion page), and the show fan-base doesn't intersect much with the set of experienced Wikipedians. If this page was re-written there would be very little content left, and it would be a nightmare to maintain. I should also point out that all of this content originally was part of the main article which was later split into episode/character articles when it became unwieldy - merging is just going to bring us back to square one. I came to the main article after the split and made large edits in an attempt to "save" it - I don't think the same will work for the episode/character articles. WMarsh 12:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up to conform to standards. Maybe merge with 12 oz. Mouse if there's little content afterwards, although this is a renewed show for which the episodes will probably eventually require their own page, regardless of amount of content. IMO it seems a little ludicrous to say "we don't need this much _____ information on Wikipedia." Not to mention discouraging to the users who provided all this information in the first place. If upkeep is impossible, wouldn't it be better to just lock the page after it is cleaned up, or have someone watching to reformat or revert edits, rather than taking down all the information on the show? Please, let's not take down perfectly valid information due to a formatting dispute. Mac4drew


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dah-ve Chodan[edit]

copy/pasted from IMDB.com Melaen 17:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Actors and actresses are a dime a dozen on IMDB. The author of this article did not take the trouble to assert notability. Ruby 17:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nn-bio --Perfecto 06:29, 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 Delete. --Deathphoenix 15:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dalek/m3u[edit]

links to 3 ogg files uploaded on wikipedia Melaen 17:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the reasons of the article's existence are [[40]]. it should be the list contained on a .m3u file, I don't know if the page is really needed but itcould stay --Melaen 17:50, 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 a hoax. Good catch, Sjorford. FCYTravis 05:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Resistance of Calvin Hobbs, Richard Barnstrom[edit]

I call bluff on this one — an unpublished novel that doesn't Google, by an author who doesn't Google, with the rights lost in a fire, and a title suspiciously similar to a popular long-running comic strip. I'd be quite happy to be proved wrong with actual references, but I won't hold my breath. — sjorford (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sjorford seems correct about this one. Dick Clark 19:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . Hobbes is spelled Hobbes. Ruby 20:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Barnstrom Does not Google. Does not appear in an author search in Georgetown University Library. Appears to be fictitious author of fictitious book The Resistance of Calvin Hobbs which is up for deletion Fightindaman 20:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merged debate follows

  • Delete what appears to be a fairly elaborate hoax. Absolutely zero Google hits is implausible, and the final para is not a convinving explanation. Merged two debates as clearly linked. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:29, 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 userfied as creator's is User:Cadmaniak. howcheng {chat} 18:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Cadman[edit]

Delete - this person is not famous GriffenMac 17:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article does not assert this person's importance or significance. Therefore it is a candidate for speedy deletion under Articles 7, "unremarkable people". I have applied the appropriate {{db-bio}} tag. Sliggy 18:34, 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 09:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriella_scale[edit]

I nominated this because I cannot find a single reference for this on google or any other service...cannot find any connection between person mentioned and Cadbury...either pure nonsense or HIGHLY insignificant. User who created article is a first time editor, whose only contribution has been this article and mention of the "gabriella scale" on the chocolate page. Suggest deletion unless creator can come up with significant references. Phantasmo 17:56, 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 15:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pepsi Moon Glasses[edit]

unencyclopedic merchandising item Melaen 18:00, 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 --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sententia[edit]

made in school Melaen 18:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Googling "Sententia" provides millions of hits..."Sententia" and "cards" and "game" provide a lot less, and none seem to refer to this game. Phantasmo 18:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable beyond two schools. Mukadderat
  • Delete. This is not what is typically meant by "stuff made up in school one day", but it still shows no signs of encyclopedic notability. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not the place for this -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 22:06, 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 09:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpo[edit]

Non-notable search engine. Reads like an ad. Was written by Trumpo tattona. --Wrathchild (talk) 18:18, 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.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy rediect and merge. —Geni 00:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nosairi[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion but does not qualify. Reason below is copied from Talk:Nosairi. howcheng {chat} 18:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this article should be deleted, since the subject is already covered (and better so) in the article "alawite". also, the page name is considered pejorative by alawis. Arre 18:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I have seperated the alawis and nosairi needlessly. It looks like the nosairi have become much more insisten upon their islamness. Most descriptions I have read about the nosairi have been from older sources, and this has made it seem as if the two are entirely different sects. So, yes, this entry should be deleted.Nygdan1-20-2006

  • merge and redirect is a solution here, since it is a different spelling of one pejorative term. Mukadderat 20:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge and redirect - sounds good. Cuñado - Talk 22:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was moot (likely outcome: delete). The article was speedy deleted. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free George Jackson[edit]

Nonsense page. Delete. Pentasyllabic 18:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Above user, creator of the Free George Jackson article and likely the same person as John locke, has created Chris Caunce Scandal twice and it was deleted both times. Even if it was a real event, as Ruby said, there's no article to merge it into. --Pentasyllabic 18:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Well the chris caunce scandal was actually part of the event, and the name given to what happened, the reason that i havent uploaded the article fully is that there are legal restrictions imposed on it, so specific details can not be released so apppologies if my descriptions are vague. with regards to being not able to link the article to another is beacause the chris caunce scadal has been deleted to no real reason, perhaps, another link could be made to brookside or liverpool— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.20.98 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete -- There was a "Free George Jackson" movement-- but in 1960s America, promoted by socialist Angela Davis, not 1980s Liverpool. See: George_Jackson (Black_Panther) and Socialist Worker Online (From her “respectable” position as a lecturer in philosophy at the University of California, Davis had played a key role in the Soledad Brothers Defence Committee to “Free George Jackson”.) This version is just unverifiable nonsense from a known Wiki-vandal.—LeFlyman 00:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Visit http://xrrf.blogspot.com/2002/10/brookside-story-to-mark-slippage-of.html, with particular reference to paragraph 8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.31.253 (talk • contribs)
  • This blog entry was copied into the Brookside article under the heading 'The Brookside Story', but the two edits by 82.12.31.253 that introduced this have since been reverted because it's a straight copy/paste, and is not in keeping with the encyclopaedic entry. -TonyW 13:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, this is a reference to a UK soap opera promotion, not a real world, nor encyclopedically significant entry, hence this article should be deleted.—LeFlyman 19:25, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rapuncula[edit]

made in school see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sententia Melaen 19:09, 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. Mushroom 06:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wbsa[edit]

Seems like a non-notable student organization. Nothing links here, and the article says: WBSA members are invited to share their views and edit the page accordingly. Which sounds like the article is intended to be something the 'pedia is not. -- Egil 19:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete What we have here is an attempt to create an alumni blog on Wikipedia. Ruby 19:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonnotable association. Mukadderat 20:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 22:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nn-club --Perfecto 06:34, 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 exemplary delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exemplary[edit]

An exemplary example of Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Transwiki to Wiktionary if possible Lukas 19:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Dicdef and probably cut and pasted from somewhere. Ruby 19:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Would anyone really object to a speedy? -R. fiend 20:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 22:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It -- This word has many meanings (see OED). It helps us to have it here with a clear definition -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.218.85 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 22 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 speedied. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 22:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will McWhinney, Jr.[edit]

An article about a single member of a local chapter of the Sierra Club. Nowhere near notable enough for an encyclopedia article, and just barely not a candidate to speedy. Delete. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 19:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Not notable and an attempt to publish personal info about a wikipedia user. Plus there is no sourced material there, and he not listed in the L.A. Sierra Club website. Google search yields zero hits [41] Marcuse 20:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Oppose Deletion"" Article notable about a Sierra club member, community activist, and son of another biographical entry. no personal info is released in the article, it is in fact a positive piece.Jonah Ayers 20:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm going to speedy this because it seems to have been created as part of a dispute in which Jonah has published personal details of a user, and this may be part of that attempt. There are no credible third-party sources that I can see, so the chances of it surviving a vote are minimal to zero. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:14, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mofunzone (second nomination)[edit]

This article was deleted by a previous AFD, but has been recreated by User:Jasonblake69. I am re-listing it because only two people weighed in on the previous AFD, and one of the reasons to delete was "not a vanity page but an attack on the web site's business practices". I think this page should be deleted because it has no claim to notability or importance other than "ranked 23rd of the Top 50 Favourite Sites among wired youth in Canada", which is not exactly convincing. silsor 19:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 160,000+ google hits including Amazon.com. I'll probably never use this site, but doesnt mean it isnt notable for others. Phantasmo 19:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Notable for others" doesn't mean it needs to have an entry in an encyclopedia. I visit a lot of web sites that are notable to me and no doubt to a large number of people, but I would never dream of writing an encyclopedia article on them. silsor 19:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And as somebody pointed out below, there are under a thousand real google hits (my search gives 547 instead of 666 like he found). silsor 21:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having less than a thousand "real" Google hits (not insinuating 547+ is low) does not mean the site isn't notable. Newgrounds for example only has 567 real Google hits, there are more sites contributed to Wikipedia with even lower Google hits that I can list if requested. Keep JasonBlake69 14:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At least this one has a third-party recognition of notability. Ruby 19:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where? silsor 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • [42] Scroll down to #23 Ruby 20:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I mean, where's the recognition of notability? That's a collection of data, a list of sites kids in one country like to visit. silsor 21:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please refer to Alexa for a world wide and all age ranking of the site in question. And If you do a comparison with sites listed in Wikipedia, you will find that MoFunZone does not only rank with those sites but in many cases ranks much higher. Again I protest that wikipedia keep the site. JasonBlake69 14:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not notable. only 666 (!:-) non-repeated google hits, with big portion of them from word harvester sites. Mukadderat 19:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has an Alexa ranking of 1,509 [43] -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per high Alexa rating. ×Meegs 05:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to its high popularity, Alexa rating and 6/10 Google page rank. JasonBlake69 13:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore Halo[edit]

Delete A Halo fansite run by a 13 year old? Completely non noteable. It doesn't even get on the first page of google when you search it. Differentgravy 19:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Forums, blogs, newsgroups and chatrooms are inherently non-notable. Ruby 19:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete my inclusionist tendencies lose out here. Completely non notable. Phantasmo 19:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletenon notab. Mukadderat 19:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, and I'm a pretty hardcore Halo fan myself. KrazyCaley 23:02, 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. -Doc ask? 00:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aladin (magician)[edit]

The Aladin article was nominated for deletion on 01/01/06 and January 11 2006. The result of the discussions were keep and No consensus, respectively. An archived record of these discussions can be found here and here.

The first "keep" vote was based on this version of the article, which turned out to be full of nonverifiable facts (a wikipedically correct way to say it was full of lies).

After the artcle was stripped down to what is verifiable, the second "no consensus" vote was the result of some people thinking it would be smart not to delete the article, but make it into a redirect to Aladdin. Since I am insisting on a real deletion of the article , after a small revert war and an exchange of insults (I am sorry I got myself dragged into it) I moved aladin to aladin (magician) and now initiating a new vote.

Note to closing admin: The voting section below is filled with sockpuppets, meatpuppets and strawman sockpuppets. Close at your own risk. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Besides two new users voting delete, I see only experienced editors here. Your alarmist comment is unwarranted and should be removed. -- JJay 15:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're correct. My comment should read as it now stands. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever makes you happy. I doubt that an admin needs your help though. -- JJay 15:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain that I do not need yours. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a misleading comment. Be careful what you call original research. Original research is information that is not gather from a reputable source. Are you honestly calling The Times supplement magazine, the National Geographic Channel, British government press releases in the cause of the London mayoral team as not from a reputable source? Englishrose 18:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a corect comment. Primary sources are not appropriate to wikipedia. Primary source are for experts. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, i.e., on opinions of proven experts, who can evaluate corrrectness and validity of primary sources. An interview, even in most reputable newspaper is not a critical material. A newspaper bears no responsibility for what aladin may bable about himself. Government press releases say nothing about the importance of this person. Your opinion about matters nothing. it is your original research of small shreds of information. Mukadderat 20:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a very new user Mukadderat, I would strongly suggest that you cease making these types of unfounded accusations and familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability and other policies. All articles here are constructed from bits of information. The policy is very specific. Notably, it states that: "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources" -- JJay 00:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a very old used JJay, I would strongly suggest to refresh your knowledge of many ither rules. Foe exmple Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I fail to understand how a person can be notable, if nearly all information about him is what he says about him. The only independent source is a line in the list of London city hall staff. It is not a big deal to find info about a person on 'net. Pray tell me what text from his article stub says that this person is notable? For example, care to explain me what this 'alkhemi' is? How many persons? What projects? What did he intersesting do as Vice-Chair? You intentionally dodging the question of his notability. Instead, you twisting the issue as if it is a problem to prove that he exisits. Of course, he does exist! but he is a nobody. To prove otherwise would be original research I am talking about. Mukadderat 04:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • After 3 AfDs and endless talk page discussions I am aware of your opinion. Please maintain your opinion (which to use your own words above, "matters nothing"). However, your refusal to accept any published sources, such as the Times article, is a violation of policy ("Verifiability, not truth"). Many experienced editors have pointed out that your statements regarding primary sources and continued willfull distortion of the meaning of original research are further violations. As you do not understand policy here regarding verification, sources or original research- and seem bent on creating your own- we have nothing to discuss. -- JJay 09:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Times" article is aladin's word of mouth. It is not a critical essay of a profesional magician. Two questions to you. (1) What exactly is written in Times article? Why I have an impresion that nobody read it? (2) Times article spells his name as "Aladdin" (capital 'a', etc. ) I find it suspicious that at his website aladin convenienly clipped out the name from the quotation. Are we speaking about the same person? What the heck is this alkemi? Does it exist anywhere but the brain of ladin? That is original research. You conveniently ignore all raised doubts. If you are going to blindly copy in wikipeida everything you read in newspapers, yuo are in big trouble, my naive friend. Mukadderat 16:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would strongly suggest that you cease making these types of unfounded accusations and familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability and other policies. All articles here are constructed from bits of information. The policy is very specific. Notably, it states that: "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources" -- JJay 16:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • YOu are dodging my direct doubts and delve into policies and accusations that I am new (and hence stupid). OK. Fine. Her is your policy: Wikipedia:Notability (people): the most relevant entry is "Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers". The next one is "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage". The current article does not show fitness to any of these. To claim that aladin is "widely recognized" or "significant pres coverage" is a theory not supported neither primary nor secondary sources, hence original research (with the possible exception of aladin himself, who is not reputable source). Mukadderat 17:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Start with the Times feature and make up your own mind. -- JJay 17:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The person is not proved to be notable. The evidence discussed in talk:aladin (magician) is very scant (excluding aladin's web page) and leaves reasonable doubts even whether they speak about the same person. So at the moment attempts to prove this person amount to original research (and fruitless so far IMO). Mukadderat 19:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: User account created 2 January 2006, and entered the Aladin discussion within ~36 hours. Elonka 02:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I cannot stand when AfDs are repeated so quickly, seemingly until the desired result is achieved. Give the page a chance to breathe, see if it can be worked with. If in 60 days it still wasnt up to par, I'd think harder about deletion. Phantasmo 19:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You missed the point of my explanation. The stripped page was not deleted on a pure technicality. Mukadderat 20:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No mention of any outstanding illusions invented by this magician. Make it disappear. Ruby 19:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Workerbee 23:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. User's second edit. -- JJay 00:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and I object to that re-direct comment quite frankly, the result was no-conensus, keep NOT no-consensus;re-direct. Further to that, the man is viable, is noticable and without sockpuppets the vote was 15-5 in favour of keep first time round. Sadly I feel the allegations to sock-puppeting is getting pretty bad because anyone daring to have an opinion is being called one at the moment. --RBlowes 19:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: account created 2 January 2006, entered deletion discussions (Cindy the Dolphin) immediately. Elonka 02:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but WP:RFE. Percy Snoodle 19:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was long discussion, and supporters had their very fat chance to expand. Mukadderat 20:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with expansion is that most of the sources on this person turn out to come from the subject of the article xyrself, and to be either exaggerations or outright falsehoods. Uncle G 13:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep,During the first deletion I seemed fairly sure of his notability but for the second one I was less sure. However, I have thought about it logically and I present to you the evidence:
    • Fact- There was a 4-page supplement in The Times regarding aladin. People outside the UK will claim this is journalistic and from an unreliable source. However, The Times takes steps to ensure that the information contained in their newspapers is correct and they very rarely (if ever) fail for hoaxes.
    • Fact- This is the most certain of the facts. Aladin was vice chair for Ken Livingstone’s Cultural Strategy in the mayoral assembly. He is described in the press released as “a magician and live artist” [44]. Several of the users who are against aladin have described this as unreliable. However, vigerous checks are made by the Mayor’s office. They have access to previous work information and other databases. They have to check them vigerously as if they are found to be fruedalant the bad publicity would be tremendous. They also have check all officials due to the threat of terroism.
    • Fact- Aladin’s daughter appeared on the National Geographic Channel. The summary of the documentry includes
    • “Aladin is a London-based magician of international acclaim, who was brought to that city as a child”[45]. Although the documentry concentrates on his daughter, it also features aladin himself. Some might say that the National Geographic Channel is unreliable. Let me assure you this, the National Geographic Channel is a worldwide channel and also checks the content it provides.
    • Thus, the above three sources are extremely reliable and checks will have been made for the conent that derives for them as any bad publicity received could ruin their reputation. All three assures it’s customers that the conent it provides is accurate. I have no reason to doubt this. If you have doubts e-mail them and find out.
    • Fact- Aladin is also featured in the “Book of Cool” demonstrating how to pull off card tricks. This is an actual book and can be verified and bought. Aladin is in it. No question about it. Furthermore, Aladin was interview for the Family Tech Show in regards to this book. [46]
    • Thus, my vote is a Strong Keep as I have done my research. I have discounted all information that I see as unreliable and I have seen a magician notable enough for his inclusion in wikipedia. The only reason why I can see that the notability of aladin is still debated is due to the original article that completely over hyped him. aladin may not be a Darren Brown but he is certainly a magician with a colourful culture who has a cult status, especially in Bangledesh and India.
    • Englishrose 20:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • re:Fact: in 1998 Times (which was not The Times, but its saturday entertaniment supplement the Saturday Times Magazine, with less rigorous jurnalism, see aladin's own website for details) the person "Aladdin" is described, not "aladin"; you have yet to prove this is the same person. And I don't see his fame increased since 1998. (and I see it quite suspicious that aladin conveniently clipped out the name from the quotation shown at his website.)
      • re:Fact: There were hundreds of thousands of people sitting in city hall offices around the globe. What exactly notable he did in this position?
      • re:Fact: this is part of a series "Running For Freedom" about various immigrants. So here Roxanne his daugter is notable not he
      • re:Fact: what is the notability of the Book of Cool itself? Any public library has hundreds of hokus-pokus books.
      • Mukadderat 20:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1 The Saturday Times Magazine is The Times' supplement as you said but it's still written and belongs to The Times and is checked in exactly the same way. If the Saturday Times Magazine has false info then it rubs off on the newspaper, which creates bad publicity, thus the same checks have to be made.
        • 2 He played an important role in Ken Livingstone's campaign for London mayor, that's what makes him different. Plus, he is described as a notable magician in the press release. Every claim they make gets scutanised especially by those running against Ken Lingstone for mayor. Thus, they can't afford to make mistakes.
        • 3 The very fact that the National Geographic Channel describes him as a notable magician is important as they have to research their claims and subjects. Yes as I said, checks are made by the above three.
        • 4 It's a book that features notable people in their fields. For example, the pool section is by Thorsten HohmannEuropean Straight Pool champion and German 9-ball champion and the Rugby section is by Carlos Spencer, New Zealand's 4th test points top scorer. Englishrose 21:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Derren Brown, not Darren. Uncle G 13:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Where is the fire? Per Phantasmo and the new evidence from Englishrose, give this article the time it needs to be improved. Grandwazir 20:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that you must work hard to find any info about this person, despite very long discussion, says that he is nonnotable. Mukadderat 20:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because the infomation isn't readily on hand through google doesn't mean someone isn't notable. I'm a resident the UK and I can definally say that the Times is a excellent newspaper and doesn't usually fall for hoaxes. Needs to be drasically improved not deleted. Grandwazir 20:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd like to raise a full-blown sockpuppet alarm here: Grandwazir has a editing pattern that is very similar to the already proven sockpuppets "Tiksustoo, Autumnleaf, Robsmommy, Grroin, Aloodum, and Aboutoxfordstudent": Few edits, and while the range of articles is diverse, it correlates very closely to those other UIDs. Additionaly, the first deletion vote has been filled with sockpuppets, so there is quite a high chance that will just try again here. Peter S. 21:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • User:Grandwazir has accomplished hundreds of edits, and has been around since July 2005. Considering that, and his pattern of edits, he does not look like a sockpuppet to me. On the other hand, User:Mukadderat does. The account has only been around since January 2, 2006, and he jumped into the Aladin discussion within 48 hours of starting on Wikipedia. Elonka 21:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Although I will admit that I have only been contributing in a regular fashion fairly recently I don't think you could call me a sockpuppet. In fact looking at your talk page I see you have a habit of accusing people of being sockpuppets when they don't agree with you. This isn't the way to conduct yourself around wikipedia and it won't get you any respect. Prehaps you should reread WP:CIVIL. Grandwazir 00:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You just got me thinking here but didn't User:Mukadderat step up his actions on deleting this article the very moment User:DreamGuy got blocked? Take that as you will. --RBlowes 23:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • DreamGuy is rolling on the floor laughing now. If not my intervention, DreamGuy would have safely killed this article. But I have a different idea about wikipedia rules. Mukadderat 01:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm sure he has a wonderful sense of humour enough to take my comment lightly, although your ideals and DreamGuys ideals seem to be common, just you go about it in different yet similiar ways. Unless I see otherwise, that's probably how it will remain. --RBlowes 01:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Only out of respect to you as an editor I am politely pointing out that DreamGuy got himself blocked exactly because of edit war with me. I hope this notice will trigger some sense of humor in other people here as well. Mukadderat 02:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see nothing verifiable or notable. Can I also request the admin closing this AfD checks for sockpuppets, since the other AfDs for this article also show signs of sockpuppetry. Ian13ID:540053 20:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused Is there a WP:AUTO problem here? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no WP:Auto problem. All the original information in the article has been completely wiped clean (the article was originally over hyped to the point that it looked like a publicity exercise). Since it's been wiped clean, it has written by several experienced editors. Englishrose 20:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • the "experienced editors" failed to notice holes in their original research. Mukadderat 21:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Be careful what you call original research. Original research is information that is not gather from a reputable source. Are you honestly calling The Times supplement magazine, the National Geographic Channel, British government press releases in the cause of the London mayoral team as not from a reputable source? Englishrose 23:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable enough. And btw, the first deletion vote was seriously spoiled by Aladin's sockpuppets [47], which allowed him to vote at least 4 times [48], so I'd like to ask for a new sockpuppet check to the outcome of this vote, too. Thanks. Peter S. 21:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes ur right. Without the sockpuppets in the last vote, the out come would have 15-5 in favour of keep rather than 19-5. Englishrose 21:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. David | Talk 21:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see you are running for Arbcom. I'd suggest you to practice explaining your decisions, then. Mukadderat 21:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per Englishrose. Isn't there some rule about bringing substantially the same article to AfD Three times in less than a month!? If there isn't perhaps we need to think about it. Jcuk 21:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You didn't look into my explanations carefully: first, it was not substantially the same. the first one was bullshitting. The second vote failed on technicality. So indeed, we need to think abut it: how come the first nonsense version was kept? How people vote without looking into essense? Mukadderat 21:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the first vote got a "keep" vote because people assumed that all those false references where true. And also because Aladin voted at least 4 times. Those references are now pretty much gone. And yes, the second vote failed on technicality, so third time's the charm :-) Peter S. 21:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That essence you speak of goes very deep BOTH ways I may point out. There is some extremely obnoxious behaviour on both sides of the spectrum, it would be handy to look at both sides rather than just the points Mukadderat and Englishrose point out here. Also Peter S. I may point out you're doing exactly what I'm talking about here, you have no proof at all that voters are Aladin himself or his fans or whatever figment you to fabricate. In fact I think I'll stoop to your level right now and say that everyone voting Delete are actually accounts owned by Ali baba who is quite annoyed his old enemy Aladin has suddenly gained a rapport with some people! Mind I mention your slate page that was highlighted earlier on? I'll leave that to someone else to post. --RBlowes 21:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Though the original votes were "Keep" and "No consensus", there seems to be a vendetta against this page. The main culprit is User:DreamGuy who keeps redirecting the page without consensus, and User:Mukadderat who has nominated the article for deletion again, for the third time in as many weeks. A thoroughly referenced page is available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eenasul_Fateh&diff=prev&oldid=35951929 . Elonka 21:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is your original research of collecting bits into one place. It remains to prove that everything is about the same person. And his notability is still not seen. And there is nothing wrong with a vendetta against suspected garbage. Mukadderat 22:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Be careful what you call original research. Original research is information that is not gather from a reputable source. Are you honestly calling The Times supplement magazine, the National Geographic Channel, British government press releases in the cause of the London mayoral team as not from a reputable source? Englishrose 23:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am saying that there is no reason to think that these small pieces reputable sources speak about the same person. The information is disconnected bits. Also, no one of these sources establishes significant notability. The Times article says "you probably never heard about this man". Newspapers write about millions of people, and not all of them are notable. his notability as a magician or as a member of city council is not established: what exaclty he did? Mukadderat 00:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:AUTO. Rewrite contains provable innacuricies. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC) still confused. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Aladin is fully deserving of inclusion in this project as per my votes and comments in the two previous Afds. This is becoming sad and pathetic. -- JJay 22:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is a somewhat marginal articel, and should be improved. But I think there is some reasonable evidence of notabiliy, and shown above. To be clear, i am opting for keep with the assumption that the article would NOT be redirected to Alladin or any similar page. DES (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and don't redirect without editorial consensus. Durova 00:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable enough to me. Why is this so contentious? He's a magician! Grandmasterka 02:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, as per Englishrose. Bjelleklang - talk 03:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • FACT: User:English Rose constantly presents sources that have turned out to be false and hoaxed, she did so on the first vote and is no doing so again.
    • FACT: There was RAMPANT proven sockpuppeting on both the original creation of the articles and votes. It's very likely that there were some accounts used that could not be traced using purely techinical means.
    • FACT: We now suddenly have all sorts of newbies jumping in to vote keep based upon these forged sources, YET AGAIN.
    • FACT: If this article survives this vote, all you are doing is proving that hoaxers can blatantly spam Wikipedia and get away with it thanks to use of sockpuppets and people not taking the time to look into when they are getting lied to.
  • Strong delete of article, but preserving talk pages and history to retain proof of the sockpuppeting and blatant fraud so we can follow these spammer's edits elsewhere to remove furhter corruption to this encyclopedia. DreamGuy 03:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fact- There will be checks on the sock puppets this time.
    • Fact- Are you saying that the government press releases is a hoax? Are you honesty saying that articles in The Times are a hoax or the National Geographic Channel is a hoax? Please recognise these sources.
    • Fact- This is coming from a guy who has been blocked for persuing a personal vendatta against the article. Englishrose 07:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I'm here, have you even looked at those sources? Englishrose 07:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • FACT: I am not a newbie, I am not a sockpuppet, I do my own fact-checking, and I still vote Strong Keep. Elonka 04:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Elonka, please don't vote "keep" in bold two times, it might confuse the admins, thanks. Peter S. 12:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Removed. And thanks for reformatting the page, it's much more readable now. Elonka 00:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ditto. Grandmasterka 04:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Notability not established, NG reference not on him as a magician, no independent sources of information can be found (most sources are "interviews"!!). --Ragib 03:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I laid out my reasoning at length in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aladin. That and my weak keep still stand. Uncle G 13:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Rob 18:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Should have been nuked as vanity the first time. --Calton | Talk 01:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though the very first version of the article did have unfounded claims, I believe the magician is notable. Check here for a list of press clippings. The problem is verification, since not all of the sources are on Google, which makes it difficult to refute claims of fraud. The article has thus been stripped down to only sources which are verifiable via search engine, which, granted, makes it look a bit weak. Even at this bare minimum though, I believe that it still meets the standard for notability. Elonka 02:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You still don't "get it": it is alreayd proven you cannot believe this guy when he writes about himself. Care to notice that all these clippings are older than 2000, so that it is very difficult to verify, whether some of these one-liners are indeed about him? He was almost unknown 6 years ago and totally unknown today. That's how your dedicated original research is to be interpreted. He is nobody. Mukadderat 04:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mukadderat, as JJay pointed out to you above, you are new to Wikipedia (having just started on January 2, 2006 and jumped into this discussion almost immediately), and you should be careful what you describe as original research. All articles in Wikipedia are collected from bits of information in other sources. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. I do agree that a source should not be assumed to be valid just because it appears on a personal webpage, but neither does that mean that all of the sources on the press clippings page should be assumed to be false. The Aladin (magician) article should be kept and expanded, as reputable sources are verified. Elonka 05:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please leave your mentoring tone to your sons, stop twisting my words. I am not denying that this person exists. (By the way, it was me who first added his real name and defended his existence, despite multiple hints that I have something personal against him). So far all your efforts did not prove that he is worth inclusion into wikipedia, ie, his notability. There are tens of millions of people you may find mentioned in newspapers and over internet. Your original research is your theory that he did something notable so that he is worth inclusion in wikipedia. (By the way, what exactly did he do notable, please?) And read my question carefully: I am asking what he did, not what he was.Mukadderat 06:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Isn't original research something which hasn't been cited by a reputable source, a reputable source being the Times, NGC and the book thereafter mentioned above? Basically anything cited by reputable sources is therefore not original research, correct? Therefore there's no real need to throw the "original research" tag around here when it's NOT. Although I do understand you're asking what he did so fair comment. --RBlowes 18:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, in response to a question to Meir Yedid they said: "There was a reference to him in a Feb. 2004 issue when he was featured in an Oxford Student article by Tamara Cohen (Feb. 19). Do not know anything else about him." I'd have to read the article to see how important the mention is, but the fact Meir Yedid knows about it means he's not entirely non-notable as a magician. Mgm|(talk) 11:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aladin. The on-line archive of The Oxford Student (linked to directly from the prior AFD discussion) contains no such article. The only place where the purported text of such an article can be found is the press cuttings page on Aladin's own web site. See Jamie Kane for why news coverage that is published on a subject's own web site is not to be trusted. Uncle G 10:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, never heard of that guy. Balanga 17:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note. User's first edit. -- JJay 18:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete. Changing my vote due to the research I mention at the article's talk page. It might be useful to keep and debunk the claims. --TStone 08:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC) . Viewed from the internal perspective, it doesn't seem that he has contributed anything important at all to the evolution of magic, based on my own knowledge, together with searching for his name at Meir Yedid's Magic Times and at the forums at Magic Cafe and Genii (best 3 places to look when in doubt). Regarding the external perspective, I can't say anything really. He might very well be famous in the english public's eye. --TStone 17:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: User account created one week ago, with approximately 150 edits -- Elonka 02:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note 2: Many of those edits were to correct my own spelling errors :-) And the 3 external links I mentioned are the best places to research questions like this, and are out of my control.--TStone 05:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It's a stub, but seems to be a stub about a notable magician. The references look like enough to assert notability to me. Original Research would be if the wikipedia doing the editing himself called up this guy personally and asked him questions, which he then published only on wikipedia. Now, if that same wikipedian performed this interview, published that interview in, say, The Times, or National Geographic, and then cited that as a source, it would NOT constitute as Original Research. If the external articles in question weren't written by wikipedians at all, then that's even another step removed.

    If this Aladin guy were to write an autobiography, you know, about himself, consisting only of information he knows about his own life, and publishes that autobiography, and a wikipedian then goes and references that autobiography, that is also not Original Research. I know that's not the case here, but the person advocating the deletion of this article seems to be of the opinion that just because these articles being referenced quote the man directly, use information that came from the man himself, that this is a case of Original Research. This is not the case. That's simply not what Original Research is! Fieari 04:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • May I indicate you that you are misdirecting the issue I am questioning. The current content of the article is not questioned. The notability of person is questioned; please read carefuly Wikipedia:Notability (people). To claim that person is notable at the moment constitutes original research IMO. Mukadderat 17:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak conditional keep WP:V version of this article reads "Aladin is a magician. From 2000 to 2004, aladin served on the Mayor of London's Cultural Strategy Group for London." That is what my keep vote is designed to keep. Any additional information added about the hoax firm "alkhemi" or the individuals birth location, or the contentes of any puff-piece single-sourced article (most of which appear to be totally innacurate) would cause me to vote "delete" to an article that is commercial spam and damaging the encyclopedia. This keep is also a vote only to keep "aladin (magician)" "aladin" will be a redirect to a disambig page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I respectfully ask you how does your vote agree with Wikipedia:Notability (people)? In my opinion the version you suggest (and I would agree with) hardly speaks notability. Mukadderat 17:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does not. As a die-hard inclusionist, I find the notability requirements excessive and I do not vote in line with them. The article I presented is verifiable and not promotional or autobiographical. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you. Your position (if I understand it correctly) that all verifiable information is encyclopedic looks interesting to me. Mukadderat 21:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hipocrite, just to check, are you saying that your vote is to keep this version, if rolled into the page at Aladin (magician) ? Elonka 17:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Definitevely not. That article has the following information that is not relevent, not verified/verifiable: "Vice-Chair" "Fateh lives with a woman named Rebecca, of Jewish origin. They have a daughter named Roxanna, who was the subject of a documentary about their family on the National Geographic channel. Fateh's father was a Bengali ambassador.[49]." I argue that information that is single sourced from aladin himself (the documentary, the puff pieces) fail WP:RS. Additionally, it is badly written. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The information is sourced from National Geographic Channel [50]. May I ask why you believe that National Geographic is not a reputable source? Elonka 22:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was not "National Geographic", which was source; it was aladin's braggadoccio: "works as a global management strategist". sheesh! I called myself something like that when I was jobless. Mukadderat 22:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if this is all the verifiable information available on this guy, then I can't see a reason to keep. Does every magician deserve a place on wikipedia? Does every magician with a webpage? Every magician with a webpage who has been interviewed on the radio? --Pierremenard 20:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeerist, another one?? Alright, move to Eenasul Fateh and turn aladin into a redirect to that (delete the resulting redirect at aladin (magician)). Put a note at the top of E.F. to explain to anyone who ACTUALLY is trying to get to Aladdin, though I'm beginning to think that's a smokescreen. If he's not notable as a magician, then let's put him at his legal name, wherein his myriad, if small, contribtutions to the world can be recorded. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity-style spam of very ordinary magician per Pierremenard et al. If we keep this one, can I add one on my son, too? HE juggles. And has been interviewed on video which was on the web on an obscure site which is now dead but I can prove he was really juggling. Honest. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Brown[edit]

This was previously nominated, and closed as keep, though I think it deserves revisiting. Most of the keep votes last time seem to be centered on him being in the Nebraska Music Hall of Fame. What wasn't made clear to everyone is that the Nebraska Music Hall of Fame is little more than a website; it has no physical presence, and cannot in any way be compared to halls of fame along the lines of the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame or the Baseball Hall of Fame (all of whose inductees would certainly qualify for an article). The real kicker is that I can only find one relevent google when I searched for "lauren Brown" "lawrence welk" -wikipedia (the first two hits are the only ones that seem to be him, and they're both from the same site, the Nebraska Music Hall of Fame). "Lauren brown" trombone got me 234 hits, but I didn't see any other ones that seemed to be him. Perhaps a redirect would work for this guy, but I'm not sure where to. Hundreds of people must have played with Lawrence Welk; maybe they can all be listed in an article somewhere. -R. fiend 19:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Isn't the Nebraska Music Hall of Fame across the street from the World's Biggest Ball of Twine? Ruby 19:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No content that establishes person's notability. Mukadderat 19:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. It's only notable for teaching me that "Lauren" was once a unisex name. Do we have an article on the ball of twine? I'd keep that over this. Postdlf 19:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Part of me thinks that this guy actually has some notability...a couple of decent writeups via google...nebraska hall of fame....lawrence welk...but the rest of me buys the arguments above in this case. Phantasmo 19:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does not address importance except possibly for Nebraska Music Hall of Fame. Nebraska Music Hall of Fame has no article as of now, so it is likely unimportant. So Lauren Brown, despite being a talented musician, is likely unimportant.
  • Keep (as before). In the "old" days, you couldn't really get much bigger than playing with Lawrence Welk. Our bias for modern pop culture is really showing when we keep all sorts of contemporary musicians but not a "featured soloist on records in California and on national radio broadcasts" with the biggest name band of his day. -- DS1953 talk 06:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Couldn't get any bigger than playing with Welk? What about any one of the hundreds of people who must have played some instrument in one of Sinatra's backing bands? Isn't it the same sort of thing? Are we going to have, in the name of countering contemporary bias, an article on the 13th violinist in the Mantovani Orchestra? -R. fiend 06:57, 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 09:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Lippman[edit]

This page appears to be a bio of a not so notable photographer. However, it has been here since May so perhaps it is better to put it here rather than mark it for a speedy delete. James084 19:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -it's not a bio, it's an ad to drum up business contacts. Ruby 20:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless someone can validate and expand on those claims. PJM 20:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 21:57, 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. Punkmorten 13:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel James Malik[edit]

Empty after being created last night. I went with this over speedy in case he does decide to make some attempt to justify it today. Fightindaman 20:10, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Kim Edmonds"[edit]

Notability in question. I did a google search of the name with words like "British Columbia" and "Canadian" and "political" and got scant results, some of which didn't seem to refer to the Edmonds is question. Article doesn't justify her fame. Esprit15d 20:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Punkmorten 20:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a person I'm aware of, and 20th-century Canadian social reformers are one of my areas of expertise. Doesn't Google at all, which is a bit suspicious for someone who supposedly had such "unparralled" influence. And I'm a bit hard-pressed to believe that someone with the given name "Kim" was born in 1892 (not that it's completely impossible, exactly — it's just unlikely.) Looks rather hoaxish to me, personally. Delete unless somebody can actually prove me wrong, though I won't hold my breath. Bearcat 23:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Kim born in 1892 seems possible (see Kim (novel), published in 1901), but otherwise delete per nom and Bearcat. --Metropolitan90 06:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can dig up evidence to prove this is not a hoax. If not deleted, it certainly needs to be rewritten and brought up to Wikipedia's standards. - Axver 07:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn incog 01:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sticks ' n Chicks[edit]

Not notable, google throws up nothing about this event, plus wikipedia isn't for something you made up at school one day. Grandwazir 20:15, 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 15:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Sox Pride[edit]

Commentary which can be summed up with this line:Sox rule, Yankees suck. A definite POV-heavy piece here. ErikNY 20:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. The term "Red Sox Pride" is common in New England, similar to the phrase "Red Sox Nation" (albeit not quite to that magnitide). RFE and give it a chance. Phantasmo 20:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete May contain some relevant information, but it belongs in the Red Sox article and does not merit a new article. On the other hand you can make the case that "Asian pride", "White pride", and "Black pride" set precedent. However, those are much more established and known phenomena.Cdcon 20:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete. I would incorporate any new information into the Red Sox Nation article, with a notation that "Red Sox Pride" is a phrase used by Red Sox Nation, and then delete it.--Esprit15d 20:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From quickly looking over the article, it's pretty clear it's a personal essay. "Red Sox Pride" is "pride" in the "Red Sox". I just don't see an article here. -R. fiend 20:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a delete, by the way. -R. fiend 06:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Delete as a POV rant. Just say that "Red Sox Pride" is used by "Red Sox Nation" - with an appropriate verifiable citation, of course. What is there to say about "Red Sox Pride" that can't be in Red Sox Nation? FCYTravis 04:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a POV commentary. Red Sox Nation is a more encylopedic take on this topic. This adds nothing. Crunch 16:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV essay, nothing more.  Grue  17:53, 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 no consensus; keep. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: THIS ONLY DEFAULTS TO KEEP. DO NOT CITE THIS ALONE AS A REASON TO SUPPORT/OPPOSE A MERGE/REDIRECT/WHATEVER. On another note, I think the delete votes here appear to be pretty borderline -- guidelines are guidelines, not policy. Johnleemk | Talk 15:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cassettes Won't Listen[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:Music Esprit15d 20:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Google reveals that this band seems to be quite notable. Too early to be considered for deletion. Give this one some time to improve. Grandwazir 20:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparently, a talented, up-and-coming band. Thus, I agree, doesn't meet WP:Music. On the other hand, I believe WP:Music is too stringent.Cdcon 20:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless evidence is given how this meets the music guidelines. -R. fiend 20:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:Music is a guideline. This band may attract some legitimate interest. The content is verifiable. Cedars 13:18, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Mello[edit]

Self-promotion, vanity Lukasz.w 20:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment many of the sites that mention him seem to come from Brazil and that sorta area....p'raps we could do with some input from someone able to translate 'em? No idea about this one, Abstain Jcuk 20:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is likely to be self-promotion. He is indeed a language instructor, but he is probably not well-known. Also, the words used in the article serve as an implicit advertisement, revealing very little information aside from his language background. I would reverse if a major publication would back him up.Cdcon 20:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A variety of links from his website www.jimmymello.cjb.net to dead geocities links and personal pages suggests that there is less to this than meets the eye. MNewnham 20:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable vanity page, borderline speedy deletion candidate. Hall Monitor 21:55, 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 09:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sticks 'n Chicks[edit]

It's not nonsense, but it's not notable. Deb 20:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Has been mentioned previously in AfD. Now, quite obviously spam.Cdcon 20:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Spam, I'm just a new contributer and I made an error in the title of the previous article. It doesn't seem notable to you, but where I live (Kelowna, BC) it is. The University has thousands of students on campus who are familiar with this event, and hundreds who've attended.

    I noticed that there is nothing on the web for it besides (www.ubcohockey.ca/fundraisers/pubcrawl.php), and it makes sense to have an article for it if there is one for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_14. Jordan edwards 20:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Jordan[reply]

    • Comment (1) I agree it might be important where you live. Much like the Woodbury Days festival and travelling circus where I live. The problem is, outside of your community, it is not important. If it is not important outside of your community, it does not belong on wikipedia. I'm glad you took the time to write about an event that I wouldn't have otherwise known about, but I think that information is best suited to a personal blog or regional forum instead of Wikipedia. Best of luck with future entries.Cdcon 21:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sticks ' n Chicks -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What univesity doesn't have pub crawls? Not notable. --Dogbreathcanada 00:37, 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 09:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BoastMachine[edit]

The BoastMachine article was apparently created by its sole programmer. Only edits are to this article and to add a link to it from PHP. When assessing notability please keep in mind that software can easily get very many Google hits without being notable, especially if its creator is so keen on free advertising. Delete. — Rory ☺ 00:15, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm the programmer* Hello people, it seems I am a bit late here. I agree that I created the boastMachine wiki page (about a year ago). But honestly I had never read the Wikipedia Terms. My bad. But the article was touched up by many a users. All I did was "create" the page. I never created the page with the intention of getting traffic or hits. I know boastMachine is doing ok. If you people dont like the page, please get it deleted. I have no objection. Thank you all.. - Kailash Nadh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.214.189.243 (talk • contribs)
  • Dont think so - I myself am a boastmachine user and i know the author personally. I dont think its an advertisement for boastMachine powers over 40K blogs. And its listed on OpensourceCms.com , and for an example, Michigan state university uses boastmachine. So there must be some value in it definetly?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.225.138.34 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep and improve - certainly needs cleanup (de-POV, better prose), but 5400 Google hits seems to say that there is at least some notability. This was VfD'd within the first few hours of existence, and we should see if it can turn into something informative. -- Netoholic @ 01:27, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't list so soon except that it's clearly an ad written by its developer. Like I said, it's trivially easy to get thousands of hits for software. Most of those hits will be directories or user-submitted data. —Rory ☺ 01:35, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • Why not remove what you consider to be advertising, and add factual information. Try contacting the author and encourage them to make the improvements. -- Netoholic @ 01:41, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not Freshmeat. I don't care what the content of the article is currently, or how quickly it was listed on VfD, or what might be added to it or improved - Votes For Deletion is about the topic, not the content, and some kid's free software project is not encyclopedic, no matter what you write in the article. —Stormie 01:52, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I saw this earlier on New Page patrol and considered it very carefully. It is advertising and, as it were, programmer vanity. For those reasons, delete. If the program (which is the solution to all your needs!) gets notable, we will need an article on it, but now it's just one contender among thousands. Geogre 04:02, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. WikiSpam for non-notable blogging software. — Gwalla | Talk 04:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lacrimosus 05:56, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Opinion. A quick Google search [51] suggests that this PHP plug is used by 39 other sites. Regarding the codes, there are some non-standard codings and I hope the author will improve it. As the author is young (16), he may not be aware of some Wikipedia policies. *But*, if Wikipedia can room WordPress, I don't think this article should be deleted. --Rrjanbiah 08:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Reads like a programmers diary, and isn't NPOV. There's about four lines that should be kept if this is a program of note. I don't see any of the 39 other sites being that important - the websites don't appear that notable, the number isn't very large, and web-related software is by nature going to be more visible in a web search. I'd need more convincing that the program is important, delete if no further evidence of note can be provided. Average Earthman 09:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I have rephrased it now. Do you still dispute POV? --Rrjanbiah 14:32, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 12:55, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. FWIW, WordPress gets nearly 2 million hits. "This was VfD'd within the first few hours of existence..." well, duh, most VfD listings come from Recent Changes or New Pages patrol, so that's normal. If it suddenly becomes notable tomorrow, I'm sure we'll hear about it then. Niteowlneils 13:27, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • VfD listings should not come from Newpages. Its unfair, as many good articles today had really bad first versions. Every article needs a start, and if a newbie comes and adds a page (badly written as it is), we should try to fix it. Otherwise, it will and does discourage new editors. -- Netoholic @ 14:15, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Should I use the "Random Page" button instead? Terrapin 14:21, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I found this, as I find most articles, via Special:Randompage. I don't think it makes the slightest bit of difference how old it is, how well written it is, how POV it is or anything else. As long as the software isn't notable (and it isn't) it shouldn't be here. —Rory ☺ 16:58, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • I actually get flack for being on the conservative side of giving needy articles a chance: If it's a valid topic, even a single sentence, as long as it is a complete, coherent sentence that states the subject and why it's notable, to me it should be kept--cleanup or attention, at most. However, others disagree, and some such articles get speedy deleted every day. That said, invalid topics will always be invalid topics. Also:
        1. When I'm doing "newpages" patrol, since I load 500 at a time and start at the bottom, they're already a day or two old, and by the time I reach the top of the list they're 4 or 5 days old
        2. The vast majority of speedy delete candidates are brand new articles, let alone VfD. If a user finds the Clayton Moore red-link, clicks Edit this page, clicks 'bold text' on the edit tool bar and clicks Save, you're saying we should wait a week or two to see if they 'expand their contribution'?!?
        3. And if we don't catch it from the newpages or Recent Changes list, what are the odds of someone finding it down the road? Niteowlneils 20:02, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • VfD listings should come from Newpages. It doesn't matter whether the article is "really bad" or Pulitzer Prize material—VfD discussions should be based on the enecyclopedia-worthiness of the topic, not the quality of the article. —Stormie 01:56, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Andris 13:30, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: not notable, advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:45, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • In my opinion 39 sites using boastMachine in less than a year is fairly well for a project run by an individual teenager. Besides the article isn't an advert anymore. Keep. --ZeroOne 15:26, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed, that is pretty good for an individual teenager. So is scoring 1450 in the SATs at 13 or getting a masters degree at 21. Do my friends and I get our own articles? To give some perspective, I personally know several people who have written complete content managers for blogs. —Rory ☺ 16:58, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • Hell, my school within a school, and the early college entrance program my boyfriend is in are both filled with people who have gotten above average SAT scores, "genius level" IQ scores and Bachelors/Masters degrees before the age of 20. Doesn't make them notable (: Applegoddess 01:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 17:05, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Claims that deleting such articles will discourage newbies from submitting such articles is quite correct. Wikipedia policy is that people should not write about themselves. We surely want to discourage newbies and oldbies from writing material that dosn't fit Wikipedia policies. And "fixing up" advertising so that it doesn't look so much like advertising is adding deceit to hype (unless the fixer up independently knows the subject of the article). Jallan 18:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hey, I'm 15, I coded my own CMS for a group programming project. Does that mean that I think it deserves a Wikipedia article? Nope. Anyone can do it with a few lines of code. Only when it reaches the same popularity as WordPress or MT would an article be justified. Applegoddess 01:37, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete/move offsite - and the sooner the better - this application is not notable or of particularly high quality. It belongs in a directory of extant weblog software and not the Wikipedia. Ronsard 9:00, 6 November 2005
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Hiding talk 20:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although there appears a clear consensus to delete, the listing is so old and was never closed, although the page in question has deleted edits there is no information in the deletion logs on when it was deleted or why. I would also note that the current page's creator and most significant contributor is also the author of the software in question, although the software in question does get 258 000 hits on google. Please keep in mind that software can easily get very many Google hits without being notable, especially if its creator is so keen on free advertising. At this point I abstain. Hiding talk 20:52, 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 09:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of political musicians[edit]

No criteria for why a "musician" would be on this list. Unmaintainable as it is overly broad. Currently lists only two musical groups. And, if nothing else, is improperly named, as a band is not a musician. --Wrathchild (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. How would this list be defined? Would Eminem or Madonna make the list because of one anti-Bush song after a pretty non-political career? Would a list that includes both Madonna and Billy Bragg be of any use at all? Gamaliel 20:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~Delete. "Political Musicians" is not well-defined, and so cannot be used as a category.Cdcon 21:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for reasons above. I'm still waiting to see a "List of wet fish" article. I know it's coming one day. PJM 21:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's too ambiguous a list and the temptation to add Ted Heath is to great to resist in the long term. Hiding talk 21:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there was a little more specificity to the article such as 'List of musicians who have run for office' or even 'List of prominent musicians who have recorded politically motivated songs" AND the list was significantly more inclusive, I could see keeping it and trying to make it comprehensive. but at BEST this is going to be a unreadable jumble of what every editor perceives as the meaning of the article title, and at worst will be unedited altogether. Phantasmo 21:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a fundamentally incoherent concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrazyCaley (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, way too vague for a list. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not state what "political" means. Arguably could include any muscian on the planet. Crunch 22:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a list that appears to have been created just for the sake of having a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 00:57, 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 delete. It would be good to transwiki to Commons, too. :) - Mailer Diablo 09:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riverboat (images)[edit]

Wikipedia isn't an image gallery. These images are all in Riverboat. dbenbenn | talk 21:09, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 World Championships in Athletics - Men's Javelin[edit]

This article contains similar information as the article 2005 World Championships in Athletics. I'm not sure why the Javelin throw would require it's own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James084 (talk • contribs) After reading the Keep votes here I find myself in agreement for the reasons behind keeping the article. I would withdraw my nomination to delete. James084 02:38, 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 09:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coto (comic books artist)[edit]

I haven't been able to find any information to expand, nor verify, the information already here. Any other offers? Hiding talk 21:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:Vanity.Cdcon 21:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity. Latinus 23:43, 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 keep and move to Badmash.org. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badmash[edit]

Appears to be non-notable, fails the guidelines at WP:WEB, I can turn up 117 google hits, nothing jumps out as being a reliable source. Hiding talk 21:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:Vanity. I personally visit badmash occasionally, but I don't think it is notable enough to merit its own article. Perhaps worth a mention in an article about webcomics.Cdcon 21:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 21:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity. Latinus 23:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is a sad little thing, but Badmash is fairly unique. I can't think of any other comic written from its perspective, at least none in English and with an American point of view. Also, if you do a Google search on "Badmash comic" as opposed to the geekier "Badmash webcomic", you get 14,300 hits. I'm also not convinced that vanity has been proven. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I think this counts as media attention (fourth hit on the "badmash comic" google mentioned above), thereby passing WP:WEB. Nifboy 17:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, non-notable webcomic. Fails WP:WEB -- coverage by an extremely minor, likely unreliable online zine does not mean "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works." -- Dragonfiend 17:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Ganeshk and his verifiable, reliable sources cited below. The article still needs some expansion based on those sources, of course. -- Dragonfiend 01:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daggrr[edit]

Non-notable indie musician's vanity page. The only information in the article was added by "Daggrr" himself. I'd suggest Army Of Robots for deletion, too, but I think musical groups are at least slightly more encyclopedic than their frontmen. Of course, this one falls very close to the threshold of notability, if not below it. --Quuxplusone 21:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (nominator's vote) --Quuxplusone 21:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although the article does say that some of his music was used in television and film. If this claim could be substantiated then that could add to the notability. James084 21:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:Music (non-notable) and WP:Vanity.Cdcon 21:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity. Latinus 23:42, 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 15:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rude Mechanicals[edit]

This is a theatre company out of Washington D.C.; however, the article fails to show any notability. James084 21:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the Washington, D.C. area (specifically, Laurel, Maryland, which is also noted); their official website is listed at the bottom of the page (http://www.rudemechanicals.com) and their listing at PotomacStages.com is also noted. What other notation is needed?Scarletsmith 21:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:Vanity, unimportant. If they had won a prestigious national award for something they did, fine. Well-written article, but it belongs on a local or regional forum, not Wikipedia.Cdcon 22:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable community theatre group. No Guru 22:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then redirect to Midsummer Night's Dream (or write a separate article on those characters, they're more notable as most Pokemon). -R. fiend 23:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then redirect to A Midsummer Night's Dream. Postdlf 00:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are over 500 google hits for "rude mechanicals" AND "washington dc". It looks like most of those hits refer to this group. Besides, I thought it was a fun and interesting read. Weak keep After doing a little bit more research, it seems like there are no less than three American theatre companies called the "Rude Mechanicals." Only about half of the previously mentioned Google hits actually refer to this specific group. They did earn a mention in the Washington Post, though, so they're still borderline notable in my book. Plus, I still think it's a fun and interesting read. :) Zagalejo 03:07, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Air asterisks[edit]

The subject is a neologism, with little evidence of any widespread usage. Delete Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:53, 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 since AfD is a debate, I'm glad to pronounce this a keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A. Deutsch[edit]

Pointless DAB page. We dont have B. Deutsch, or M. Smith, etc. Delete :: Supergolden 21:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Latinus 23:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, stupid. incog 01:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at worst this would merely be harmless; however, this is actually useful. In many scientific contexts (eg, authors of papers, lists of discoverers or award winners, etc) a person's name is identified only with initials, whereas encyclopedia articles will give the full name. This type of redirect or disambiguation page can be extremely useful for making the connection; otherwise it can be very hard to do so. -- Curps 01:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jsquery[edit]

software ad . Melaen 22:00, 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 nuked from orbit. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:39, Jan. 20, 2006

Robert Collings[edit]

Non-notable person, as per WP:Bio  (aeropagitica)  22:08, 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 09:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Cain[edit]

Non-notable person, as per WP:Bio. Text can live on user's own page, if required. Not necessary for WP article.  (aeropagitica)  22:27, 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 15:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben schenk[edit]

Non-notable actor. Imdb has him listed as having only one role, Tiger #3, in a tv show called Tiger Cruise. See [52] NoIdeaNick 22:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clearly a vanity page. Deepomega 00:55, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert D. Cain[edit]

Delete non-notable bio. This user also created Robert Cain and Rob Cain. There apparently is a famous Robert Cain according to the article Cains but its a different person Bill 22:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as per above articles.  (aeropagitica)  22:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all mirror articles. Draeco 23:57, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American College of Medical Technology[edit]

Minor diploma mill. Notable only for being a "problem school", and even then, just barely. Another non-notable from our most prolific creator of articles on non-notables. FeloniousMonk 22:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence that this is a diploma mill? --Jason Gastrich 04:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless if it's notable (which I think it is), this article would be of great use to prospective students.the1physicist 23:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The1physicist. --Vizcarra 01:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notable for being a non-notable school which self-declared itself "american" to give the impression it is the leading school of america. More like a diploma mill. Perhaps there should be something like the Jack Kevorkian American Euthanasia University.Blnguyen 04:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They're federally accredited, and the information about their controversial practices is noteworthy, since it was mentioned in Congress. I've tagged it on my watchlist, and I'll make sure that the entry isn't whitewashed. -Colin Kimbrell 15:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Accredited school with scandelous activity. Arbustoo 01:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Colin and Arbustoo.--SarekOfVulcan 04:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the article shows that the school is possibly fraudulent, it seems worthwhile keeping this as an example of a class of dodgy commercial trade "school". Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I don't think they are going to be very happy with their profile - I just found out that the founder was not head of the reaosnably substantial American X-Ray Corporation, the company cited (American X-Ray) is most likely to be a small business in Jackson, CA called American X-Ray Supplies - a supplies distributor. Someone with Dun & Bradstreet access could perhaps verify this. There is no website for any American X-Ray Company which lists Donald Harrison as having been owner at any time. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. No evidence it's a diploma mill. In fact, it holds national accreditation from the government. At any rate, it's a notable university. --Jason Gastrich 04:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The government doesn't accredit anybody. A.J.A. 05:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Government doesn't accredit schools. Try reading up on it next time: School_accreditation. FeloniousMonk 05:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Holds national accreditation from the government" and is "a notable university?" Neither of those things is true, which shows once again that someone around here has no idea what he's "talking" about. - WarriorScribe 06:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, even though it's not a university, at all. - WarriorScribe 06:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 21 Google hits 19 Google hits in English[53] despite being accused of fraud - seems non-notable. Guettarda 13:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guettarda et al. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a warning of how not to run a school. Ruby 15:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm...you make a good point (but I still think its nn) - Guettarda 16:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to show that this is a diploma mill and the controversy surrounding it --Censorwolf 16:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've added it to List of diploma mills. I don't think it's notable, but if we delete it, then perhaps there are a lot of others that should be deleted as well? Regards, Ben Aveling 06:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Colin Kimbrell. AvB ÷ talk 17:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep --Candide, or Optimism 19:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete last time I saw a nomination like this was for Louisiana Baptist University. I voted keep on the basis that while it was not accredited it was useful to have in the encylopedia for the reasons Just ziz Guy and Ruby mentioned above. Unfortunately, the LBU page became a vehicle for POV editing trying to show the university in a very favourable light despite verifiable evidence. It led to many spin off articles of many minor ministers who have a degree from LBU. It also led to a huge acrimonious RfC. In short, these types of pages seem to be more about vanity and less about being informative. For these reasons I do not think an encylopedia is the place to be writing articles on non notable institutions. This encylopedia should stick to writing about verifiable and notable topics. David D. (Talk) 18:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Cain[edit]

Delete non-notable bio. This user also created Robert Cain and Robert D. Cain. There apparently is a famous Robert Cain according to the article Cains but its a different person. Bill 22:40, 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 09:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing (tentantive title)[edit]

videogame non notability also tentantive title Melaen 22:43, 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 per creator's request. - Mailer Diablo 09:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Star[edit]

A non-notable message board that I'm having a hard time finding on Google.--Shanel 22:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it then. Latinus 23:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't delete this. I can confidentially tell you the link to the board if you want, but I can't actually put it in the article itself. As I stated in the articles, we have enemies/hackers looking for us, which is why the url has changed a couple times recently. If you search my username, sephiroth5086, on Google, you'll be able to view a couple cached pages of the old, original url. I didn't put the current url in to protect the site. Sephiroth5086
  • Nevermind... in the interest of simplicity, please DELETE my article ASAP. Thank you. Sephiroth5086
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standing Pole Vault[edit]

Created from clicking on a redlink at Athletics, but I can find no independent verification that such an event exists. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There was a standing High Jump but excluding wiki mirrors Google only finds things like long Standing Pole Vault Record which is a different kettle of fish. Dlyons493 Talk 23:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Latinus 23:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice. No such event. Punkmorten 00:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Terence Ong 04:41, 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. Ifnord 01:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ringmail[edit]

Delete. "Ringmail" is a Victorian-era misconception based on bad research of artwork and effigies. There are no textual references nor surviving examples of "ringmail". Sethwoodworth 22:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • QUICK KEEP WELL, the Broigne is mentioned in a 1980 book by a highly respected French scholar. that gives us a quite citable source, and proves the armor to have historical existence. I don't know anything about victorian era misconceptions, but on the French side, the bets are hedged, and I guess that makes the whole point of this AfD moot

This is an authentic variety of ancient armour, being a variation on Scale armour. The only wrong bit is the lack of reference (I would help but all my quotable ones are French) and let's be clear, the Knights of William the Conqueror, as seen on the Bayeux Tapestry did not wear chainmail haubergeons, but indeed ring and scale brognes, as did their forebears in Merovingian and Carolingian times. --Svartalf 00:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While references in English are preferred on en: Wikipedia, references in other languages are quite acceptable if you can't find English-language ones. They're certainly better than a lack of references. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(and I'm displacing my earlier bit so as not to be accused of voting twice) --Svartalf 01:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Weak keep That may well be correct but it seems to have become a common term (if only in D&D circles). So perhaps the article should explain how the misconception arose and discuss ringmails' fictional uses. Dlyons493 Talk 23:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason why even misconceptions cannot find a place in Wikipedia as long as they are notable enough (and properly identified). And I do know that ringmail is widely used in Dungeons and Dragons and other such games e.g. [54]. GeorgeStepanek\talk 23:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also first knew ringmail through D&D, but several college professors of medieval history have told me it existed. Article could definitely use a little cleanup though. Draeco 23:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

""Additional information:"" Ringmail was at one point thought to be an authentic variety of armor, but only in pre-1950's literature. Here's an article with documentation to my point, and I can cite Blair's book specifically if need be. Sethwoodworth 04:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge to chainmail and mention the misconception there; if a full-fleged (sourced!) discussion of the Victorian notion should emerge, recreate. dab (ᛏ) 07:49, 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:Zoe. Punkmorten 12:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. West Coast Team[edit]

not-wikimaterial; friends playing tennis Gopple 22:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:03, 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 09:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sreyaas[edit]

Was listed as copyvio, but it seems the original author rewrote it enough to disqualify it. However, it's just advertising. howcheng {chat} 22:56, 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 if it's already in the article, there's no point in merging, and the keep rationale is amazingly ludicrous - delete. If anyone wants to make this a redirect, feel free to. Johnleemk | Talk 15:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templemore Sports Complex[edit]

Not notable. Seems to a kind of vanity creation advertising a local sports complex. (Was also added to the Derry article FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, demonstrates notability and clearly an important component of swimming facilities in Derry. Kappa 23:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh goodie. So every city can have an article on their swimming pool. What about pool tables? Changing rooms? Tescos? Shell garages? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything worth keeping to Derry - that excludes the POV material at the end and a resurrection of John Fullerton. Here come the sockpuppets! Dlyons493 Talk 23:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. (See related AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Fullerton.) Demiurge 23:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. --Terence Ong 04:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An article on a municipal recreation facility? You've got to be kidding. -- Mwalcoff 03:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 01:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pantura-umporn[edit]

Vanity/self-promotion. Editor's name is, well, Pantura-umporn and his user page is a mirror of this article. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:25, 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 09:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOD Walk[edit]

Dictdef. Actually, second-order dictdef because it derives from "FOD". Wikipedia is not a dictionary of US Navy slang. FreplySpang (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Latinus 23:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we have long FOD article. Renata 10:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Acutally, thanks for pointing that out, Renata. If I had known of FOD, I would've redirected "FOD Walk" to FOD instead. Perhaps a redirect is in order. --Shultz 22:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Dichter[edit]

vanity Melaen 23:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - vanity. Latinus 23:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - insufficient notability. 3 articles on Google Scholar. Dlyons493 Talk 23:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity. Draeco 23:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. --Terence Ong 04:05, 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 09:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girl crush[edit]

not a notable social science term Ginar 23:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is a non-notable popular term. Its content can be included in wiktionary. leaving it in wikipedia will just encourage people to stub it innappropriately.Ginar 23:38, 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 09:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mobstar[edit]

non notable, npov Melaen 23:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone rewrites it.--BUF4Life 03:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no claim to notability. Renata 10:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No-Scope[edit]

neologism Melaen 23:39, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_20&oldid=1116878936"