Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 27 January 29 >

Purge server cache

January 28[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 KEEP.--God of War 19:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

110th Street (Manhattan)[edit]

No notability at all. Are we going to list every street in America? I actually found this page because it was put on a forum as an example of how wikipedia expansion will never stop. Enough said. God of War 23:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In this specific case I'd say Keep - fine wee article on a notable street (notable because of the boundary between Harlem & Upper East Side, plus the movie & song). Room for expansion too (links the movie page and the disambig page for the subway stations, maybe mention Tito Puente Way). Jxan3000 23:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: notable per Jxan3000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Where (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. While perhaps not every street in Manhattan is notable, several of them clearly are (Wall St, Broadway, 42nd St). 110th St falls into the latter camp. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. Very memorable Manhattan crosstown byway. Let's pray that Wikipedia's expansion never stops. -- JJay 00:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this particular just-barely-notable street, provided that is not taken as a precedent for including articles on every crosstown street in Manhattan. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable street Thomas 20:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.38.191 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not just a general encyclopedia but also incorporates many specialist reference books. This is part of Wikipedia's "Encyclopedia of New York City". CalJW 03:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable street in NYC. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 04:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough. Calwatch 05:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see I was mistaken about the notability of streets. Ah well, we will be to a million articles sooner than I thought :)--God of War 05:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. One of the most well-known places in Manhattan. I stayed on 110th Street once and it seemed quite notorious throughout the city. Essexmutant 09:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there seem to be clear consensus to keep, I am withdrawing this AFD. I don't want to waste anymore time when the final outcome is obvious.--God of War 05:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Hanson (band). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsa, Tokyo and The Middle of Nowhere[edit]

Article info identical to Hanson (band) article. Talked with Xanadu (the only person to edit it within the last 2 months) and he is ok if it is deleted or a redirect is put into place. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge (the penultimate edit, if necessary) and redirect. -Ikkyu2 07:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS2pcGAMER, please don't submit "article redirect" proposals in "articles for deletion". Go ahead and do it, with a right edit summary. It saves time and effort of everyone. --Perfecto 15:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your suggestion. I will be more bold in the future. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Merge --lightdarkness 17:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hematoma (band) and For Yours We Wait[edit]

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC, although I'm aware there may be cultural bias here. Always open to new information. Note that there are a few other articles hanging off this one. brenneman(t)(c) 00:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete nn band which fails to meet WP:MUSIC. Ruby 00:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The band has a CD, which has an article of its own: For Yours We Wait, which was tagged for speedy deletion. I added a {{hangon}} tag, and would like to link the to deletion discussions here if possible. Anyone know how to do this? --Hansnesse 00:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just use {{subst:afd}} as normal, but then once it's saved you go back and edit the link on the notice like this. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fabulous, thanks for the tip. --Hansnesse 01:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are issues of cultural bias, and I would love to read more articles about Portuguese metal, or Brazilian metal (an article I just saw on CSD), but this seems to be non-notable. - squibix 01:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN Maustrauser 05:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as apparently failing WP:NMG. The demo album does not count! Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the article indicates, they've been on Portugese TV, which meets it for me. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Airlines flight numbers[edit]

It doesn't seem that there needs to be an entire article just for this extremely specific subject. No other airlines have it, and it seems to go against WP:NOT. Dbinder 00:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Dbinder 00:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --M@thwiz2020 00:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Also note that pretty much all articles in Category:Singapore Airlines should be checked over. SYCTHOStalk 00:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Ruby 00:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as very easy to fall out of date. MartinRe 01:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep helper article to main SIA page. --Vsion 01:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A 48KB helper article? This information should be listed on the company site, and the main article should link there. SYCTHOStalk 01:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have the link? Thks. --Vsion 01:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • For some reason, I can't access the company site. I would think the data must be somewhere, but the only reference cited was the homepage. SYCTHOStalk 01:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 04:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful information, this looks bias. Can't flight numbers have an article on its own. If you prefer to move the information to the main article, its fine. Why are we trying to give readers less information, when we are building an online encyclopedia? --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 09:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's only an indicator of how much crud we have to clean up. Ruby 14:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and MartinRe. These numbers must change constantly. Singapore Airlinescruft, if you ask me. --Aaron 09:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A Singapore Airlinescruft too. --*drew 15:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Sliggy 17:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete difficult to keep up to date. Link to SA's website from main SA article and people can look up their timetable/flight schedules there.--Kalsermar 18:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, way too specific, and of too little encyclopedic use. A list of Singapore Airlines destinations and routes is fine but indvidual flight numbers is airlinecruft. JIP | Talk 18:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can safely be left to the airline to keep this up to date. Anyone wanting to know a Singapore flight number will go there before Wikipedia, for obvious and excellent reasons. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 19:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Kalsermar. —rodii 19:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft ComputerJoe 22:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can see plenty of uses for this in the future, especially when elaborating on our transport article. "Cruft" is being used too indiscriminately here, it wasn't created out of obsession. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 23:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An informative and comprehensive look at flight numbers. This is information not crud or its non-word counterpart "cruft". Let's give contributors a minimum of respect. -- JJay 01:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the paragraph in Singapore Airlines is plenty. Any exceptions can be noted there. Calwatch 05:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, otherwise transwiki per nominator's suggestion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines fleet. - Mailer Diablo 03:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Airline scheduling information is prone to changing frequently making this thing tough to keep updated. It's better covered by Singapore Airlines' own website. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a very good and well-researched article, but it is subject to change and is unencyclopedic. I hesitate to call it listcruft and I am not asserting anything but the utmost good faith by the nominator, but this simply does not belong in an encyclopedia. Stifle 13:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per all of the reasons above. Vegaswikian 08:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —This user has left wikipedia 10:09 2006-02-02
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultan[edit]

Not enough notability as a saint for an entire article. Either deserves a space in another article, or should not be mentioned.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Last Avenue (talk • contribs) .

  • Speedy Keep All RC Saints are notable enough for their own article. This article should have been tagged for expansion, not AfD. (Note: I have also objected to the speedy delete tag on the talk page).Youngamerican 00:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, saint with article in real encylopedia [1]. Renaming sounds right. Kappa 00:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per Young American. Ruby 00:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and rename to St. Ultan of Ardbraccan per Youngamerican. The speedy tag I placed was incorrect and I now recognize that. SYCTHOStalk 00:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Saint is notable.. per above rename may be a good idea Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and rename. I've extended the article a bit further. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be that much known about him. Grutness...wha? 03:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful to have a list of saints. Maustrauser 05:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. Saints are inherently interesting to historians of Roman Catholicism, a notable world religion. -Ikkyu2 07:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gleek (Involuntary spit)[edit]

I'm AFDing this mainly because I'm sure someone will speedy it as patent nonsense if I don't. It gets quite a few google hits [2] so it does appear to be a meaningful concept. Kappa 00:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Notable thing hitting the back of my neck in third period civics, circa 1993. Youngamerican 00:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Switching to regular keep per rewrite. Youngamerican 13:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dictionary definition. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary. There is no reason to transwiki, as the definition is already noted on Wikitionary. SYCTHOStalk 00:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sycthos. Ruby 00:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Assuming it is worthy of placement there, it should be in Wikitionary Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please note that this article is a how-to of the procedure, not solely a dictionary definition. Brabblebrex 00:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism, unless sources can be cited. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC) as transwikkied, per SYCTHOS. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, including a how-to and a dictionary. Ikkyu2 03:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per per Scythos. Eusebeus 04:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Worthy of a short article (maybe), though it should be renamed as Gleeking as the action is not necessarily involuntary (as the article itself indicates). Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 05:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • If you think it should be done as such, go ahead. brabblebrex 07:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 18:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changing my vote to Strong keep, as the article has been renamed and significantly cleaned up. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 20:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or maybe cross-wiki to Wiktionary). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Transwiki is another option. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 09:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a real word for a real action, but it has no potential for expansion. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:15, Jan. 28, 2006
  • Keep This is not a dicdeff, it is a brief scientific entry. It doesn't logically fit on another page, so it's own page seems fine. The meaning is dic deff. The fact that it can be done is an interesting biological fact. It could be expanded a bit with links or descriptions of the glands or nerves or whatever that make this work.Obina 11:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, just not enough content there yet to rise above a dicdef. Allow a better article to be created in the future, but delete for now. Turnstep 14:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The future is here! Keep the new and improved version. Turnstep 02:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this fine little stub. Could do with attention from someone with a grasp of the biology, but that's no reason to delete. Lupin|talk|popups 14:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and transwikied. *drew 16:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since (a) this is not the only definition of gleeking I've seen and (b) none of the definitions I've seen constitutes a reliable source and (c) it's a dictdef anyway. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Also, nonsense: how can there be a how-to for an "involuntary" action? —rodii 19:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has been renamed as Gleeking and indicates that gleeking may be voluntary or involutary. It is thus no longer vulnerable to this (formerly legitimate) objection. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 20:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Noted in the Wiktionary ComputerJoe 22:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs some cleanup but it does cite several sources. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bemused keep: This is one of those articles that make me blink a couple times. It's kind of silly, could very well be an extremely subtle joke, but it does have a spiffy graphic and big words. It also has pretty decent references and citations, and I suppose it's indisputable that it describes something that does actually happen. If culture has stepped up to fill a linguistic void which science has neglected, shouldn't this entry have a kind of common law right to exist? Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 00:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep. It seems to be real, and has been around since at least 1988, with several citations. As long as we can write more than a dicdef on the topic (and a scientific explanation with diagram seems to fit that) it's worth keeping. Night Gyr 01:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this article has changed significantly since the nomination. Many of the original objections no longer apply. Night Gyr 01:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this is now far beyond a dictionary definition. Ardric47 03:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; although I'd generally heard gleek used in a slightly different sense than in the article.--ragesoss 04:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Adrian Lamo. I can't see any reason to delete. Stifle 13:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mccready 16:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and verifiable. Ifnord 19:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already redirected to Gleeking, which was definitely the right thing to do, IMHO.--M@rēino 17:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, the content was moved to Gleeking (an article that did not previously exist). Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 19:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C.I.U.[edit]

A "magical organization" founded by two artists and two musicians, with no assertion or evidence of notability/importance. Neglected article created by 207.244.146.201 (talk · contribs). Unverifiable: no Google hits for "Clear Infinite Universe". Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-28 00:37Z

  • Speedy delete as non-notable organization (CSD A7). Tagged. SYCTHOStalk 00:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Sycthos. Ruby 01:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 04:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bongolander[edit]

slang, altought mentioned(?) in one book. delete. Melaen 00:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BANKSHOT! Records[edit]


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

The result of the debate was merge into Zanzibar and editorialise. First up, the nomination was just a vote, not a nomination at all. Secondly, that vote was one for merging. Now, AfD is not the place to go if you want an article to be merged. You can do that yourself. Maybe we should have a Wikipedia:Request for merge page for those who want a merge but don't know how? But we've already got those purdy tags ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamamni Persian Baths[edit]

Merge into Zanzibar as there isn't enough information even on the linked site to warrant an entire article. Iamvered 00:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 00:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not one of the seven wonders of the world, but it qualifies as a geography stub. Ruby 01:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I actually agree with Ruby, but the fact is that if left where it is, this shall remain totally neglected, visited only by the occasional bot or two. Merging back to the main article may bring it some attention from the much larger number of editors who work on the Zanzibar page. In this case, merging is in practice better than keeping. Eusebeus 04:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Qualifies as a geographical stub... per Ruby Nick Catalano (Talk) 17:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Won't something like this with so little reference forever be a stub? I say let's merge it soon! Iamvered 03:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep valid topic. Dsmdgold 13:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per agove. —This user has left wikipedia 10:10 2006-02-02
  • Merge to Zanzibar#Culture --M@rēino 17:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Everest Pixel Dream Website[edit]

Although the cause may be good, this page is just an advertisement for a non-notable (Alexa rank 718,815) web site. It should be deleted until they have some achievements under their belt. Kevin 00:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per article, "Pixel advertising website launches to raise funds..." Tom Harrison Talk 00:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisement. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I personally don't think any of these spinoff 'pixel websites' are ever going to be notable enough to warrant an article. Obli (Talk) 01:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep the rewrite. Deathphoenix 16:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choronzon (Music project)[edit]

If I understood correctly tihis is a music/multimedia project done with a capable computer and access to a CD-writer. non notable.delete. Melaen 00:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn hard drive recording, "at least until discs can be pressed" as the article puts it. Ruby 01:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because, having read it twice, I still can't see what the supposed claim to notability is. These guys seem to believe pretty sincerely in themselves, b ut I don't see a lot of evidence of external interest. Could be wrong, not my genre and all, but until then I can't tell the difference between this and PR. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rewrite: You'd never know it from the article but the American/P. Emerson Williams version of this band has released four full-length albums - and at least three of them are available on Amazon. So the band is apparently notable. The article is just written so poorly that it's hard to tell. I would've voted Delete/Rewrite but there's some interesting info in the article if you read hard enough and that shouldn't be lost. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I threw in a discography from http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=4442. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep (wonderful job with the rewrite) --Melaen 16:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As original writer of article I do not understand what was so "poorly written" about it. Though the discography is appreciated (I had meant to add it myself) to have everything about the history of the project blanked out reduces any of the identifying characteristics of the project. And it is a project, not a "band" insofar as the music is not conventional and the members do not play live shows. Please inform me if I've broken some Wikipedia rule in posting this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psychaotic (talk • contribs) .
    • No offense but it was fairly confusing the way it was. It was also very non-standard. The standard is to give a short, sweet introduction and then try to give some history. And the quantity of history should be relative to the importance of the band. No one's ever heard of this band so it doesn't make sense to write a longer article for it than a more well-known band. This was getting into deeper detail than I think most wanted to hear. Maybe that's just me though - when I read biographies on bands' websites, I usually bail-out from sheer boredom after about a paragraph - and that's for bands I love. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The way I figure it, especially in the digital milieu "significance" is becoming more and more subjective and the grounds for determining it are hazy. I felt that the history, in this case, is part of what makes the project significant. Have you ever heard of another band or project that formed from more than one individual using the same (obscure) name and then deciding to collaborate? Or a band with occult referents that had not one but two incidents of natural disasters following completions of their works? I appreciate your constructive criticism here (just saying something is poorly written is not constructive crit imho) but as far as "deeper detail" goes, what else would someone want when they look up something in an encyclopedia? If one merely wants a definition they go for a dictionary. I'd have gone on for three or four screens of text that would've been one thing; I consciously and conscientiously kept it pretty simple. I don't want to be a pain in the rear (I imagine this place is full of idiotic, interminable time-wasting arguments and I do not want this to become one of same) but I would like to replace some of the information that the rewrite discarded - particularly the above information as it is of primary significance - and it is my hope that if I do so in a more succinct fashion that it will not be hosed off. Psychaotic 00:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That sounds like a plan. If you caught the end of my earlier sentence: "there's some interesting info in the article if you read hard enough and that shouldn't be lost". I think it's all in the presentation. Some of that may have been better suited in an "Interesting facts" section rather than being the core of the overall article. Basically, the core of every musical band article should be the music. In this case, the music got drowned out by the bio. That's probably the way I should have said it in the first place so I apologize if I offended. I'd say go ahead and put whatever you want in there and you'll probably have other pairs of eyes making sure the point of the article isn't lost. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 10:11 2006-02-02
    • Comment: Huh? The article's been rewritten and even the nominator changed his/her vote. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DragonFable[edit]

online RPG in a in an extremely limited beta phase. delete. Melaen 00:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DMOU[edit]

Non-notable web forum; neglected article created by 213.40.131.65 (talk · contribs). Traffic Rank for designermakers.org.uk: 2,706,659. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A History of Designer Makers. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-28 00:51Z

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 04:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Olive[edit]

non notable actor, delete. Melaen 00:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the only mention I find is on his site Tom Harrison Talk 00:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nominator. Tagged. SYCTHOStalk 00:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Though he has a imdb entry [3], does not seem to have had any signficant roles in significant films. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Ruby 01:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, per Ohnoitsjamie. Doesn't quite make the cut, but definitely not a speedy. PJM 03:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Eusebeus 04:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but not speedy. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rewrite not amazingly notable I suppose but at least it doesn't read like a CV/resume now --TimPope 10:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current rewritten version. Not as notable as Brad Pitt but verifiable and does no harm. Turnstep 14:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Turnstep Jcuk 16:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep current revision shows notability Nick Catalano (Talk) 17:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, not really well known but at least notable enough to be on an encyclopedia. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 17:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to creator, user:Edwardolive, and wait until a neutral third party writes an article. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What rewrite? Three extremly minor roles do not an article make. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 19:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I just added content from his CV; he's been in a TON of short films.--M@rēino 18:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G.A.N.N[edit]

Delete as article on vanity subject. SYCTHOStalk 00:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pen wars[edit]

Article is about Star Wars spoof made by two people, which has not yet been released. No relevant Google hits. - squibix 00:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Katie[edit]

Doesn't seem notable, a Google search reveals a lot of general stuff but not much in particular to this "movement". The website is ranked an astonishingly low 626,801 on Alexa and seems mainly to be a vehicle for making money off of CafePress sales. In other words, this whole site is just a non-notable commercial enterprise and this encyclopedia article seems to exist solely to assist those commercial endeavours. Does not belong on Wikipedia. Cyde Weys 01:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. SYCTHOStalk 01:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ruby 01:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I have enough of these nonsense. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 17:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 18:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 19:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-promotion and apparent spam for cafepress nonsense. Wait, don't we have a word for this? Ah yes: vanispamcruftisement]. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though I think we should have an amalgamated entry for everyone that's ever had a "Free (theirnamehere)!" site. That'd be keen. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 00:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (though I have seen two "Free Katie" t-shirts in the past week!). Joe 04:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poser (slang)[edit]

Pure dicdef, and Wiktionary already has an article [4]. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-28 01:05Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Shanel 04:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayme Rubenstein[edit]

  • This looks like a self-promotion. Delete. Georgia guy 01:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as attack page (CSD A6). Tagged. SYCTHOStalk 01:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete ugly attack. Ruby 01:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete attack page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete CSD A6. I smell a consensus building. Ikkyu2 03:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Smell no more. Daniel Case 03:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

DON'T DELETE: While the diet described may sound ridiculous to some, it is of interest to those who want to know more about the different diets that exist, and the guidelines for each. As a nutritionist, I found this article fascinating, not because I agree with the guidelines put forth in the Primal Diet, but of rhte diet's unique approach to health and human history. The article could be re-written to make it easier for readers to understand.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primal Diet, Aajonus Vonderplanitz[edit]

Article about a non-notable diet fad. "Primal Diet" only gets 6,000 search results on Google, and the creator is similarly doomed to obscurity with only 16,000 hits. If this article is deleted (which I hope it is), I propose this article be re-made with the topic being what "cavemen" ate, not some silly diet. Cyde Weys 01:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete infomercial for fad diet. Ruby 01:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hatred for something different. The article is not very nice looking, but I appreciate the information. It does not deserve to deleted, especially for the reasons given. Terbospeed 03:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from being an ad, God forbid someone gets sick from eating raw food because we didn't get this thing off Wikipedia. Ruby 04:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete for being borderline advertising and Vonderplanitzcruft. I'm sure there's an article of interest in here somewhere but not in its present form. Eddie.willers 04:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Is the number of hits the determining factor we'd like to set for entries? Is a fad a bad thing? I sought out information on this topic and found this entry. The excuses given to pull this post seem unbeleivable, and certainly not reasons the Wikipedia community wants to give credence to.

Yeah, you get E Coli from uncooked pork and then you puke your guts out, for a loss of twelve lbs in only four gut-wrenching days and nights. Ruby 05:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a real diet and a real fad. Silly, but there you are. Needs cleanup though. Kerowyn 07:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete in present form, seems like an Infomercial type advert. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to raw food diet; the merge, if any, should not yield more than one sentence of text. -Ikkyu2 08:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It may be silly and potentially dangerous, but it is a real theory and verifiable (Google hits, books on Amazon). Turnstep 14:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rolling in the creator as well, since he has no claim to notability beyond this
  • Delete snake oil. User has no contributions on other subjects, only thi, the creator, and adding [...] Aajonus Vonderplanitz, who has cured himself of several diseases, and helped thousands of others to do the same through the use of his Primal Diet to raw food diet. I see no verifiable evidence that this is anything other than another commercial fad diet with no proven medical benefit. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. advertising, nonverifiable, borderline bollocks.--MayerG 21:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per JzG. Stifle 13:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (both) per Just zis  Guy, you know? and MayerG. Ifnord 14:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am currently eating in this diet and have been following it in the last 4 years. People in Primal Diet mainly discuss inside a Yahoo Group, closed to the outside, and since their diet can be very extreeme often don't look for pubblicity. It is easy to verify what are the claims the Aajonus makes. It is not here the place to verify if the claims are actually true. The two articles need to be extended further.--Pietrosperoni 20:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above user Pietrosperoni (talk · contribs) has edits only to this AfD and an edit war over effects of heat on enzymes - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Group noise theory[edit]

Neologism with zero Google hits and no sources cited in the article. Basically a "theory" saying 'a lot of people in a room at once will talk loudly'. Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 01:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ruby 01:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A somewhat interesting truism, but unsourced. PJM 03:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. dr.alf 06:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete —Brim 08:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this anecdotal observation. Marskell 10:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 19:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparent OR. Not to say it is false, but there are no cited sources here and why should I care enough to fix it if the author doesn't? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chillax[edit]

  • An article that looks to me like promotion of a coined word as recently as last year. Delete. Georgia guy 01:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. I don't think it deserves a Wikipedia entry but I have heard it used by quite a few people. Wasn't it even on The OC or something? Cyde Weys 01:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's definitely much more common than the article makes it out to be; I heard it as early as 2002. That said, Delete. Useless. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 21:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neologism. Ruby 01:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Perhaps a good candidate for urbandictionary, but otherwise, delete per WP:NFT 142.151.184.210 02:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above (apart from maybe the transwiki bit, as I don't think they'll want it) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How is this not a candidate for speedy deletion? A good half of it is nonsense... --Brian1979 22:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a real word, and fairly popular (75,000+ hits, with several articles) but the etymology is completely wrong and wiktionary already has a definition. Night Gyr 01:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is incorrect in several places. Perhaps a transwiki would be right, but the article would have to be completely redone. Rory096 00:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aire adaire[edit]

Non-notable idiom, google returns zero hits. Weregerbil 01:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ruby 01:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Direct quote: originating from a bastardization of the name Astaire, which is a reference to the famous dancer of the same name. Yeah, OK. PJM 03:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 19:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously, being an unsourced neologism, but it reminds me of a carp joke. A man is out to lunch at a restaurant. All the time he is eating people keep going up to the guy at the next table and shaking his hand. He ask the waiter what's goign on, and the waiter says "why, sir, that's Red Adair!" "No kidding!" says the man. When he finishes his food he goes up top the man and says "is it true you're Red Adair?" "Yep." says the man. "You still dancing with Ginger Rodgers?".... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Franz piombino. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was keep. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons, however, the page history is still available. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FTH[edit]

Delete as fancruft. SYCTHOStalk 01:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete World of Warcruft. Ruby 02:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I wasted a lot of my life on World of WarCraft, so trust me when I say this in no way deserves an encyclopedia article. For The Horde!!! (Sorry about that, I played as a Tauren on a Roleplaying server, we said that a lot) Cyde Weys 04:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For the Forsaken! -Ikkyu2 08:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. LOL, Ruby. Turnstep 14:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for great justice -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 16:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom... and the alliance races are far superior... Nick Catalano (Talk) 17:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I cannot see how this could possibly be of any use or interest to anyone who doesn't spend at least 8 hours a day playing World Of Warcraft. (I spend at least 8 hours a day in front of a computer myself, but not contiguously, and the most of it is actual work (they pay me for writing Java code), contributing to Wikipedia, or reading e-mail. Not some geeky MMORPG.) JIP | Talk 18:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not encyclopaedic. Latinus 19:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ruby's coining of the neologism of the week :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. SYCTHOStalk 21:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sleep[edit]

Delete as fancruft. I can't seem to find a main article. SYCTHOStalk 01:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect (nomination withdrawn). Ah, thanks, perfectblue. I'm going to make a redirect, instead, as the AfD process takes so long. By the way, if you still need the info on this page, just user the history section of the article. SYCTHOStalk 21:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete per norm. perfectblue97. I'm updating and expanding the clow card page right now, so I'm going to incorperate some of this page into it. I Will leave this section here as per instructions. It should be unnessisary afterwards though. --perfectblue 18:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)perfectblue97[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 19:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no single card is notable on its own. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Deathphoenix 16:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Corporate Culture Affairs[edit]

Lack of notability. Google search turned up only 30 pages or so, with Wikipedia ranked second. Bcasterline 06:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete company that assists other companies to do something. No stand-out achievements. Ruby 06:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. As a non-profit actively engaged in social responsibility and corporate members that include some of the largest companies in Germany (Volkswagen, Deutsche bank, etc.) I see no reason to delete. -- JJay 10:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:CORP. Stifle 16:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Google search doesn't turn up anything I can see that would satisfy WP:CORP -- no press releases, publications, etc. Seems totally unremarkable to me. Bcasterline 15:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see how those guidelines are applicable given that this is not a company. -- JJay 15:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • None of the existing notability guidelines are applicable. But this organization is not newsworthy, a criterion which is central to WP:CORP, WP:BIO, WP:WEB, and the general spirit of "notability". Participation by a few companies that are notable does not guarantee notability. Bcasterline 15:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As none of the guidelines are applicable I feel even more comfortable voting keep for a non-profit active in social causes, especially as corporate respônsibility issues are not exactly front-page news in Germany. -- JJay 16:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Metta Bubble 07:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 02:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Despite its name, this organization seems to be the product of some corporate leaders' vanity, but I'm afraid they're notable enough. See http://www.ethniki.gr/en/pr_release_resb.asp?P_ID=348 — Hillel 03:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete: Caravaca (below) is right, having looked carefully at the website and at the other Google hits, in the light of his comment, I'm now convinced this is indeed a non-notable one-man vanity "association". Exactly the stuff we shouldn't be fooled by. This one was well disguised though. — Hillel 15:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The individuals named in the article are world-famous and their activities, including this one, are notable. They're also newsworthy, if you read the financial pages. The article itself could use some expansion - I think I'll put a "stub" tag on it if I can figure out the best one to use. -Ikkyu2 03:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looked at this for some time. I don't like the total absence of a German-language equivalent of the same site (which might have been more informative) - suggests they may not actually be doing anything much. I agree with the view that this may simply be a vanity-association created by a well-connected banker who wants to ensure his place in history. Does "notable" mean well-connected or significant? Not significant. Caravaca 13:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What banker? The article and website clearly state that the Institute was founded by a professor. Also the Institute's seminars and publications are listed on the website, with materials available in both English and German. -- JJay 16:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "professor" was actually a banker who got himself an honorary professorship (a modern German equivalent of a knighthood or an earldom). And the website itself (or any equivalent) is not in German, which suggests to me that it isn't aimed at Germans, which doesn't make sense if it is in Frankfurt. Normally German websites of this calibre are bi-lingual with the main version being in German. Caravaca 16:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are going a bit far in your statements. Checking on Professor Pohl, I get 20,000 google hits [5]. From what I can tell, he has been a historian for at least 30 years and a Prof since the early 90s. He has written approximately 30 works of financial history [6]. He thus does not seem to be a banker who has gotten himself a title. He also would not seem to need the ICCA to "ensure his place in history". -- JJay 16:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I came across a second professor with the same name while researching; you might be getting them mixed up, or I might be wrong, but I've run out of time for this. Caravaca 19:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per JJay Jcuk 16:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak keep has many notable members, but there is at this stage no evidence it is anything other than a talking shop. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. The members had me on the fence for a bit but what exactly has this boy's club done? "Know the tree by the fruits," as the saying goes, I see no fruit here. Ifnord 19:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

38th Parallel (band)[edit]

Non-notable band containing non-notable members. One album was released but the band isn't around anymore, there's a link to a myspace page for a different band containing one of the former members. No articles link to this article, except a category and a disambig. goatasaur 02:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nn band. Ruby 02:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Only one album, but Google shows me something [7]. They're also in allmusic.com. PJM 02:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable. Maybe later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillel (talk • contribs)
Oops, thanks Goatasaur — Hillel 03:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Eusebeus 05:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' as per PJM Jcuk 16:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PMJ Nick Catalano (Talk) 17:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No longer around, not notable enough during their existance, so not likely to grow in stature. nn-band, delete as per policy doktorb | words 17:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ifnord 14:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca J. Nelson[edit]

Not notable- not worthy of inclusion

*merge with Cornell University if that article exists. Jcuk 18:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Has published many papers and some books; hundreds of citations. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-23 18:48Z
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 02:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Not (yet) worthy of inclusion. Not the main author of any major publication as far as I can see. — Hillel 03:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — In the light of the information unearthed by Crypticfirefly, I change my vote to "keep". — Hillel 05:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Very much on the edge, I say we go with it... Nick Catalano (Talk) 05:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The lady has lead an internationally-known fight to preserve Peruvian potato varieties, and won a MacArthur "genius grant" in 1998. The article merely needs to be expanded. Crypticfirefly 05:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely. MacArthur genius grant is quite prestigous, and she was profiled in serveral publications of high (enough) readership. I'd like a little more on her own publications, but she looks more notable than your "average professor". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep maybe borderline, but I'll have to side with the inclusionists on this one. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. nn, is essentially an orphaned article, and reads like a "Who's Who" vanity. --Aaron 09:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of MacArthur Fellowship. It's not as prestigious as it used to be and there were rumoured political factors in her selection, but it's still a keep. Crunch 14:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. Are the rumors (or at least their existance) of politcal factors sufficiently verifiable to include that info in the article? All I know about this lady is what I read in the cited news stories. Crypticfirefly 18:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what led to this particular individual winning her grant, but in general, it boggles my mind that a MacArthur Grant in any way constitutes noteworthiness on WP. (See [8] for starters.) --Aaron 18:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why so? It makes her "more well known" than the average professor, she is arguably a participant in a "newsworthy" event, and many do consider it an indication that her work is somehow exceptional: only a handful of people receive these awards. It's no Nobel prize, but its not like she won a blue ribbon at the county fair for growing a vegetable that resembles G. Gordon Liddy. The article you link is interesting, but it seems to go to the award recipients for the arts, which no doubt are more susceptible to being "political" choices than the academic awards.Crypticfirefly 05:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per new information Jcuk 15:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per verified MacArthur grant. Turnstep 15:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, Macarthur Fellow. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Macarthur Fellow should meet standard of notability. Calwatch 05:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Lulu O.T.L.E Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - As per calwatch -- Geo Swan 17:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: I personally, think this article should be kept, but I know of scientists that have won nobel prizes and haven't been deemed notable enough for an article on wikipedia.(Unsigned edit by User:Helzagood)
    • Perhaps it's simply that nobody has created an article on them yet. Turnstep 22:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So create them. I expect any Nobel Prize winners' articles would survive an AfD. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'd think so, but i wrote an article about a professor at my university, who was a nobel prize winner, and it was deleted as a nn-bioHelzagood 01:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC).. ps. I don't know if the american community is aware, but the US is different to most other places with respect to professors; in most places, someone that lecturers at a university is not a professor by default, a lecturer becomes a professor upon reaching certain requirements, often, this involves becoming a fellow of their applicable chartered body, and only after years (decades) of dedicated research is this acheived. A professor, in the UK, for example is the highest accolade acheiveable in a lecturers' career; which starts with lectureship, then senior lectureship, then readership/chairmanship, then professorship. Many of my lecturers have been in their job for 20 years and are still only lecturers, this nothing against them, it is just that in the UK, it is a demanding task to climb the status scale. I have it on good understanding, however that in the US, everyone who lectures at a university/college is a professor, which may cause some confusion.Helzagood 01:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting. I don't see anyone on the Nobel laureates by country under the United Kingdom with red links. Perhaps the list is incomplete? I should think that any article on a Nobel prize winner that notes that fact in the article would not be deleted as "non-notable." Which article that you created was deleted? Crypticfirefly 02:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What was the name of the article? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nstard[edit]

Delete. Neologism, no relevant Google results, made up in school one day. Brendan 02:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ruby 03:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Hillel 03:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete —Brim 08:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slow delete neologism --TimPope 11:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Latinus 19:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ibat[edit]

Delete messy article about a generic learning institute. Mindmatrix 17:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT), now the youngest to became a Deemed University in the country (from their Web site at [9]). Can someone expand on what is the status of a Deemed University in India? Dlyons493 Talk 18:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to be an educational institution with branches in 6 different places. Kappa 19:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Currently unverifiable outside its own website. Stifle 00:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That is not correct - there are many authotitative refs for ite.g. [10] Dlyons493 Talk 03:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 03:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this really is a non notable school. Ruby 03:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Third level institutions are inherently notable. [11] Dlyons493 Talk 03:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm under the impression that secondary schools or higher are notable enough. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wiki:Schools Jcuk 16:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Kappa 16:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable school. I've cleaned up the article a little and added a reference for verifiability. Turnstep 16:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. This is a body within the Kalinga Institute for Industrial Training. -Rebelguys2 TALK 04:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 16:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was somewhat negligent in the summary I provided, though it appears a few users noticed anyway. This article is about a "school" within Kalinga Institute for Industrial Training. This Institute is not a higher-level education provider, and does not confer degrees to its graduates, but rather is a typical technical institute. See listing of programs offered at KIIT Moreover, the article is inappropriately titled. As far as I see, these are the options:

  1. Move to IBAT or Institute of Business Administration and Training if you want this article kept as is
  2. Move to Kalinga Institute for Industrial Training if you believe the institute is important, but the school isn't (again - the school is one part of the institute)
  3. Delete if you believe that neither the school, nor the institute with which it is affiliated, deserve an article.

As stated in my summary, I believe the latter option makes the most sense. Mindmatrix 00:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. --maru (talk) contribs 03:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couch++[edit]

Hoax. Attack page. I have recived an email from someone who claims to be the target of the attack asking for it to be removed. << These are lies Geni 03:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nonsense. Ruby 03:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC) makes perfect sense[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. --Perfecto 03:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC) not nonsense[reply]

The so called "attack" is not fake and is truth. He is enjoying it.

You did not receive an email from him, cuz he is posting in forums that he enjoys it. 


[16 Minutes Ago 03:09 AM]  Couch:  	 I find it very hilarious

"O RLY, YA RLY, NO WAI!" = "Oh really? Quite really. I dare say no!" says:
I find it very hilarious

It doesn't really matter the article is a hoax and will be removed.Geni 03:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Well that isn't really fair now is it...Besides Couch++ is a real programming language! Just buy his book from Amazon.com!

  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense — Hillel 03:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, already on Wiktionary. Mushroom 13:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amongst[edit]

This page is a dictdif that already has an entry on Wiktionary. It is unlikely that this subject could be expanded to an encyclopedia article. James084 03:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — Hillel 03:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete superfluous dicdef. Ruby 03:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons given, plus OR and weasel words. Daniel Case 03:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I seem to remember having seen this on AfD before. Re-creation of deleted material, or second nomination of something kept earlier? Lukas (T.|@) 13:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef. No deleted edits, not a repost as far as I can tell. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per SD Cat A5. Jdcooper 05:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xp fonts displaying other languages[edit]

I can't find anything in wp:csd that fits, but there should be. Original research, vanity, advertising, take your pick. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is wikipedia a repository for passing on human knowledge? surely something which is primarily written to help us communicate within our many languages is of use. --Blackest knight 04:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, WP is for passing on human knowledge. Just show me a link to your source so it can be verified as not being original research, and I'll change it to a Keeper. Ruby 04:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[12] Is the basis for this article. however I have simplified it to the essentials- however would it be better placed within this article Windows_XP_CustomizationIf so I will gladly move it.

Delete it please the essential idea's in it are better suited elsewhere thanks for looking at it. it has been interesting. --Blackest knight 05:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Original research, unencylopedic, take your pick. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone above Nick Catalano (Talk) 08:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The talk page now says, nothing exists elsewhere that explains how to manage this in a plain instructive manner.. That sounds like the very definition of original research to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Dbinder 15:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopaedic, per WP:NOT. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ptosis. Babajobu 04:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blepharoptosis[edit]

This page already has been tagged as Move to Wiktionary but it already has an entry on Wiktionary. James084 03:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems like a good idea. I am going to tag the article to redirect as suggested. Can we please close this AFD? James084 01:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 to User:Taxman/Biodiesel outline. --Cyde Weys 04:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biodiesel/Temp[edit]

This is not an article; it is an outline. There is already an article for Biodiesel. What is the purpose of this page? James084 03:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete someone's sandbox. Ruby 03:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 short article with little or no context (cat. A1). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babble (disambiguation)[edit]

Single-entry disambig page with no blue links; only inbound link is from a page that is itself a stub. Someone meant wellz, I guess. Daniel Case 03:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete no assertion of this album's notability. Ruby 03:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I will speedy if anyone can produce a valid criterion Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete CSD:A1 short article with little or no context, how does that grab you? Stifle 13:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To quote Mr Gustafson, "shazaam!"
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

593 (number)[edit]

Delete. WP:NUM says we should list numbers up to 200. I see no compelling reason to keep a nearly empty article on what appears to be a relatively uninteresting number. I would have speedily deleted this, but I'm not sure it fits into any of the listed criteria. Fropuff 04:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — Hillel 04:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – Changing my vote (in all good faith) to "weak keep" following Ruby's amazing efforts to save the article.
  • Keep - It can be proved with mathematical certainty that this number exists. Cyde Weys 04:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd love to see your proof! Kevin 05:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nominator's perfect description evinces unparalleled eloquence, and I find myself unable to disagree in even the least particular. Ikkyu2 04:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fight systemic anti-numeral bias in Wikipedia!!! --Cyde Weys 04:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. The improvements to the article clearly assert the notability of 593 as a right prime, a good prime, and a number used in a song with album sales > 5000. -Ikkyu2 05:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the legitimate successor to 592. Ruby 04:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe, but it has less hits on Google. — Hillel 04:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only because of the systemic bias against prime numbers in the media. --Cyde Weys 04:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Take a look at the article now and tell me its not a keeper. Ruby 05:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate Ruby's good faith efforts to improve the article, but no one can change the fact that this is a relatively uninteresting number. I could write just as many "interesting facts" about any given number. Why not write articles on 592 and 594 as well? If someone wants to change the policy to have an article on every number up to 1000, then I'm fine with keeping it. -- Fropuff 07:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but I find no reason to doubt the existance of said number... Nick Catalano (Talk) 05:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Are we going to list all the interesting prime numbers? Kevin 05:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the effort to save this one was interesting at least. Ruby 05:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I know WP:NUM is not official policy, but it's a very reasonable policy to go by. Though the page has certainly improved since the initial nomination, 593 does not rise to "remarkable mathematical property" status. Vslashg 06:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to Weak keep. I personally don't like the precedent, but WP:NUM explicitly mentions the page 284 (number), which inarguably has less information than 593 (number). If this article survives AfD, 500 (number) should be fixed to link to it. Vslashg 06:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gosh, look at all that good stuff about 593 in the 500 article! Ruby 06:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't forget WP:IAR. Also remember, policies are flexible. I think it's about time to update WP:NUM and include more numbers, don't you? Wikipedia has grown a lot since it was last looked at. Remember, help fight systemic anti-numeral bias on Wikipedia! --Cyde Weys 15:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do forget WP:IAR; it is an escape hatch for emergencies. This is not one. 284 (number), like 641 (number), is the smallest integer in a quite sparse class. Septentrionalis 04:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let's make more number articles! We all know that Wikipedia has continuum-many bytes of storage.  :) Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I hate to resort to the Pokémon test, but... if freaking Golbat has its own article, freaking 593 deserves its own article. Not a ton of stuff is more notable than a number, right? Matt Yeager 07:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was expecting to vote delete before I read it, but the article won me over. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A list of properties does not an interesting number make. That's to say, at least not significantly more interesting than any other number. There are no boring numbers! If we don't follow WP:NUM on this it would set an extremely bad precedent. Zunaid 14:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete thre are infinite numbers -Doc ask? 15:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what if there are infinite numbers? There's only one 593! I don't see your point. Help fight systemic anti-numeral bias on Wikipedia! --Cyde Weys 15:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a prime number, the article has a good description of its characteristics. Afonso Silva 15:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per I, the mathie. --Perfecto 16:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its a number with interesting properties, and the article is actually quite fun. Fun. Are we allowed that on Wikipedia? Jcuk 16:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - an interesting prime number JoJan 16:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article asserts the subject's notability as a prime number, which has been verified -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 16:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - there are infinitely many prime numbers. If that's enough for an article, then why not just turn AfD into a Sieve of Eratosthenes? Segv11 (talk/contribs) 19:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seeing as how there are now over 900K articles I don't think it could hurt to have a few dozen more articles on prime numbers with interesting characteristics. All of this is patently verifiable (actually, provable), which makes it the best encyclopedic content possible. --Cyde Weys 15:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after viewing the article establishing its notability. Good job. I might just even remove the stub tag from it. Turnstep 16:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Harmless. Ashibaka tock 20:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Prime number, has some information from other sources. An "infinitely large" prime would NOT work because who has written an article about a 10 digit prime? Calwatch 05:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to all keepers using the "interesting" rationale: (I hope I'm not wasting my time with this, please read and consider carefully). There are infinitely many prime numbers. There are infinitely many prime numbers with "interesting" properties (a subjective measure in any case). There are infinitely many prime numbers with more "interesting" (and "more interesting") properties than 593. Lastly, Wikipedia is not infinite. We delete articles all the time on the basis of being non-notable ← and by this definition this number satisfies being non-notable (as I've just demonstrated, I admit my proof wasn't mathematically rigorous). Please consider whether "interesting" is a justifiable reason for keeping this article per what has been shown here. Thanks! Zunaid 11:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: well obviously Wikipedia needs a lot more disk space so we can keep articles for this number, as well as many other interesting numbers. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 19:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Even though I claim to be a deletionist, I find waiving around Wikipedia is not infinite to be just as annoying as waving around Wikipedia is not paper. In fact, to quote the former guideline, "While it is true that Wikipedia is not infinite, it must also be said that deleting an article does nothing to reduce the amount of space taken up by that article. All deleted content on Wikipedia remains stored on the servers." This particular number isn't any old integer, it has an assertion of significance, and it has a decent article written about it. I can't ask much more of it. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete (and I'm an inclusionist). There are an infinite number of primes, about half of them are "good" (as the list will show) - a feature which is in any case interesting only in a small context not mentioned here. Septentrionalis 04:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable. Its sometimes useful to look at these things. Think of this as an OLEIS for integers. Comment to all deleters: OLEIS is the "On-line Encyclopaedia of Integer sequences", its considered to be an important resource for math. Sure, there are an infinite number of sequences, (and then some), but it is very useful to be able to look them up, if faced with one that you have in front of you, and you don't know what it is. For grins, check out the OLEIS 100K party -- that's right, they are 1/10 'th the size of all of WP, and 10 x larger than all WP math articles put together. linas 01:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable number. Important for keeping 592 and 594 from bumping into each other. Good rewrite by Ruby saves the article. Wikipedia is not paper, so why delete a perfectly good article? Herostratus 08:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. SYCTHOStalk 20:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stale Bread[edit]

Delete. Google searches show this to be a very likely hoax. 1 2 3Vslashg 04:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as hoax. Daniel Case 04:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax, two greatest of stale bread LPs indeed.
  • Delete per nom; article creator also tried to remove AfD tag from article. Website seems authentic enough, still, probably not notable enough for article inclusion... Ikusawa 05:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete but move to BJAODN first... Nick Catalano (Talk) 05:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The group may or may not be real. Either way, it's not notable. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 05:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you determine what is notable?FrankGianni 05:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The document WP:BAND describes in detail what makes a musical group "notable" by Wikipedia standards. Vslashg 05:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete The authors changed the page removing the hoax content, but putting in its place a link to an entirely non-notable band page. We are now in A7 territory. Vslashg 05:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurchel Jacks[edit]

Extremely minor figure in JKF assassination (LBJ's driver that day), if article is true (I'm not sure ... was LBJ in Dallas at the time of the assassination, as this seems to suggest? I somehow recall that he flew there that night to pick up JFK's body). Doesn't seem notable. Daniel Case 04:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but cleanup. This guy just seems notable to me. He describes seeing JFK's body (if those statements were really his). I think the JFK assassination was sooo notable that it kind of made everyone around it notable by proxy. Cyde Weys 04:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but summarize his statement rather than putting it in full. Ruby 04:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite per Ruby Nick Catalano (Talk) 05:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd say that someone in the motorcade who gave a first-hand description of the events is far from an extremely minor figure. Turnstep 17:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the JFK assassination. It says "most notable as" but it seems that he is "notable only as" the driver. Statement text belongs in Wikisource. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is anything in this article true? Did he exist? Did he say this? While nothing here screams "fake", WP has been fooled about the Kennedy assassination before. There needs to be a citation of verifiable sources. MayerG 21:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a hoax: I did google and check verifiability for myself (as I do for all AfD articles), FWIW. Agree that it needs refs. Turnstep 01:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Coffee 05:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syck[edit]

Per article, a word made up by the guy who wrote the article. See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. I don't think this word could ever be verified. --W.marsh 04:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This fits under a speedy delete criteria? --W.marsh 05:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if it officially falls under the CSD, but looks like common sense delete to me. I've deleted it. Coffee 05:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mizta-Nui[edit]

Delete "Mizta-Nui" does not exist, not even in the fictional world of Bionicle. In short, it's a hoax. Drakhan 04:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Have A Nice Life[edit]

Usual song and dance... article about a webcomic, doesn't assert meeting WP:WEB, seems to be created by someone closely connected to the webcomic, Wikipieda is not self promotion. --W.marsh 04:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, patent nonsense. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Church of Chuck Norris[edit]

Delete This non-notable nonsense has been posted again. See the first AfD. Vslashg 04:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete before I up-Chuck. Ruby 05:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kidspiration & Inspiration (computer program)[edit]

The story here is the same as with Inspiration for handhelds which is on its way to get deleted as spam/nn. Created by the same user who works at the producers marketing office. Producers website has alexa rank of about 65,000.

  • Delete - Renata 05:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This software is used in schools and, gosh, schools are automatically a speedy keep Ruby 05:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a comment: People use many things at schools. Like textbooks. Does every textbook deserve an article? And these two are blatant adverts. Renata 06:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads too much like an advertisement; I agree with Renata's points as well. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite if needed. Just because it was started by someone who self-identifies with the company does not mean the article is automatically invalid. Lots of relevant google hits for "kidspiration software" establishes notability. Turnstep 17:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Inspiration Software rings a bell, they're fairly notable. Passes google test as well. Englishrose 18:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's actually pretty notable in elementary schools in my area. SYCTHOStalk 20:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • very very weak keep because in the end it probably is notable, but the creator 'does not self-identify as an employee, I tracked that information down (I think others have too), but the creator has never admitted it to my knowledge; the whole thing needs to be verified by an expert (which I am not) for subtle bias. Is there a template for articles created by agents of the subject which have not been externally verified? Incidentally, I'd be equally happy with a merge & redirect to Inspiraiton Software, as the software and the maker do not seem to be divisible in any meaningful sense. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Inspiration Software. Alternatively, these two programs are pretty similar - perhaps find a way to merge the two together? -Rebelguys2 TALK 04:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Even the article screams its non-notability. Johnleemk | Talk 16:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Tracy[edit]

Article about non-notable social worker. I think the assertion of notability is weak enough to support a speedy delete, but I also think it's close enough to the line not to speedy it unilaterally. —Cleared as filed. 05:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn bio. Ruby 05:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete orphaned article on a non-notable person.Homey 08:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - An internet search will reveal that Tracy is much more than a social worker. He is a prominent activist anad was a leading member of the BC NDP Socialist Caucus. Users should find it telling that user Homey votes to delete definitions of people on the same side of the political spectrum as himself, yet to keep definitions of those on the far-right, who are often even less notable, such as James Scott Richardson.
    • (the above was posted by User:Dogmatic)
    • Hm, seems the fact that Tracy was once a member of the steering committee of the BC NDP's "Socialist Caucus" (a group of, say, a dozen people) is of such significance you didn't even bother to mention it in the article.Homey 13:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Just borderline on notability... He did seem to be associated with some borderline notable things, but just not quite enough Ikh (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The information has not been fully filled out yet Imstillhere 15:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given their editing patterns, writing styles and actual edits, I suspect User:Imstillhere and User:Dogmatic are the same person. Checkuser has been requested. If this is the case, voting twice is a violation of wikipedia policy that merits banning.Homey 17:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can assure you that Imstillhere and Dogmatic are not the same user and that checkuser will not return anything that will get me banned. Just because both users take the same stance, it doesn't mean they are the same people. Imstillhere 20:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete notability-by-proxy. Open to persuasion. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sorry but doing good work, and being a member of a few local committees does not make a person notable. [13] "Tony Tracy has very recently joined our staff team as our new Administrative Assistant. Tony comes to us from Vancouver, where he worked as a tenants’ rights advocate and Community Legal Worker, as well as being involved in the fight for affordable housing & against homelessness and poverty. He has been active in broad social justice movement campaigns, including campaigns around poverty & wages issues, anti-globalization, anti-racism and anti-war." Obina 21:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence that subject is notable. CJCurrie 01:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Subject is notable. But the level of information presented isn't. The article needs to be expanded. Perhaps needs an "Article needs to be expanded" template? --Dogbreathcanada 21:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you know the subject is notable if there isn't any notable information in the article?70.28.159.194 02:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because I live in the area. So I'm privy to information not in the article. It's my vote. Go debate elsewhere. --Dogbreathcanada 07:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you have information of the subject's notability you should add it to the article. We can only judge the notability of the topic on the information contained within the article. I don't see how domicile is relevent - do you actually know of Tony Tracy and his notability? If you're privy to information then share it, otherwise we have nothing to go on.Homey 13:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN Maustrauser 13:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as attack and nonsense. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pi4 Maala[edit]

Delete Article is largely nonsense VooDooChild 05:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Sciortino[edit]

From WP:PNT, been there since December 28. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 05:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Created Nov 15, and listed as a Work in Progress for translation to English. But it does not appear that the original creator has returned since that day. Most of the page is in Maltese. - TexasAndroid 18:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-hi, i am the original translator, i am extremely busy at the moment but i have my eye on this and will be able to resume the translation very shortly, thanks. Yurigerhard 13:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's past time to take this article to AfD, and Yurigerhard hasn't returned. I'd be inclined to give this one more time, seeing how it's half-translated. If someone else wants to move this to AfD though, go right ahead. Alternately, the Maltese text could get moved to the article's talk page, and we could move this entry to the "needs more work" section... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest that, if it does get deleted, a copy first be placed as a subpage to the creator's user page, and a note to the effect place on his talk page. That way, if/when he does return to it, he has easy access to the latest version to resume from. - TexasAndroid 20:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator abstains Segv11 (talk/contribs) 05:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and dispose per TexasAndroid's suggestion. Ruby 05:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • userfy and delete per TexasAndroid. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The top third is in English. He seems a notable artist. It seems fine to delete the bottom part that is in Maltese - but that does not take AFD agreement. If the translater wants to keep going he or she can find the foreign text in edit history. In fact, I shall boldly do so now.Obina 21:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is now an English language stub about a notable artist.Obina 21:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I made a note on the talk page. If this survives AfD, a note should be left for the author with a permalink to the appropriate piece of the edit history. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 02:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as he is a notable artist, and the article is in English. Carioca 02:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it's making good progress to becoming a rather decent article. Lukas (T.|@) 12:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The End of All Evil[edit]

Author, book or ISBN pulls no Amazon or Google result. No context either. -- Perfecto 05:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable. Wikipedia is not a book launch announcement service. --Perfecto 05:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possible self-promotion, the article's author's only edits are for this article and the image. Ruby 05:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity Segv11 (talk/contribs) 05:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN number is valid, book is in production. --Gravical 06:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, in that case zap it because WP is not a crystal ball. Ruby 06:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is written, the book is being manufacturered -- are you telling me that it can only be posted if it is listed on amazon.com? --Gravical 06:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it's hard to judge a book's notability by sales when it hasn't even hit the street yet. Ruby 06:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay -- so when it is ready for sale, then it can be listed? That is fair enough, except that someone may just as easily flag and call it "self-promotion" --Gravical 06:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has to be verifiable and notable first. Wikipedia is not a book launch announcement service. --Perfecto 15:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously. Gravical, what is your association with this book please? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clue: Who owns gravical.com? --Perfecto 02:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Published: 2005?" Doesn't look like it was. Can't see any reason to keep so Delete. Jxan3000 23:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unreferenced, unverifiable ➥the Epopt 18:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was transwiki and delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dasalan at tocsohan[edit]

From WP:PNT, been there since January 14. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 05:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian maybe. Starts like this: "Ang tanda nang cara- i- cruz ang ipangadya mo sa amin Panginoon naming Fraile sa manga bangkay naming, sa ngalan nang Salapi at nang Maputing binte, at nang Espiritung Bugaw. Siya naua" Kappa 07:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Indonesian, although that's what xcre(?) guesses. Given that it seems to have some vaguely Spanish words, including a heading with the word 'Santa' in it, perhaps Tagalog or a Philipine language, or one of the Timorese languages?? If it isn't translated within a few days, we'll just have to delete it, I guess. --Sepa 22:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it is Tagalog, and I get the impression that the subject is related to music. --Alexanderj 21:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is DEFINITELY in Tagalog. It is also known by another spelling, Dasalan at Tuksuhan (I created a redirect). Searching for this alternative spelling yields more results in Google. It was written by Marcelo_H._del_Pilar --TheBoompsy 06:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it should be transferred to Wikisource? --Jojit fb 04:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator abstains Segv11 (talk/contribs) 05:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if we could find out what it means, the way it carries an author name on top strongly implies it's WP:OR. Lukas (T.|@) 20:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lukas. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lukas, and if nobody translated it within two weeks, chances are it's not up to much. If we have a Tagalog wikipedia, we could transwiki there. Stifle 13:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Attack page/nonsense (and consensus here) Sherool (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pengduk[edit]

Delete. WP:BALLS. Vslashg 05:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Probably speediable - The Pengduk is a hybrid of both penguin and duck forms, the latter being mostly prevalent in the buttocks area....Scott5114 05:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. Ruby 05:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's nonsense alright, but not patent nonsense. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 05:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BALLS. Ikkyu2 06:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - trash. Latinus 19:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently, there is only one Pengduk in existence, and so he is considered an extinct species. He resides in downtown Toronto . Speedy delete as attack page. Pilatus 04:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fonts by Michael Hagemann, Michael Hagemann, Font Mesa, FontMesa[edit]

Indiscriminate collection of data, advertising, unencyclopedic. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the author of the articles has moved List of fonts by Michael Hagemann to Michael Hagemann, and Font Mesa to FontMesa, and stripped off the AfD tags. I have restored them and admonished. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. SYCTHOStalk 20:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Leonardo's Return And Dante Has A Very Important Desicion To Make[edit]

Spelled incorrectly, also title is incorrect tiZom(the man) 06:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never nominated anything before. Do we typically keep misspellings? Or do we delete? There are actually two misspelled redirects in this case (one of them my fault!) tiZom(the man) 06:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go do RC patrol one of these days. There's 10 times more crud being written per hour than we can delete, so it's often better to just do a redirect and be done than have something sit here for five days and be picked apart. Ruby 06:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Friday (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln County Sex Dolls[edit]

1 album with only three sales. Sorry, guys, come back when you're more notable. ...Scott5114 06:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, just looking at this, I never knew Wikipedia had a restriction on the number of albums sold before a band was allowed in the database. I've seen entries on Wikipedia that have been much more insignificant and yet stay, I fail to see the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.71.97 (talk • contribs)
Take a look at WP:MUSIC....Scott5114 06:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because their only released album moved three units, at least that is what I gather from the article when it says about their second one, "The album is predicted to be released around the 3rd week of Feburary, 2006. Hopefully we'll get more than 3 sales." Ruby 06:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three copies? Hell's bells and buggy wheels - my album sold the best part of 100 times that many copies. Either delete or I want an article! Grutness...wha? 08:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats you fucking award-winning gituarist, go make a song over me and kill yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ash link (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 speedy delete for the third time. -- RHaworth 08:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thaddeusism[edit]

Made up/obscure religion. I would have speedied but the author and "another person" (meatpuppet?) attested to the article's veracity on the talk page. Seems very silly. Broken S 06:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense too unfunny for BJAODN. Direct quote: Research began in the late 1950’s when a piece of Thaddeus’s pubic hair was found in a meteorite that had fallen and crashed in Antarctica. U.S. scientists had gone to work to extract the DNA from the piece of hair that measured an incredible 17 inches. Vslashg 06:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. Ruby 06:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - CorbinSimpson 06:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. —Cleared as filed. 04:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of North American football nicknames (2nd nomination)[edit]

Centralized repository for team nicknames, which would be better off in the articles for each team. Plus, has American football POV even as it claims to serve Canadian football (there are no references to Canadian football in the article at time of nomination). kelvSYC 06:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for reasons given in the first AfD. Notably, List of hockey nicknames and List of U.S. Presidential nicknames set a precedent for this article. The best way to fix the nominator's POV concerns is to add Canadian football team nicknames to this article. Vslashg 06:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent as pointed out by Vslashg. Ruby 06:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft. Nicknames belong in the main article; lists of them are not encyclopedic and the precedent of other listcruft does not make this any better. Eusebeus 15:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand as per Vslashg Jcuk 16:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencylcopedic list. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No, it's an almanac style list, and almanac style articles are explicitly allowed. CalJW 03:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedents listed and per CalJW. Youngamerican 04:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. For the same reasons I gave in the last AfD that closed ten days ago as keep. I see no new arguments here that justify a renom at this early date. Beides divisiveness, what is gained by continually nominating the same articles? -- JJay 14:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recognized accreditation associations[edit]

I created this category, but then realized there was already a category called "school accreditors" that better suits the group. Arbustoo 06:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. From the creator of the page. Arbustoo 06:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purgatorium[edit]

Non-notable pro-bulimia "community"/forum, take your pick. We don't need this nonsense on Wikipedia. Cyde Weys 06:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OutSourcingplans[edit]

Ad-copy for non-notable website (ranks 61K on Alexa). Cyde Weys 06:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; too inconsequential to merge, although anyone who disagrees is free to merge it anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 16:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meximelt[edit]

Nonnotable Kerowyn 07:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 16:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McFeast[edit]

delete Non-notable Kerowyn 07:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. This defaults to keep, so please don't cite it to support or oppose a future merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 16:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McChicken[edit]

delete Non-notable Kerowyn 07:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete run of the mill fast food menu item. Ruby 08:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Nick Catalano (Talk) 08:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Menu item from very notable restuarant...not sure if there is a specific policy on this. Foodcruft? OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with McDonald's menu items. Depends on how notable it is as to whether it's merged or kept. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable piece of food.SoothingR 11:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable. And a comment: McDonald's menu items links to a number of other articles like McRib, etc. If this article is deleted/merged, so should be done for all these other articles. - Liberatore(T) 14:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge with McDonald's menu items. Metta Bubble 15:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment According to the GFDL, those are incompatible votes. Merges must be accompanied with a redirect for attribution reasons. No biggie, I have casted the same vote before i was made aware of that technicality. Youngamerican 18:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or fail that merge per above. Does not require its own article. Eusebeus 15:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The menu article already has McChicken listed and does not require trivial facts, such as when it was created (McCruft). SYCTHOStalk 20:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a real food. C'mon, the history on its page is interesting, and if you tried to put that level of depth all in the main McDonald's menu article it simply wouldn't fit. Hundreds of millions of McChickens have been eaten ... that definitely establishes notability. Fight systemic bias against lower-class foods on Wikipedia! Cyde Weys 21:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • McMerge per Metta Bubble. Too many articles on McD items will bloat the database and cause bit circulation disorders. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with McDonald's menu items as suggested above. A couple of items referenced on this page (Big Mac, Chicken McNuggets) have enough content and cultural significance to deserve their own articles, but all the other McDonalds food stubs should be merged as well. Vslashg 23:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • changing vote to merge per Metta Bubble. --Kerowyn 00:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge into Chicken nuggets --GeLuxe 02:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this sandwich that is notable in and of itself. Youngamerican 04:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI gave the article a cleanup for quality and structural purposes. The revision is meant to make this a respectable article for a notable food item that is partially responsible for any future heart disease from which I may suffer. Youngamerican 05:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable enough because it has regional variations and is one of McDonald's best selling products (unlike the McFeast above). We have an article on the Big Mac, so the McChicken should qualify. Calwatch 05:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cultural phenomenon, sourcing countless late-night debates as to whether "McChicken" means it doesn't actually hafta be real chicken. Also, the average Man On The Street has heard of McChicken, but probably hasn't heard of our other "notable" subjects. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, keep, pickles, onions, on a sesame seed bun.--M@rēino 18:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Elsie[edit]

  • delete. this linguist is not notable enough Mayumashu 07:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I added a bunch of books he's published. Scholarly titles of presumably limited circulation, but legitimate in-print titles. Publishing several books makes notable, comfortably. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Thanks Lulu Nick Catalano (Talk) 08:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lulu. Ruby 08:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
that helps. now there just needs an intro paragraph to say why he is encyclopedic, not where he went to uni Mayumashu 08:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah. It definitely needs cleanup... but vote the topic, not the article as it exists. I had never heard of him, but it didn't take too much work to get book info from Amazon. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Several books with respectable publishers. u p p l a n d 08:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I will vote to keep (although it seems unnecessary since my vote will likely be outweighed) if Millosh could explain why this fellow deserves an encyclopedia entry. (vote withdrawn) Is he a notable expert on Albanian culture and ethno-linguistics? The publications do not seem impressive enough to warrant an article for their author. Eusebeus 15:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Six books (listed, there are a couple others) doesn't seem notable?! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets normal standards for significance. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to meet WP:BIO Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Robert Elsie is one of the most important contemporary albanologist. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 01:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Looking at his publications on google scholar, I note his work has been cited by others a total of seven times. I don't think merely publishing lots of books ought to make one notable; the books themselves have to meet some threshold of notability (which is why we don't count vanity presses). In this case, with seven citations, it doesn't look like any reasonable threshold is met to me. --Pierremenard 03:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Earth Glitches[edit]

Completing an unfinished nomination (I am not the nominator). Personally, I'd see this as a candidate for merger with Empire Earth. If kept, it will need recapitalising. Grutness...wha? 07:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP is not a place to archive game glitches. Ruby 08:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and move, if you so desire Nick Catalano (Talk) 08:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is the sort of thing you'd expect to see on GameFAQs, not Wikipedia. A merge might be in order if it's really that important. --Indi [ talk ] 16:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. --maru (talk) contribs 18:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merge, and redirect per above. SYCTHOStalk 20:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since not only is this an unencyclopaedic topic, the plural in the title is at present unjustified by the content. Trivial cruft. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Arguments for delete outweigh 2 keep votes that didn't really defend this subjects notability, and one that only weakly did. —Cleared as filed. 04:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zhai Zhenhua[edit]

delete her only notable claim is writing her autobiography which is only gets 230 total hits on a (American) yahoo search Mayumashu 07:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep She was a Red Guard who saw the light and escaped to the capitalist world. Ruby 08:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • translation: "She was a traitor to the revolution who succumbed to imperialist propaganda". Please try to maintain a NPOV... (no vote) Grutness...wha? 23:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep borderline notability; book is still for sale at Amazon, three reviews. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Three reviews on Amazon is flatlining. Metta Bubble 15:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete simply not notable enough to warrant encycopedic treatment. Eusebeus 15:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some rather more tangible claim to notability can be found Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn author, her book is ranked 676,763 on amazon.com. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - The cultural revolution was important, affected 1 billion people. It remains important, and poorly documented. We need to remember that the wikipedia is an International effort, not a purely USAian effort. The wikipedia should not selectively cover USA topics in greater detail than it covers topics from other nations. -- Geo Swan 17:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the Cultural Revolution was important, but every Red Guard does not rate an article. This article does nothing to improve our understanding of Chinese culture, but is merely vanity. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 lacking context. Plus the numerous tags were many times the size of the article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gopalnathan swamy[edit]

Appears to be nonsense. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 07:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 08:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. Ruby 08:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless contextualised and expanded. Why did the author give it a linguistics tag? Dlyons493 Talk 11:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nonsense. Latinus 19:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Crap article with no context. SYCTHOStalk 20:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AquaRO[edit]

AquaRO was a small Ragnarok Online website that only existed for four months. -- Kjkolb 08:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. This defaults to keep; do not cite it to support/oppose a future merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 16:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio second congressional district other candidates[edit]

A bunch of deleted articles have been recreated in this space, which sort of makes a mockery of the term "deletion". I think, in the 200+ years that it's been a state, more than these hanbdful of insignificant fellows have run for representative of Ohio's second district. Some of them may have even been nominated. Not these guys though. -R. fiend 20:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, one image (Katz) is clear copyvio; Austin is likely as the page claims it's from the Cincinnati Enquirer. I don't have the time to deal with this right now, alas. Daniel Case 20:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And considering the one "keep" result had 8 deletes, 2 keeps, and 1 merge, one has to wonder how the closing admin came to the peculiar decision to call it a "keep". --Calton | Talk 02:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete introduction demonstrates lack of notability --Ajdz 06:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The people who appear here had their original articles deleted. One suggestion was creating a "minor candidates" page, which I have done. And now I find that's up for deletion to. This page exists as part of my effort to supply a complete record of the congressional race in the Second District. PedanticallySpeaking 18:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Complete? You call this complete? You left out the staff members of each of the candidates, as well as the poll workers, the locations of the polling places, as well as details of each of the concession speeches. Far from complete it seems to me. -R. fiend 19:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 08:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This clearly needs more discussion, considering PedanticallySpeaking's explanation. Johnleemk | Talk 08:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, valuable step towards comprehensive coverage of congressional elections. Kappa 10:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete election-cruft that does not require mention in an ancyclopedia. Kappa, when will you be writing up that comprehensive election coverage for every single election ever held (don't forget the 1285 election for the Council of Ten in Venice)? This sets an untenable and unsustainable precedent. Eusebeus 15:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If someone produces verifiable election coverage for the Council of Ten in Venice 1285, I will certainly not betray our donors by voting to delete it. Kappa 18:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as good faith action by creator to take advice about merging the previous AfD'ed articled into one. Turnstep 18:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material (CSD G4). Tagged. SYCTHOStalk 20:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete acknowledging that this is in good faith, it is still the case that none of these people are notable beyond having failed to be elected to an office, which means (per WP:BLP) that none of them are notable. Sorry, the c ompleteness argument is not persuasive: simply listing the losers in the article for the election fulfills the encyclopaedic purpose of this article. The problem with losing candidates is thet most information on them comes from their own camp, and no further information is released after the election. Information on such people is generally functionally unverifiable from reliable sources. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreations of previously-AfD'd articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Crunch and deal with copyvio as required. No reason to wipe out information on this important election. -- Mwalcoff 01:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, previously deleted articles. (Also see Just zis  Guy, you know?'s comments on notability and lack of verifiability.) - Randwicked Alex B 03:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - as per Kappa. Keep necessary to show good faith to Pedantically speaking, as well as being a good idea in and of itself. -- Geo Swan 17:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as non-notable and non-completable, or possible rename/move/merge. It's impossible and/or rather uninteresting to cover all candidates of all elections of all time everywhere, even if only on national level. If one wants to do it anyway, there are other places to do so. - Magnus Holmgren 23:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - completely harmless inclusion - somebody somewhere at some point might want to know about these people, and who knows some of them might go on to do other things in which case we have the starting point for a future article if we leave this in; if you've voted delete on this, really, haven't you got anything better to do? SP-KP 00:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, for some of us, voting on deletion is our main contribution to Wikipedia. So no. - Randwicked Alex B 01:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I think one of the biggest weaknesses of the wikipedia is the {afd} procedure. When I look at some of the nominations which generate discussion what I find is the same bunch of regulars. And many of those regulars show no interest in following procedure, or even giving the articles a fair reading.
  • Some of the regular habitues have personal axes to grind. Some regulars use the {afd} fora to suppress information that they regard as "anti-American", without regard to its verifiability or how neutrally it is expressed.
  • Many regulars base their vote on whether they regard the article as POV. Some even base their nomination on their opinion that an article is POV, even though the wikipedia deletion policy says that the correct response to a perception that an article shows a biased POV is to raise that issue on the article's talk page.
  • I think the wikipedia would be improved if steps were taken so that there was a monthly cap on how many times per month people could vote in the {afd} fora. This would rein in those regulars who use the fora as a venue to trot out their personal prejudices. Regretably, this would also cap those responsible wikipedians who come regularly to the {afd} fora, and actually read the articles nominated for deletion, and make an independent choice every time they vote. But that would be better than the current situaiton. -- Geo Swan 21:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article created as a compromise, in order to help Wikipedia's coverage of American politics. This article should probably use a better title, however, especially since this office is up for election again in less than a year. Academic Challenger 21:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is still a hotly contested seat on the Republican side; Schmidt may face some of these candidates again this year. --JamesB3 02:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will Bigger[edit]

Reads like a vanity piece. 23 yr old who has worked as a congressman's intern, as an unsuccessful campaign manager for a defeated candidate (who does not have a page) and intends to run as a candidate for a county election this year --Porturology 08:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Aaron 10:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 14:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Ruby 14:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Nick Catalano (Talk) 17:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn bio with a touch of TMI. Turnstep 18:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even if elected will not meet WP:BLP. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Claims of being a politician. College politics don't count here. Also, somebody should list the Anne Fischer article for deletion, they were both authored by the same person, at the same time, her claims to notability being only that she lost the election this "bigger" characters says he ran. garbage. Batman2005 05:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lazerwitz[edit]

Article does not establish importance of this individual. Delete. —Brim 09:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 non-notable bioggraphy - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Rossini[edit]

Biography does not establish the person's importance. Delete. —Brim 09:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as CSD A7. Sarah Ewart 11:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Dlyons493 Talk 12:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 14:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE The owner of a huge constrution supply company is just as important as an article about Bill Gates or Donald Trump. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.71 (talk • contribs) .
  • Speedy delete per CSD A7. Tagged. Rossini, Inc. is not a huge company. SYCTHOStalk 21:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Willco and Donnie Ripatti[edit]

Author calls himself Beardedmonk but he is probably too young to have much of a beard. OK, kid you're pulling my beard - give us some references otherwise we will delete these as hoax - but keep them yourself for your creative writing classes at Pacific Collegiate School. -- RHaworth 09:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a work of fiction. Cannot find any of the following with google: person, his sidekick, their company, revolutional steam engine invented by our protagonist, purpotedly-still-existing school founded by our hero, book cited as source, the other book cited as source. What is this, a bad book report on Atlas Shrugged? Weregerbil 14:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax, this person could not be "always fascinated by trains" if he was born decades before trains. Ruby 14:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable, and likely hoax. — TheKMantalk 20:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparent hoaxes. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax, though being born in an orphanage does have some notability to it. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Croberries[edit]

Moved from speedy, could be real, but unable to verify TimPope 10:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless name is misspelt and this is a notable comic. Literally nothing from Google. Marskell 10:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn comic. Ruby 14:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment People should only delete nonsense. Deleting non-notable thinks is why I want Jimbo Wales damned.PC Mulap 14:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. SYCTHOStalk 21:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted, yet another North Carolina vandal (aka "Jake Remington", aka "Regara", aka... ) hoax article. -- Curps 23:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 16:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ebo[edit]

Moved from speedy as potentially could be verified TimPope 10:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, take away the blatant vanity claims and you're left with a person who posted stupid things on a message board ("one of the most disruptive internet pirates of the internet's history" would require something more substantial). Searching the message board at easports.com with "ebo" gives 1 result, and it's about a file format, not a person. - Bobet 10:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ibo as it's a very common spelling for the Ibo tribe and language. Dlyons493 Talk 13:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Dlyons493. Ruby 14:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete this isnt a necisarrly (sic) fake article, but not relevant, Ebo was a disruptive internet pirate, but one of the most disruptive ever is an embelishment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.109.167 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete useless nonsense and then create a new redirect per Dlyons. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont think it should be redirected, if there is new info on this guy, then the article could be remade with useful info. WalterWalrus3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.109.167 (talk • contribs)
Comment, both unsigneds from the same IP address, who also added a {{Featured}} on the page. - Bobet 16:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ibo. - Randwicked Alex B 03:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ibo. If it hadn't been a redirect I would say a speedy delete was valid, starting a forum drama is not a claim of notability. --Malthusian (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete contents, then redirect. The Ibo or Igbo people are one of Africa's largest ethnic groups, not H4X0rZ.--M@rēino 18:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep due to evidence presented indicating sufficient notability. Somebody go cleanup the article and add all those sources to it. Johnleemk | Talk 16:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Java Joel[edit]

Moved from speedy; radio personality seems to be beyond speedy criteria. Potentially verifiable TimPope 10:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think wikipedia needs to rethink how it treats radio personality bios for commercial am/fm/satellite and internet radio. It took me 10 minutes to find this information, which should be included in the article. There is way too much "I haven't heard of it so it must not be notable" garbage associated with these topics. -- Randomgenius 22:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 after userfying. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Kampe[edit]

Vanity page. None of the items here satisfy WP:MUSIC or are otherwise of encyclopedic significance.

  • Delete. Gazpacho 10:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity.SoothingR 11:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 14:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --Sleepyhead 14:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn bio. Ruby 14:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vanity biography. I see no reason why this article (or more accurately, this résumé) should be kept. Tagged. SYCTHOStalk 21:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirects are cheap. Johnleemk | Talk 16:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Card Random[edit]

Page describes an individual card in a card game, with no apparent wider notability. (Also includes an attempted disambiguation for a Christian Rock Band with the same name, but no Wikipedia page exists for them.) --McGeddon 08:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. What needs to be known about this card at this time appears to already be contained in the article about the game (Fluxx). The band, from my brief squizz, appears to be WP:MUSIC-failing anyway. If the band becomes notable, they can move in at a later date. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn and group info also. feydey 08:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Fluxx --TimPope 22:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Fluxx. The game is notable, the card isn't. Stifle 14:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn Incognito 02:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Fluxx and then delete this, since it is not a likely search term. Peyna 04:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Sceptre (Talk) 10:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it goes beyond just being a set of rules to play a card game. Ruby 14:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after merging a bit, since as stated above this is an unlikely search term. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is currently a redirect to Fluxx - it appears to have been merged a bit so I think we should leave as redirect per the GFDL. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judgment of Celestial[edit]

Appears to be a piece of fiction, no speedy criterion covers it though TimPope 10:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy, unless the user doesn't care about it being deleted...then delete.SoothingR 11:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fantasy story made by the original author. Sorry about my hasty addition of the db tag, but something as blatent as this didn't seem to warrant anything else. I'll use the tag more carefully next time. =) --Inditalk 12:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its either original work or an article about other work with no context. Ruby 14:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - makeup. Latinus 19:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another work of fiction. Has someone got their creative writing class working on WP or something? I hope not, or we're going to have a lot of work to do. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per SoothingR. Stifle 14:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. This defaults to keep; do not cite it as a reason to support/oppose a merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 16:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Nicholas Hervey[edit]

Moved from speedy as possibly non-notable member of the aristocracy TimPope 11:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Being rich does not make you instantly notable.SoothingR 11:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the most notable thing he ever did was organize a dinner party. Homey 12:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn bio. Ruby 14:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question whats the so called "notability" criteria for nobility? I'd have thought being in Burke's Peerage might have swung it personally. Jcuk 16:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Don't have time to give the citations right now, but this guy was a member of a notably wacky family. For example, his brother, Lord Bristol, was famed for having blown 7 million pounds on heroin. There is a book about the family, The House of Hervey by Michael De-la-Noy Constable. (ISBN 1841193097). Maybe merge into an article about the family? Crypticfirefly 19:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep member of the British aristocracy, all of whom seem to qualify. Was indeed in Burke's, would support a merge to an article on minor Herveys. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as nobody seems to have an answer to my previous post. Jcuk 23:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, certainly verifiable with no reason to remove information. Ardric47 03:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Single Thread Theatre Company[edit]

This acting troupe doesn't seem very notable, verifiable, or important (41 - 41 of about 194). Nothing links to this page, and none of the names linked from this page point to actual articles, except for "Aaron Stern" which appears to be a coincidence. Smells of vanity, no place to merge it, so we should delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:11, Jan. 28, 2006

  • Delete as non-notable group. Edgar181 14:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Ruby 14:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete keywords "small", "independent", "young [...] actors". It would be a great surprise if this group were notable, and no evidence is presented to suggest that surprise has happened. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Covino[edit]

Moved from speedy. Radio personality whose importance (or lack of) can be probably be verified TimPope 11:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, "producer of New York's #1 rated saturday night radio show "Solid State". Kappa 12:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa, NYC is a rough market, if he was in Peoria I'd say delete. Ruby 14:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On air personalities are one thing; producers quite another. If he attains fame in his own right on air, then let someone recreate the article. Until then, it should go. Eusebeus 15:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Eusebeus -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 16:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete skirting the fringes of notability, but not quite there, I think. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Has his own show on sirius radio's Maxim channel as well as producing the #1 rated saturday night radio show. New York is market 1 arbitron. You don't get to market one producer/on air right out of broadcasting school. Again I say I think wikipedia needs to rethink how it treats radio personality bios for commercial am/fm/satellite and internet radio. There is way too much "I haven't heard of it so it must not be notable" garbage associated with these topics. -- Randomgenius 22:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Cranford[edit]

Listed as a speedy by an anon, reported on ANI after the tag was repeatedly removed. I can't see that it is a speedy, but given that it has been tagged as a potential hoax, and there is at least some support for deletion, I'm listing it here. No vote. Essjay Talk • Contact 11:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax or at least unverifiable. Google isn't coming up with anything for this name, the two aliases, or any of the three supposed albums. No Google hits for the alleged record label either. Almost certainly either a hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a hoax. He was born in India but no mention of his immigration experience and how he subsequently came to acquire the hip hop culture. Ruby 14:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Edgar181 15:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probable hoax, does not Google, user's sole action on WP is to create & edit this article. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The author admits to writing this article about himself at [15] --Roisterer 13:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable but perhaps BJAODN first. My favorite bit:
    Money C once rapped about apples for twenty-three minutes straight. It was later released on a bootleg mixtape under the title One Rap a Day Keeps Da Docta Away
    Turnstep 18:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted - Mike Rosoft 21:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheBestTrek[edit]

Non-notable web forum, fails Wikipedia:Notability (websites), promotion. Only 26 google results for "TheBestTrek". Delete Petros471 12:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable website. Edgar181 14:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ruby 15:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Non-notable cruft. Tagged due to lack of content. SYCTHOStalk 21:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of Social Science[edit]

Delete or redirect. The real stub for the subject is at Philosophy of social science (uncapitalised title). The two articles were created at about the same time (May 2005), but the one proposed for deletion is irrelevant to the title, in violation of NPOV, "totally disputed" and the subject of various suggestions for radical surgery. Caravaca 13:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, methinks. Johnleemk | Talk 16:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting around the world[edit]

  • Delete, this was merged into other articles by the ScoutingWikiProject after consensus. Rlevse 23:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep no it hasn't. large chunks of text in this article does not exist at List of World Organization of the Scout Movement members, which mainly consists of a table. even if it were merged, it should be redirected pursuant to the deletion guidelines rather than deleted--Jiang 23:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Information is included in the respective association's articles. - In extensive overview over all Scouting association doesn't fit in one article, there are (only in WOSM) 153 and twice more in WAGGGS or independent. --jergen 13:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • was merged into other articles by the ScoutingWikiProject after consensus. jergen 13:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC) (comment moved here by Jiang from beginning of page)[reply]
  • Redirect to the article it was merged to... WP:Be Bold, do it yourself and retire this afd. —This user has left wikipedia 13:28 2006-01-28
    • This is impossible, article was merged into different articles. --jergen 13:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • as neither is the content at this article unencyclopedic nor is the title "Scouting around the world" inappropriate, deleting is not an option. just choose the article that best represents the title to redirect it to. I suggest List of World Organization of the Scout Movement members. We need to preserve the page history to be GFDL compliant. --Jiang 13:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I find this oversight valueable and don't see clicking through so many individal country articles as a sensible alternative. LARS 14:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The the info is duped on Wiki, which is generally not a good idea. You could go to the main list and click on whatever country you're interested in. Keeping this article as is would eventually generate an article of tremendous size'--well over 130 countries have Scouting. Rlevse 21:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • struck out as duplicate vote. --Jiang 08:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the only reason someone would look for this page would be if they were looking for the WOSM publication of similar name. Most anyone would type "Scouting" or possibly "World Scouting," so there's no need to leave a redirect -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 16:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the information exists at national Scouting pages, which are well linked to, elsewise it would have to be comprehensive and we're then talking about 220+ countries and subnational entities that have Scouting; in addition, it has been discussed and agreed upon for weeks as per the Scouting WikiProject. Chris 18:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • standard WP practice is to redirect after a merge or discovery of duplicate/redundant article--Jiang 08:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as merged content. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion is not the last step of an article merger. Either redirect somewhere appropriate or archive in the talk namespace; since this was merged into multiple articles, each of those should get a {{merged}} stuck to their talk pages pointint at wherever this ends up. —Cryptic (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and redirected the article after adding the necessary templates, per Cryptic's suggestion--Jiang 11:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licketyship[edit]

Not notable (very few google hits). Advertising. Sleepyhead 13:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Advertising for a commercial (.com) startup (still in beta - not fully live yet). There are a great many worldwide carriers that use interesting tech on their websites, e.g. for parcel tracking etc, that are far more notable, like Group 4 Securicor, DHL etc. Maybe once they're live and have achieved something commercially...? --Nigelj 13:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • but do the others deliver same day? seems to be notable difference Bigbang21 03:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising for nn firm. Ruby 15:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advert -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 16:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It Appears to be a startup but with credentials -- covered by CNN and apparently of notable significance to web 2.0 and yale. —\'\'the preceding unsigned comment is by\'\' 67.188.111.36 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I was one of the authors of the article -- heard about the company in blogs, checked it out, apparently going live in a few weeks. They dont advertise (not even sure what that nn firm comment is referring to), and they have reputable ties to the academic community. I think its an interesting new concept and really worth mentioning. Sshoberi 07:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable business. The two comment above are most likely from the same person, as one is an IP and they both use the nonstandard voting term \"Keep It.\" SYCTHOStalk 21:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily - they could both have no clue how the AfD process works, and one just copied the other. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 01:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a notable business -- format of entry not a typical nn advertisement.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 64.128.190.243 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the wikinazis are on the prowl again... this is just as notable a business as any of the others in its category, and the article isn't even written like an ad.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 70.86.172.178 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep speaking as a programmer, this company is both significant and relevant. found this one on a bay area blog and clicked thru to learn more. there are no other firms that have tackled ecommerce from a web 2.0 perspective, as the article states. this company is perhaps more notable than half the other companies in the website category. Paranom 03:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what is wrong with this entry? Its verifiable, factual, and actually relevant to its category, unlike 9 out of 10 in /websites/. No brainer Macknife 03:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not convinced its groundbreaking, but I'm no engineer. It is verifiable and reasonably notable Keep Matrices 04:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be the ultimate web2.0 mashup to me. I'm confused as to why people think this isn't relevant. Perhaps they are just ahead of their time. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 67.119.79.132 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a revolutionary company that is changing the retail landscape by leveraging information. It will define new standards of customer service in this instant gratification world and even the playing field in the battle between brick and click retailers. They are game changers! MJR 15:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are an lot of new accounts voicing their opinions here and on the related AfD. Can I please remind you that AfD is not a vote, but rather a method of building consensus. Whilst the opinions of new users are very welcome, the admin who closes this AfD is not obliged to treat them all with the same weight. Personally I think the article Licketyship is more notable than the article on Robert Pazornik, especially as all relevant information from that article can be included in this one. So that'd be a weak keep, but it could still do with being verified/cleaned up. --Petros471 16:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I should probably first qualify that while my account is new, I am not a new user, I have been contributing religiously by IP only for the past 3 years. I stumbled to the LicketyShip article while reading about other Web 2.0 companies, and I must say I'm mostly (though not entirely) befuddled as to why its up for deletion as NN. I have a feeling that most advocating delete don't really know much about web 2.0 and why it's important. The editor who made the comment about Group 4 Securicor and DHL is a perfect exemplar; those companies are about as similar to what Licketyship is doing as Kodak is to Flickr. There is a substantial public interest in this company not only becuase it is part of a larger, more significant movement, but also becuase its doing something no other company has done (or tried to do) before - and it's entirely verifiable. If you do a bit more than a quick google, this company has been covered by Fortune, CNN, and NYT - and I found those in about 2 minutes worth of research. That said, this is my first AfD vote, and hopefully my last.--Bigbang21 22:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems there are sockpuppets in use here. --Sleepyhead 11:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advert. Stifle 14:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. Not otherwise notable. And I ain't no sock puppet.-Ikkyu2 22:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rory096 00:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm admittedly new to editing. I read wikipedia a lot, but havent edited any pages. I searched for licketyship after reading the techcrunch blog. I guess they're not a huge company, but they're apparently notable enough to be recognized by stanford's tech community. I'm not really sure what the standard is for deleting an entry (lack of notability?), but when I google them, I come up with all sorts of hits and articles. Does that not make them notable? Or is it something about what the company does that would make them notable? If its the former, I guess you could be objective by measuring how many pieces in the popular press mention them (which seems to be quite a few). If its the latter, then I guess its pretty subjective, and if you don't know much about the space the company is in, you might not be qualified to voice an opinion -- that's just my 2 cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.133.103 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 2 February 2006
  • Comment made several NPOV clean-ups, per Petros471, using media descriptions as guide


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glusontite[edit]

Hoax [16], created by a new editor who also vandalized other pages. - Liberatore(T) 13:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. This vandal also created Peawe hoax. Wuzzy 13:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Edgar181 14:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. Ruby 15:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax JoJan 16:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - joke. Latinus 19:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 withdrawn by nominator --TimPope 22:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1967 in radio[edit]

This is a very short article with only one piece of information. This information is already contained in the Minnesota Public Radio article. James084 13:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC) I am withdrawing my nomination and/or changing my vote based on the work performed by Grutness. This article is much more useful now. James084 16:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; we also have a number of other articles on "year in radio", such as 1950 in radio, and a category: Category:Years in radio. The article should however been much shortened, as it is supposed to be a list of events without detailing them. - Liberatore(T) 13:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Liberatore. Ruby 15:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And all the other related empty bullet points too. One article covers it already. Metta Bubble 15:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have rechecked the new version and, my apologies to those working on this, I still think a merge and delete is appropriate. The purpose of these Category:Years in radio articles still seems a little obscure and MPR centric. Metta Bubble 09:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Browsing through the years in radio category reveals it to be largely empty and without clear intent. Grutness' work puts this just above threshhold; a comprehensive timeline would be interesting, but a massive amount of work. Eusebeus 15:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Latinus 19:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC) (changed vote)[reply]
  • Keep. I've expanded it a little, and a trawl through the events, births and deaths of 1967 categories by someone in the know should enable this to be expanded much further. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've now extended it quite a bit further... Grutness...wha? 09:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of six articles in category:Years in radio. No doubt the series will develop (I mean over the years, not necessarily before the completion of this discussion). CalJW 03:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's much better now. Latinus 09:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peawe and The Peawe[edit]

Hoax [17] created by a new user who also vandalized other pages. - Liberatore(T) 13:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. Does not google. Known vandal. Wuzzy 13:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. I laughed, though :) Obli (Talk) 13:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Edgar181 14:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete LOL. Though my gut feeling was strong keep. We do need articles about sweet animals the size of cats that are voted smallest creatures on earth. deeptrivia (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added The Peawe to this nomination. Delete them both.
  • Delete hoax. Ruby 15:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. We don't need nonsense here. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. *drew 16:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - joke. Latinus 19:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and BJAODN both. Cyde Weys 01:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the initial creator is an idiot. --Yamla 13:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, this is exactly the sort of situation where I wish we had a Template:Uncyclopedia.--M@rēino 18:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24/7 Suppliers[edit]

This article looks like an advertisement. No internal links. No claim to notability other than it exists and has customers. James084 13:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as non-notable, SPAM, and no claim of notability! —This user has left wikipedia 13:59 2006-01-28
  • Delete as per nom. --Sleepyhead 14:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad pure and simple from the Yellow Pages. Ruby 15:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advert. Latinus 19:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Avalon 19:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. RasputinAXP talk contribs 05:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete — 1 to 10 staff doesn't count as notable. Advertisement/Spam. Kareeser|Talk! 23:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Web design firm from Eastern, PA. - Google results show eBay PowerSellers, Large volume cellular importers and web developers. Information available at resellermarketplace.com and clients in portfolio. Not an advertisement.
  • Delete. spam. incog 17:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Spam ComputerJoe 18:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. This defaults to keep; do not cite this to oppose/support a future merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 16:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serene (phone)[edit]

I’m not really qualified to judge if this is some kind of special telephone, but it looks close to an ad to me. Twthmoses 13:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems to be just a brand of cellphone. Nothing notable claimed about it. Edgar181 14:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because as the article says, "It remains to be seen whether this will be a success." Ruby 15:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep While I'm usually quick to vote delete for anything resembling an advert, this is a somewhat notable product by virtue of the partnership of collaboration between B&O (a high-end audio company) and Samsung. OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advertising non notable product. Latinus 19:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Very Strong Keep. This is important. It is a joint venture involving very large and very influential electronics companies, which will have a lasting impact even if the product is a complete failure. --Apyule 03:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article must be maintained. Perhaps it can be edited in order to filter out the advert type nature, but so many people are fascinated by this phone that deleting the entry would be a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.112.13 (talk • contribs) 017:00, 2 February 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. Babajobu 05:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christo-Heathenry[edit]

Article is about an interesting subject, but no citations and only five Google hits for the term mean that it qualifies as original research. - squibix 14:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable and no resources. --Brian1979 14:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-This seems to essentially be describing a kind of syncretism I think. I don't know if a redirect to that would be appropriate or not.--T. Anthony 14:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say not, because the term is essentially a neologism. - squibix 15:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The author has created a neologism from the word "heathenry" used in the source website by deliberately combining it with the prefix "Christo-" (possibly to troll Christians on Wikipedia). Ruby 15:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see this a troll at all: to me it looks likes a very interesting expirement in syncretism undertaken by a very small unencyclopedic number of people. I particularly liked the comparison, on the englishfolkchurch.com website, of this phenomenon to the Japanese blending of Buddhidm and Shinto. - squibix 15:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm Christian, Catholic specifically, and didn't find it offensive. However it is admittedly a neologism and shouldn't be an article until/unless it gains currency.--T. Anthony 15:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly the term "Christo-paganism" already has some hits.[18] Not enough to justify keeping it under that name, but maybe the idea will latch on to some term. I'm not sure how you'd mix Christianity with paganism though as Christianity is monotheistic. (Whereas Buddhism was agnostic or just non-specific on Gods)--T. Anthony 15:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Njal's Saga, the man who brought Christianity to Iceland in the 900s is described as saying, "Thor would be nothing by dust and ashes if Christ did not permit him to live." - squibix 15:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism and this is totally nonsense. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism. *drew 15:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion. Possibly add a very brief mention (perhaps in the links section) to the heathen article? Crypticfirefly 19:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asr gooyesh[edit]

NN. delete Jwissick(t)(c) 14:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Advertising stub with very little information. Ruby 15:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No real assertion of notability; makes a case for a "speedy deletion" policy for NN companies. OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - nn, pov, littl info. --Brian1979 14:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rich desktop application[edit]

Term not established. 250 google hits. Sleepyhead 14:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GhostBoy66[edit]

Article is about a non-notable comic strip character created by User:GhostBoy66. - squibix 15:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Israel[edit]

Moved from speedy which was tagged with the following description:

"No real assertion of notability, mostly unverifiable content (IMDb certainly credit the actor as sill alive http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0411436/). I was willing to rewrite it but cannot find anything biographical or notable, only lists of credits"

TimPope 11:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep actor with some roles of note --TimPope 11:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No vote pending clarification of whether he died in 1983 as the article claims, in which case he does only have two roles as Sarah has clarified. --TimPope 12:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according to the author of the article, this actor has only two film credits and the rest belong to someone else. None of the information in the article is verifiable, as far as I can tell, or I would have rewritten it. Sarah Ewart 11:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable or verifiable. Ashibaka tock 01:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability, mostly unverifiable content. Could probably be speedied under A1, certainly under A7. Ikkyu2 07:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete; practically everything in WWN is a hoax, so why is this one special? Johnleemk | Talk 16:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Cloud[edit]

Delete, article is a hoax, basically. It's nonsense based on an article from the Weekly World News, a goofy fiction rag with headlines like "space aliens ate clinton's brain" and so on. Yahoo News carries some of the weekly world news' articles without labelling them as fiction, which led to this confusion Xyzzyplugh 22:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but change the article to explicitly say it was a hoax, and link to sites showing why. Mark the Echidna 02:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax or bad joke; no solid references JoJan 16:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN and delete. Stifle 14:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete nom is right but fanficgurl also. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Izquierdo[edit]

As tragic as Mr. Izquierdo's death was, along with his daughter's, he isn't really notable enough (or not notable at all, for that matter). Just because he was Eliza's father, doesn't mean he's notable. (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable person. Perhaps instead of an article about him, just include a small blurb about him in the Elisa Izquierdo article instead or something. - Fanficgurl 4:00, 27, January 2006 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP wikipedia is not paper, this person is notable, Patcat88 12:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Copyvio - sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Stifle 14:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Paleopsychology Project[edit]

This seems to be a silly article - perhaps a prank - anyway it would be an indirect report on original research if the included link worked - but it does not. Carrionluggage 07:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - copyvio of [19] JoJan 16:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteas copyvio [20], does not meet speedy requirements - was not posted in past 48 hrs -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 16:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It wasn't created in the last 48 hours, so it can't be speedied. Mushroom 16:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry about "speedy" - there are lots of special Wiki tags and I evidently found the wrong one. Carrionluggage 05:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Latinus 19:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irishtown, Chicago[edit]

I am a resident of "West" Morgan Park, which actually shares the zip code, 60643, with Beverly. It is true that there are Irish Pubs on Western Avenue; in fact, I practically live across the street from one. However, no one, and I repeat, NO ONE has ever called the following neighborhoods of Mount Greenwood, Morgan Park, or Beverly "Irishtown." I was born and raised in the Southside of Chicago, and I have never heard anyone ever refer to the area in question by the name "Irishtown." It is likely that someone will punch someone else out for referring to the neighborhoods as "Irishtown." Delete Voice of Reason 04:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. state sports[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was unverifiable. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. States have official sport(s) just as they do flowers, animals, etc. As far as verifiability, a quick Google search turned up this [21] which I'll add to the article. I'm betting other state websites have similar content. -- JLaTondre 00:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Some of these are verifiable by googling on "state sport of xx", although some are not and should be removed if they can't be verified. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JLaTondre. Calwatch 05:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial listcruft. Stifle 14:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was let the talk hash it out. This doesn't appear to be original research to me; a merge has been proposed, and I think someone better acquainted with the topic should figure this out. If it doesn't pan out, it can be redirected or brought back to AfD. Johnleemk | Talk 16:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Near-Extinction evolution theory[edit]

Essay based on single, non-expert, source. Delete as Original research. This material is handled at population bottleneck Zeimusu | Talk page 15:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy Oswald[edit]

Non notable band, released it's first album this month, "Fuzzy Oswald" gets a grand total of 35 google hits, most of which are unrelated Aim Here 15:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. (Turns out the content is sufficiently covered at the main article; if there's anything really worth merging, feel free to do so.) Johnleemk | Talk 15:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avenger (band)[edit]

  • Also nominated:
Prayers of Steel
Depraved to Black EP
  • Delete All or Merge all to Rage (band): Non-notable band that has only released one full-length album and one EP which doesn't meet the WP:BAND standard of two full-length albums on major labels. Careful while researching - there are a few other bands named Avenger or The Avengers, etc. This band is not on Amazon and only mentioned on Allmusic.com as a clarifier for another band called Avenger. This is the German punk rock band, Avenger. Listed for speedy but admin sent it here. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Rage (band). The article merely states that this was an earlier version of Rage. While the original band clearly fails WP:BAND, Rage has sufficient notability to warrant an article of its own. - Phædriel ♥ tell me - 15:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mutha's Day Out[edit]

  • Also nominated:
Jeff Morgan
  • Delete All: Non-notable band that has only released one album which doesn't meet the WP:BAND standard of two full-length albums on major labels. The one album is only on Amazon as a used CD. Listed for speedy but admin sent it here. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, they toured the United States and Europe thus meeting WP:BAND. Totally inappropriate speedy. Kappa 15:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets the notability guideline, as noted above. Leithp 15:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Maybe I need an education here. Being an opening act on a tour is still considered a tour in regards to WP:BAND? If so, then I agree - close this one up. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Regardless, does Jeff Morgan really warrant his own article? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well he seems to have been in two bands, so I would prefer to keep him separate, but if you wanted to merge with one of them you wouldn't need to go through AFD. Kappa 17:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a no brainer, Mutha's Day Out got a lot of attention back in the day. -- JJay 22:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deadbird[edit]

  • Delete: Non-notable band that has only released one album which doesn't meet the WP:BAND standard of two full-length albums on major labels. Only the one album on Amazon and Allmusic. Listed for speedy but admin sent it here. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. While Mutha's Day Out squeaks through the WP:MUSIC criteria, I don't think this one does. OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 19:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as band with album at amazon. -- JJay 22:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Album at Amazon is all it takes? Not according to WP:BAND which doesn't mention Amazon at all. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm well aware of the guidelines, thank you. There was no need to repeat your nom. -- JJay 02:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 14:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Mary Sunshine[edit]

  • Delete: Non-notable band that has only released one album (according to the article) which doesn't meet the WP:BAND standard of two full-length albums on major labels. No mentions on either Amazon or Allmusic. Listed for speedy but admin sent it here. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, full-length album on A&M with notable producer, and contributed to a movie soundtrack reviewed on All Music Guide [22] Kappa 15:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That's one full-length album, not two. And the link you added was for the soundtrack to the movie SFW, not for this band. This band got one sentence in that review. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK I've reworded my vote. Kappa 16:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. -- JJay 22:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Anyone else troubled by the fact that there appears to be no verifiable source for the info in this article? Can anyone else find anything? It's a struggle to even find where you can buy the CD that A&M allegedly released. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willard (band)[edit]

  • Delete: Non-notable band that has only released one album (according to the article) which doesn't meet the WP:BAND standard of two full-length albums on major labels. Amazon has only the one album and only used. Listed for speedy but admin sent it here. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good article, part of the extremely inflential Seattle grunge scene, media coverage in the Seattle Times. Kappa 15:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I see no link to verify media coverage in the Seattle times. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough for an article. Latinus 19:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We need this article if we want to have encyclopedic coverage of the Seattle grunge movement, one of the most important events in rock of the last 15 years. Willard were a part of this, its members have been in numerous other bands that have pages here (Tad, Hog Molly, etc.) and their album got major media attention in the Seattle Times and Chicago Tribune. -- JJay 22:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: To be fair, the Chicago one looks like an album review. Some magazines put out dozens of reviews a day - it doesn't make the bands worthy of an encyclopedia entry. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It was an album review. If there was something unclear about my comment, I'd be glad to clarify further. -- JJay 02:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's nice that everyone is into this Seattle grunge movement but it seems like there's a need to have one all-encompassing Seattle Grunge history article that captures this endless legion of one-hit or one-album wonders that supposedly rocked every party in Seattle for six months fifteen years ago. It doesn't seem necessary to list how every individual band was "part of starting the movement" only to have various band members "lose interest" and "move on to other projects" or have major labels drop them because of "turmoil within the band", etc., etc. Boring and redundant... Just my opinion anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing wrong with having an article about the Seattle Grunge history and linking to bands that meet the various notability guidelines like this one, while putting short blurbs on the less notable ones in the article. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:MUSIC. Stifle 14:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa, but cleanup. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Badlydrawnjeff. Jack Endino is a notable producer, first of all; any band he produced deserves mention. They were covered in two major high-circulation newspapers, one outside of their region. They have an All Music Guide entry. Ultimately, they're a footnote to pop history, even to grunge history, but a worthwhile footnote nonetheless. Raggaga 01:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the two reasons above. DeckardCain 23:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lynx (band)[edit]

  • Delete: Non-notable band that has only released one full-length album (according to the article) which doesn't meet the WP:BAND standard of two full-length albums on major labels. Amazon has a used album called Lynx but it's hard to tell if it's the same American band (looks like a Canadian import). Listed for speedy but admin sent it here. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mushroom 16:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important producer and members in bands with pages here. -- JJay 22:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That sounds to me like a reason to chop the article up and merge it into those articles. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Members moving on to larger projects. -- [20:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.212.115 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Stifle 14:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Mushroom 16:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Butt[edit]

  • Delete: Non-notable band that has only released one full-length album (according to the article) which doesn't meet the WP:BAND standard of two full-length albums on major labels. No mentions on Amazon. This one actually was speedy deleted but a second admin overrode that and restored. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sigh. They do meet the guideline (such as it is), due to their national tour. I'm the admin who restored it, because it was an inappropriate speedy (WP:BAND is not a criteria for speedy deletion). Leithp 15:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Well I'm not an admin so I didn't delete it - clearly someone else should be voting delete here and clearly the speedy appropriateness isn't so clear. WP:BAND is guideline for notability and notability is a criteria for speedy deletion. There used to be a note that WP:BAND is basically criteria for speedy so I guess admins need to get their stories straight. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: WP:BAND can't be used for speedy. CSD A7 says "an article about a real person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". This article asserts significance, even if it's less than what is required by WP:BAND. In the past I mistakenly deleted a small number of articles following WP:BAND and they went to deletion review, so Leithp did the right thing here. Mushroom 16:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The guideline says "a national concert tour [...] reported in notable and verifiable sources". The article is unsourced, so it can be deleted.
    • Keep. It's not unsourced anymore. Mushroom 16:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cheers, for the record their national tour with L7, is mentioned here. Leithp 16:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the band didn't remain intact until its members were on zimmer frames and swimming in copious amounts of money and platinum albums. They did, however, perform a verifiable national tour, as Leithp states, and were part of a notable record label. Article is sourced and band has respectable google figures. SoLando (Talk) 16:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, since it's sourced now and seems to meet WP:BAND with this tour, feel free to close it up. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Sun Union (album)[edit]

  • Delete: Album for a band that doesn't have an article. Neither album, band, nor the band's other album (also in Afd) have any mentions on either Amazon or Allmusic. Listed for speedy but admin sent it here. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, album by a notable band. It's unclear to me why the band's article was deleted. Kappa 16:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: How can you tell they're a notable band? I find almost nothing on Google about them and I can't find an official website at all. They're not even on http://www.metal-archives.com and that site has every metal band. (Or isn't this a metal band? I'm confused.) —Wknight94 (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • They have media coverage, seem to have been one of the biggest rock bands in Okinawa, and toured the USA. [23] [24]. This seems to be a mirror of the mysteriously deleted wikipedia article [25] Kappa 18:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Kappa. OhNoitsJamieTalk 19:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Possibly rename to band as the other article was deleted by accident. -- JJay 22:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well I'm confused. If the band does seem notable, maybe someone wants to kill the Afd's (including the other Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distance (Album)), restore the band article and then see what to do from there, eh? I'm still troubled by this whole "U.S. tour" thing. They played at a couple festivals - does that really constitute a "U.S. tour"? Another of my Afd's is dead because the band toured as the opening act to some notable bands. Does that really count? Seems a little too ambiguous to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Gel Records[edit]

  • Delete: Non-notable record label whose only associations in the article are with non-notable bands (either already deleted or also in Afd). Not sure what the notability standards are for record labels but releasing one notable album would seem like a prerequisite to me. Also, the article reads more like a bio of some guy (Jerry O'Neill) that doesn't have an article. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While some of the releted articles may merit keep, I don't think this one does...sounds like he knows a lot of notable people, but hasn't really done anything notable himself. OhNoitsJamieTalk 19:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Electric Eel[edit]

  • Delete: Non-notable recording studio whose only claim to notability are Tad and Jack Endino - but neither of those articles explain what the association is with the studio. The only articles which link here are Green Gel Records and Pretty Mary Sunshine and both of those are also in Afd. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While some of the related articles may be keeps, I don't think this studio meets the notability criteria. OhNoitsJamieTalk 19:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The Legendary Family[edit]

Delete. Hoax. Copied from Wikicomedy [26], no Google hits except Wikicomedy. Brendan 15:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason not to speedy this. So I shall. Morwen - Talk 16:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chez Winakabs Europe[edit]

Political propaganda JoJan 16:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP is not a propaganda machine JoJan 16:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per JoJan. While this is propaganda, I did a search to see if this was a notable organisation on which we could write a NPoV article. It seems this is a law office in London. Can't find any mention of it outside yellow pages type listings so I conclude not notable.Obina 22:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lane K. Akiona[edit]

  • Non-notable church official. Rmhermen 16:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with Wikipedia administrator Rmhermen's remark that the comment that Father Akiona is a non-notable church official. Where exactly in the Wikipedia policy is the term "non-notable" defined? He is a vicar forane in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Honolulu. Until the phrase "non-notable" is clearly defined, I respectfully submit that your request for speedy deletion of this article is arbitrary and capricious. Aloysius Patacsil 18:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My being an admin has no bearing on whether the subject is notable nor on the process of deletion. Please read WP:NN for a discussion of guidelines. Rmhermen 19:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have read the guidelines at WP:NN and still respectfully maintain that your request for deletion is arbitrary and capricious. I maintain that the existing guideline is insufficient as to dismiss my article as non-notable; the guideline itself states that there are no objective criteria for notability besides Alexa and Google tests. I have authored many articles on Catholicism in the western United States and the Pacific Rim to understand what would be considered notable. I have annotated my source materials for others to confirm the verifiability of the article. Finally, the article while obscure to you, is not necessarily so to readers interested in the subject matter. Other than dismissing my work on Father Akiona using a phrase such as non-notable, please articulate your specific objections using objective criteria. Aloysius Patacsil 19:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Non notable. I'm very sorry if this harsh sounding phrase sounds like a critique of the subject or the author. This is not intended. Though the exact rule on notability is difficult, there are clear guidelines to help, and a lot of precident. Then we check for consensus. I understand he is Vicar forane. The question is what other grounds for notability exist? Is he an author or often quoted in newspapers? Obina 22:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G-unit co.[edit]

Not-notable Urban Hip-Hop clothing label.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 defaults to keep. Do not cite this alone as a reason to support/oppose a merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 15:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Airlines fleet[edit]

This nomination accompanies the Singapore Airlines flight numbers nomination. The fleet is not noteworthy enough in itself to need its own article. Most of the article is a list of statistics on the fleet anyway. I would support moving some of the data to WikiSource, however. Dbinder 16:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (nominator). Dbinder 16:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where does the source belong to? SOME of the information, what do you mean? I have a feeling that you are trying to pin-point at our articles. Wikipedia has so many unencyclopedic articles, and this informative encyclopedic information is nominated for deletion. This does not fall in the criteria of WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. So let's just withdraw this AFD, instead of making a big fuss here. Could we all discuss this at the talk page instead of bringing it to AFD and the article will be gone forever. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 17:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A few things: first, where's this talk page you reference? The article's discussion page hasn't even been created. Secondly, the "Wikipedia has so many unencyclopedic articles" argument is old, tired, and doesn't work - you're an AfD veteran, you should know that by now. If you know of other unencyclopedic articles, you're free to AfD them yourself. Lastly, since this is not the type of information one would find in an encyclopedia or almanac, how is this not an indiscriminant collection of information? -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 17:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have so many things to do beside AFDs, article editing, uploading my photos etc. Besides, now is the Chinese New Year festive season. I can't be doing too much work here. I will do all this when I have the time. I will just store it somewhere, to me it has an encyclopedic value. I'm an inclusionist, this articles are encyclopedic. Its I don't have the time to go and find articles to nominate it for AFD. I have to balance my school work with Wikipedia work. Fleet information does not meet the Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information, they are telephone directories and all the topics you can find at the WP:NOT page for more information. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 18:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You seem to be taking this as a personal attack. If you looked at my edit history you'd see that I've been going through airport and airline articles to clean them up. When I got to the SIA article I noticed a lot of unencyclopedic information. No one is belittling the myriad of contributions you've made to other articles about Singapore. And like I said, the information is not useless, it just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Dbinder 20:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • This information is better than some vanity and neologism in an encyclopedia. There's some value in it. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 02:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admins, please note that the nominator voted for his own proposal and should not be double counted. (No vote.) Calwatch 05:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • COMMENT It's customary to nominate and vote. __earth (Talk) 05:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's no such thing. Further, it's exceptionally poor practice; it smacks of an attempt to induce groupthink. Avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. Ikkyu2 07:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article is informative for an encyclopedia. This article does not meet any of the WP:NOT criteria at all. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 17:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - how bout this one: WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 17:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --*drew 18:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Though it's borderline "indiscriminate collection," it's well-presented and interesting. To me, at least. On the downside, if we did this for all airlines, seems like it would be difficult to maintain properly. OhNoitsJamieTalk 19:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep encyclopedic content. --Vsion 23:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the fleet and SIA are two different entities, just like the United States Army and the Military of the United States is. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 23:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a discussion of the fleet might be one thing, but all of the unencyclopedic tables made my eyes cross. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Singapore is one of the truly important global carriers and this discussion of their fleet is fascinating. I could spend hours digging into something like this and I know the subject interests an enormous amount of people. The fact that a team of editors have spent over a year developing such a great, informative presentation makes me proud. -- JJay 01:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that I looked at this user's last 2000 edits and found none to any articles related to Singapore. However, I did discover that the user frequently goes to Afd pages to vote keep and then make comments like this. Furthermore, spending a year developing an informative presentation does not qualify material for inclusion in Wikipedia. Original research quite often takes more than a year, and that is explicity against policy. Dbinder 01:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your point? Must I have edited this article to vote? Or are you saying that only editors who work on Singaporean topics can participate here? Should I check your edits to see if you frequently try to delete material on Singapore? Frankly, I don't have the inclination to do that, but I am impressed that you found the time to study my last 2,000 edits. - JJay 02:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's really not hard to look at someone's edit history. It took me all of 2 minutes. I didn't say you have to have participated in the Singapore project to vote. I was referring to your reason for your vote, which is ridiculous. Your statement that you "could spend hours digging into something like this" implies that you have some level of interest. Yet, not once have you even made a minor edit to a Singapore-related page. It also appears to be a trend that you vote keep and say how important an article is when you have no prior involvement in the subject. If you had voted keep because you believe it belongs in Wikipedia, then that would have been fine, but don't pretend to be overly interested in something you're not. Dbinder 12:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dbinder, your attempt to discredit my vote by branding it ridiculous is in very poor taste. As you are an authority given the "two minutes" you spent studying my last two thousand edits, you probably know that I edit articles purely at random. Your analysis would further show that my edit list articles do not reflect any particular interest. I would also submit that they do not reflect the articles that I read. They do not, by definition, show how I spend the hours of my day. Of course, your interpretation may be different, given that you spent "all of two minutes" on the issue, although in my defense I would say it took me somewhat more than "two minutes" to make those edits.
I did not ask if you were an authority on the airline industry. I did not ask if you were an expert on Singapore. I do not know if you are an airline executive with a grudge or an unemployed student with too much time on his hands. I do not know what articles you edit, or if you do any editing at all. I am also not going to ask to see the books you take out of the library. However, I stand fully by what I said. Airline fleets interest an enormous amount of people. SIA interests an enormous amount of people. If this was not true, I would have a hard time explaining the +100,000 google hits for the topic [27].
I do not believe that editing an article makes one an expert. I am unsure that there is a correlation between editing an article and knowledge. I also value the participation and input of all contributors. Please take more than "two minutes" the next time you choose to render judgement or attack someone. -- JJay 14:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment does nothing to refute my claim. The fact that the subject is interesting to a large number of people is not what the debate is about. The question is whether a series of tables about an airline's fleet belongs in an encyclopedia. Finally, your sarcastic comments are not appreciated. If you interpret my questioning of your motives for voting here as a personal attack, then I apologize, but responding in kind is counterproductive. Dbinder 15:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do consider your questioning of my motives to be a personal attack, although I will accept your apologies. However, I am not here to refute your claims about my interests. Please also refrain from lecturing me about which comments are productive. I have not found your approach here to be productive. I did not find your attack to be productive. Lastly, I believe the question of whether I felt this article belonged here was answered with my original comment. -- JJay 15:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is ridiculous, Dbinder. What are you trying to say here. Anyway, can't an article be different from others. Why can't we be unique? --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 02:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep An article on the fleet of a major international airline is encyclopedic (as far as a wiki encyclopedia - not paper - goes) and, as far as I'm concerned, reasonably interesting too. If we can have multiple articles on such trivia as Pokemon characters we can have an article on SIA's fleet. --kingboyk 05:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. If you wish to dig into my edit history, you'll find no Singapore edits that I can recall (but so what? I know an important global carrier when I see one), and a heap of 'delete' votes. --kingboyk 05:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I have yet to see a fleet table that requires an article. If you read the intro it sounds like an advert for the airline. There is a discussion going on about what needs to be in the fleet table. If this level of detail is really needed, then include it in that discussion because if we need it for one airline then we need it for all. Vegaswikian 05:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Also, none of the information on the page is cited. Tables of statistics like that need to have references. Dbinder 13:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The "lack of refenrencing" issue has been resolved.--Huaiwei 17:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As per below comment, it is ridiculous to believe that an article like this should be seen as setting a standard across all airline pages. Just as Category:Airline destinations does not contain an article for every single airline on this planet, it is ridiculous to set standards on how much information wikipedia can offer for specific topics of interests. The fleet table may be standardised to improve on aesthetic appeal and for ease in comparisons. Its standardisation does not have to be related to this particular article, however, for both can obviously co-exist as it already does so for SIA.--Huaiwei 17:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or transwiki per nominator. - Mailer Diablo 03:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, topic is already well covered in the main Singapore Airlines article, and the only thing new this article has to offer is a detailed list of all the planes, info which changes frequently and tough to keep current. Better to leave that to the aviation websites. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge at best to Singapore Airlines. This is not a keep vote. Stifle 13:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikisource hosts previously published materials, not editor compiled lists. Perhaps some of this material would qualify, but do not delete because you are anticipate it being kept at Wikisource.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I may be biased as the main contributor to this article, but that others similarly point out that SIA is considered a major player in the international aviation industry scene enforces the point that article like these should not be deleted based on the feasibility of having similar pages for all airlines. This article's existance does not entail that, and it never had that intention to. Individuals are entirely at their liberty to add similar pages to any other airline they deem feasible to do so. Secondly, this page is not difficult to maintain as claimed, for airlines generally do not see changes in their fleets any faster than otherwise imagined, especially when we are talking about SIA who buys exclusively wide-bodied aircraft, which are high-value planes usually taking months, if not years, to change hands. Last but not least, "listcraft", wikisource, and all that kind of stuff do not exactly apply here, when it seems neccesary to constantly emphasise that this is a helper article to prevent the Singapore Airlines page from becoming a monster article. I would certainly question the existance of all articles in Category:Airline destinations, Airline call sign, List of Boeing 777 operators, World's busiest airports by passenger traffic, amongst plenty of other similar articles. Deletionists will probably have a field day listing all of them for deletion if "listcraft" and "indiscriminant collection of information" are their sole criterion. I have yet to see anyone actually explaining why this is an "indiscriminant collection of information" btw.--Huaiwei 14:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an interesting article. Too much bland statistical information, and I can't see how it could be improved. Singopo 15:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am surprised that personal "interest" is also a criteria for deletion. "Bland" statistics have a place in wikipedia, for they form the basis for more in-depth analysis. And that, of coz, is one example of a major room of improvement for this article, along with other possibilies for expansion (not neccesarily using statistics alone).--Huaiwei 17:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dumpex[edit]

non notable file hosting website Melaen 16:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Google comes up with Gibberish while searching for 'Dumpex'. Alexa provides no data for Dumpex.com, if that is even the URL, I can't tell. nn-website. --lightdarkness 18:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Korg (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Stifle 14:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JBK Foundation Trust[edit]

Appears to be a copy/paste job, but can't speedy under copyvio because I can't find the original text. The article seems unrecoverable for a non-subject matter expert. Removed db-empty for obvious reasons. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Play (act)[edit]

Delete Neologism, made up in school one day, non-notable. Brendan 17:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Nuclear weapons delivery. Johnleemk | Talk 15:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear missile[edit]

  • Does this look like a dis-ambiguation page for multiple meanings of the term?? Not to me. To me, it looks like 2 ways to classify a nuclear missile. Is this really a dis-ambiguation page?? If not, delete. Georgia guy 17:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but as a redirect to Nuclear weapon. The other meaning might be better described as a "nuclear-powered missile" MartinRe 17:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Target suggested by Meegs is a better choice. MartinRe 19:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per MartinRe, but probably to Nuclear weapons delivery instead of Nuclear weapon. There are about 40 incoming links to the page right now — I didn't look at all of them, but I didn't see any science fiction referring to a nuclear-propelled missiles. ×Meegs 19:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since we can't seem to agree where to redirect it, but we all seem to agree this is useless. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WTF? How is a redlink less useful than a disputed redirect? Obvious keep. Figure out where to point it on the talk page. —Cryptic (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a disambiguation. Calwatch 05:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep as a disambig or decide to redirect it somewhere. This is clearly a search term that is likely to come up, so deleting it would make little sense. It should lead to something. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 09:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nuclear weapon. Nobody is typing in "Nuclear missle" in hopes of reading the generic "missle" article. -- MisterHand 21:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Sign Of The Times[edit]

does this album even exists?.delete. Melaen 17:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would recommend deleting this page as patent nonsense, then writing a new page at that same title about Petula Clark's hit song (or the album of the same title - see, e.g., [28]). That was the first thing that came to mind with that title. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as probable hoax, most likely a non-notable album from a non-notable band. Not patent nonsense. Stifle 14:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with Stifle. --Ryano 16:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. (Mind you might cause incorrect thoughts, governmental objections is a strong argument for publishing anything - but not on Wikipedia.) -- RHaworth 20:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threats to National Security[edit]

Where to begin.. the title needs work, since it's just about the U.S. but the title doesn't explain that. It's based entirely on an op-ed piece published today, and as written is rather POV, since it's really just restating some guy's POV on the matter. W.marsh 17:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as inherently POV -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 17:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —simpatico hi 18:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – a straight summary of an op-ed. ×Meegs 18:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not encyclopaedic, very hard to source and almost certainly will never present a worldwide view. Latinus 19:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Content might cause incorrect thoughts, governmental objections — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wastrong (talk • contribs)
    • Note, Wastrong is the article's creator and only editor. ×Meegs 04:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as Author requests deletion - CSD G7, article tagged as such -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; I don't see the copyvio problem. Johnleemk | Talk 15:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze Heatnix[edit]

non notable character , may be from [29]. delete. Melaen 17:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If not copyvio, Keep or merge with Mega Man X6 Kappa 17:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or merge with Mega Man X6 --TimPope 18:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete.Poorly written, poorly thought out fancruft with plenty of assumed information, on a minor 'character' that exists only to die in a very poorly-made video game. Somebody get this eyesore off Wikipedia. ---209.122.74.2 22:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Okay, Blaze is just getting TOO MUCH ATTENTION! Idea: eliminate that, then just turn the Bosses' names to BOLD. Then, nobody will get a crazy urge to make an article for ANY bosses in X6. Oh, it's a cool game, just too hard, okay?Itsame Jan. 2006


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extradomestic[edit]

only a citation Melaen 17:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11:11 (movie)[edit]

"Article about a future non notable movie. No references cited. Article reads like a review. *Delete. When the movie is released, if someone wants to write a better article about it, let them. TheRingess 18:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteWP:NOT a crystal ball. Obina 22:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Thomas 20:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle 14:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. incog 17:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Fitzgerald[edit]

Reason why the page should be deleted

  • Delete. The stub contains virtually no biographical information on that person and largely serves to voice criticism of views expressed by commenters to his articles posted on Jihad Watch website, which is a violation of WP:NOT because Wikipedia is not a soapbox.--Pecher 17:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pecher. ×Meegs 18:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pecher. Latinus 19:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pecher. --Yalto 19:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. —Cleared as filed. 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11:11[edit]

Article was nominated for deletion about 8 months ago and was deleted. Someone recreated it. Delete with extreme prejudice. TheRingess 18:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, time/number verifiably considered to have mystical power [30] Kappa 19:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I thought it was 11:34, but it's a good article anyway. Ashibaka tock 20:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KeepNotable. Interesting article. Might need a rewrite though. Englishrose 23:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I hate voting to keep, as this topic is clearly rubbish, and calls of "NPOV" will prevent the article from ever truly reflecting that. But the Uri Geller and IMDB links seem to prove at least some notability. Article needs cleanup and balance from a skeptic, but perhaps not a delete. Vslashg 00:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rewrite Thomas 20:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the link provided by Kappa CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 02:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... interesting phenomenon. New movie will relate to it. Verify accuracy, though. Calwatch 05:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I wrote this article purely because I came across the topic several times on the Internet and figured it was notable, rubbish or not. -ryan-d 15:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable. Bleedstupid 14:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. Failing that, delete as completely idiosyncratic non-notable non-topic. Ikkyu2 22:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giovas Vlachiotis[edit]

the article is not about Giovas Vlachiotis. Melaen 18:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as patent nonsense and possible vanity. He gets 136 Google results, many from the same sites and many saying the exact same thing. "Kostas Karagiozis" gets more, but Google only lists 11 of them, and they aren't about the person described on the page. —simpatico hi 18:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a contextless and apparently unverifiable story. Dlyons493 Talk 18:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Horrid writing. Most likely vanity. Nonsense --lightdarkness 18:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Latinus 19:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. The present article is nonsense, of course. The Greek Wikipedia has an article about this name (Βλαχιώτης Γιόβας), who seems to have been a participant in the Greek War of Independence of 1821. Unfortunately, the Greek article is itself unreferenced. The placenames mentioned in the article make at least some sense. I'll try if I can dig anything out. Lukas (T.|@) 19:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to delete. I give up. The Greek article seems to be from some old Greek printed encyclopedia, so there must at least be some background, but the guy who added it hasn't been active since, and even if we could verify that source, the person (Vlachiotis, not Karagiosis) wouldn't probably meet our notability criteria - his only claim to fame is that his house was a meeting place of revolutionaries at some time. Lukas (T.|@) 20:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Well done on this research - pity it didn't throw up enough to save the article. Dlyons493 Talk 20:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lukas. Complete mess. 143.239.7.2 16:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC) I should remember to sign in. Stifle 16:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campus safety[edit]

This is a vanity, unencyclopedic article. Delete at best, merge with Carleton University at worst. Ardenn 18:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Island[edit]

Delete. I simply can't find any verification of this place- the World Book mentions Oeno Island, but not Sandy Island; googles of the stuff about Sirius radio show nothing, searches for the company supposdely maintaing it come up dry, &etc. And the anon on Helpdesk who brought this issue to my attention says:

"The article is a total fallacy, probably planted by a Howard Stern Fan. All the names mentioned are characters in the Howard Stern Radio show. Sirius Satellite is only beamed to America, why would they need a to put a transponder in the South Pacific. Satellites in geo-synchronous orbit which provide transmission of Sirius Satellite radio - are positioned above North America." --maru (talk) contribs 18:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sandy Island seems to be real: look at the early history of the article. The Howard Stern stuff is likely a crock-- edit it out.--MayerG 21:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've deleted the nonsense. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zoe --lightdarkness 17:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If kept, the article should be renamed to Sandy Island (Pitcairn Islands) since there are many Sandy Islands. This page should become a dab article or even just a redirect for now. Vegaswikian 08:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that the article should be renamed to Sandy Island (Pitcairn Islands), as there are other islands with the same name.--MayerG 15:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete; undocumented = unverifiable, anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chatanika River Women's Colony[edit]

I'm putting this up for deletion on the request of Anne Mareck, who wrote most of the article. She says: "I would like to have the whole thing deleted because, while I think the phenonema of the women's colonies of the 60s & 70s bear documentation, I feel that I am violating people's rights to privacy by posting. I didn't think it through well enough when I started it, I'm sorry I did it all wrong, I'll never do it again ((I promise)). Could you please delete the whole mess??" --maru (talk) contribs 18:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete If some sources can be listed on the article, then I think it belongs here. I couldn't verify the article with a Google search, so maybe this is just original research in which case it should be deleted. Unfortunately, I don't think privacy is a good reason to delete the article. It might be a reason to delete the many articles about individuals that redirect to this page. --Bill 18:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is based on a community I lived in in the 70s. The material cannot be 'cited' because no one has ever published on the occurence. I had thought it was important to document one of these women's colonies--it seems like a shame for examples of cooperative ((NOT communal))communities to fade into the undocumented past. Yet I feel my attempt--and I wrote ALL of the article--is very difficult to complete without talking about the individuals involved. And that seems like an invasion of privacy. And yes, I had attempted to delete the articles about individuals which I started, but apparantly I do not have enough understanding of the format to do so successfully. At the very least, I would like to request the individual links be deleted.~afmareck

    • Comment I'll nominate those pages to be speedy deleted--Bill 18:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm...well I could continue the general article as a basis for investigation of the phenonema. I may be able to find information on other 'colonies' that existed around the same time and work to create some kind of cohesive whole. Yes, if the individual entries could be deleted that would be good. ~afmareck

Delete: Only reference is in wikipedia from google, no reference in Proquest. If it wasn't for wikipedia, it wouldn't exist. Calwatch 06:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep; the article now states that the firm is a century old. Johnleemk | Talk 15:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crescent Foods, Inc.[edit]

NN Seattle business, article has been on dead-end pages since november, article submission is authors only contribution. MNewnham 18:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete due to lack of content, but could easily be persuaded if expanded as the firm is stated to have lasted a hundred years, which is a long time in the USA. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's noteworthy enough to be in the Online History of Washington State see here, a project funded by the state of Washington and a variety of organizations. I recommend keeping. (I've added this link to the article.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Broughton (talk • contribs) 00:05,29 January 2006 (UTC).
  • Weak delete per JzG. Stifle 16:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creation (1931 film[edit]

Typo in title, not worthy of redirect to Creation (1931 film). Please also check the Creation (1931 film), as I believe this qualifies for AFD as well MNewnham 19:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Friday (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Littlest Mans[edit]

Delete, an article about a 'band' that I have great difficulty verifying via either Allmusic.com or Google. I did find an empty allmusic.com page for a band with a similar name, but that's no verification. With their debut due in June this year, and a more-than-middling chance the band doesn't actually exist ("the band members are midgets"), this should go. -Splashtalk 19:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Spalsh. Latinus 19:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not delete this article, we are a very new band, and to many we have no publicity. My name is Tom Kaln and i'm the lead singer/guitar player, and as a little person i think that it is quite a horrible thing for someone to automatically neglect a band as false because it contains people like me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jahovasnout (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per Splash. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 18:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per this. Wikipedia documents notability; it does not confer it. —Cryptic (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete with extreme prejudice and dump in a river. DS 00:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thelucius[edit]

I don't believe this is verifiable. Kappa 19:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unverifiable. After doing some research, I could only find references to some "World of Warcraft" user and several other unrelated uses. I could not find any proof a "Gerrard de Tracy" ever existed, or any news reports for the supposedly recent event of his death. The small 99x80px image is also questionable, and does not have information on its source. — TheKMantalk 19:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Speculation, weasel words, no references... Lukas (T.|@) 20:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a hoax to me. I don't believe that image either - delete it also! Dlyons493 Talk 20:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NCollab[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket Blogs[edit]

Wikipedia is not a list of Cricket Blogs MNewnham 19:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:NOT a repository of links -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Big time spam, though I'm not sure any sane person would ever search Wikipedia for "Cricket Blogs" anyway. JHMM13 (T | C) 19:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inappropriate. --Brian1979 22:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is a useful list. Wonder whether it could be moved somewhere under WP:Cricket Tintin (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 03:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, Empty except for external links. - Randwicked Alex B 03:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Blogs - potentially useful list for those writing cricket-related articles and looking for sources. I agree that this page as currently written does not belong in the main namespace, jguk 08:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Platypus Church of Arglebargle[edit]

Delete: Pure crap. 11 hits on Yahoo. Not notable. Belongs on Uncyclopedia. Shoehorn 19:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not much else to say. JHMM13 (T | C) 19:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious nonsense. --Wtwilson3 19:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if you like, though as a joke religion it is necessarily nonsense. They really did publish their own bible which was distributed through (at least) Rip Off Press and (I think) Loompanics with copies sometimes turning up on Abebooks. Also, it did have an introduction by one of the founders of the Church of the SubGenius. These things make it somewhat more notable than many other solely internet-based joke religions, I think. There are older citations online on usenet (e.g. alt.slack and alt.discordia) going back to 1993. It could be mentioned as a trivia item on the SubGenius &/or Discordian pages. Schizombie 06:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to know, but still way too esoteric. There's too much of this stuff on Wikipedia already. Shoehorn 08:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P. Emerson Williams[edit]

<500 Google hits, many fewer unique, and many of those seem to be, well, self-promotion would be a bit harsh, but the subject's blog and the like. So little context that it's hard to see what he's supposed to be notable for. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since this link is red, P. Emerson Williams is non-notable. Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 19:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not really fair. The lead sentence says the subject is an illustrator, not a musician ×Meegs 06:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 16:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect: To Choronzon (Band) assuming that article survives Afd. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Finns in Americas[edit]

This article seems to be an essay about some sort of DNA evidence or something. I really can't tell, I have an aversion to science journal articles. If anyone can manage to read through it, please decide whether some of the information is worth keeping around on some other page. As it stands, this is unreadable and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. JHMM13 (T | C) 19:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOR -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research, some fringe theory coloured by national agenda, title is inherently POV too. Lukas (T.|@) 20:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is material here that should be somewhere on WP, but this not the place. This is not from a good source. It is original research. --Bduke 22:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I think this is either original research or a POV fork that belongs elsewhere. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kandalgaonkar[edit]

Another article about a last name with limited use. Punkmorten 19:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it seems destined to remain a one-line substub for the foreseeable future. This is not suggesting that any other article created on the name should be slapped with a G4 speedy. Stifle 16:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While very common Indian surnames might deserve an article, we don't need an article on every surname. utcursch | talk 04:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete (also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Licketyship). -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Pazornik[edit]

Not notable. Self promoting. Sleepyhead 19:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Draeco 20:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least it's verifiable but still seems pretty NN. Delete. --Petros471 21:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable and notable as ceo of a Fortune company. Sshoberi 03:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sshoberi is this articles creator (not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just that WP:AFD#AfD_etiquette says "If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly..."). --Petros471 13:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep speaking as a programmer, what the exec in question is doing is actually quite notable- his company is the first to tackle ecommerce from a web 2.0 perspective. I made similar comments on his company's page as well. Paranom 03:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Paranom's only contributions so far have been voting on this and the Licketyship AfD. --Petros471 13:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not very entertaining, but it is accurate and legitimate. Toss up Weak Keep --Amerigo 04:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Amerigo's only contributions so far have been at various AfD's and creating his userpage. This does not mean that his (and others above) views will not be taken into account, but they may be treated with less weight by the closing admin, as per WP:AFD#AfD_etiquette. --Petros471 13:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fortune and others clearly think he is notable as a ceo of an interesting startup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.79.132 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Lots of folks are watching what he and his company are doing to set new standards in the retail world. This is someone others will follow. MJR 15:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: MJR's only contributions so far have been voting on this and the Licketyship AfD. --Petros471 15:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is funny. I found the entry on pazornik through Licketyship after giving what I stated would be my first and last ever AfD vote. Then I see this one up for delete as well (sigh). Again, I'll pre-qualify that I am a new account, but by no means a new contributer. I'll re-state what I said on the Licketyship AfD: those advocating delete are likely unfamiliar with web 2.0 and why it's important. An editor calimed on the related AfD that Licketyship should be deleted becuase the company was not as interesting as DHL, which is patently ridiculous. That's like saying pazornik's entry should be deleted becuase he's not as interesting as Martha Stewart. In both cases, the 2 are very much dissimilar. I will point out that I would like to see the pazornik entry expanded, becuase as it stands, while he is interesting, the entry on him is not so much. But being a stub does not qualify one for deletion - there are a thousand entries on interesting topics I'd like to see expanded. I was interested enough in pazornik to click through his link and attempt to learn more, and the world is apparently interested enough in pazornik that he's been covered by Fortune, CNN, and NYT, to name a few uncovered by a 2 min. google. I rest. --Bigbang21 22:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems there are sockpuppets in use here. --Sleepyhead 12:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to sockpuppetry and lack of serious notability. Stifle 16:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep subject notable in media, but requires clean up and expansion 72.29.85.142 03:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Lehrer[edit]

Andy Lehrer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Written by subject himself. Claims to have been suppressed by mainstream scientists, has been banned in the past for sock puppetry and personal attacks (relating to pages Bengalia and Bengaliidae). Notability is doubtful, except that there have been dismissive reviews of his self-published work on the family Bengaliidae that he has proposed. Shyamal (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I have conducted an analysis (brief) of the new species discovered, and am now convinced of notability. Changed recommendation to “keep”. Thanks Frank Pais - indeed, the article needs development not deletion. Note: I corrected the indentation of Mista-X recommendation so that it is not missed by the closing admin.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Couldn't find a thing in any peer-reviewed journals. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - There is a wide wealth of content written by Mr. Lehrer in various journals available on Lexis-Nexis. His academic contributions are highly specialized, and demonstrate a unique knowledge that is arguably not possessed by many of his scholastic peers. We can help develop this article into something beautiful. It mustn't be deleted. Frank Pais (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing is that there are a very large number of people who describe species and notability of species authors is linked to the notability of the species (although species are automatically protected from deletion). Would also note that there are a number of Wikipedia editors who have better publication records and have described new species. If just content in any journal counted, one could produce an equally long list for every university staff member. Shyamal (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are 2 reasonable courses - delete, or include the conclusion of the book review, with ref of course. >-) Philcha (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article lacks sources independent of the subject that establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no reliable sources to establish notability. It basically looks like a web host for this guys personal bibliography at the moment.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We recently had a deletion discussion on an article where species’ discovery was the main claim of notability. We kept the article. It seems to me that the problems with this article call for revision tagging rather than deletion. After all, we are debating notability here, not how well written the article is.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is little trouble in supporting the keep of Ludwig Carl Koch. The trouble in this case is that there has not been any substantial species discovery that has been widely cited by third party sources. It is more of taxonomic revisions, and many of the genus names and the new family that has been proposed has been dismissed. (The review is in fact more damning, suggests that the subject does not understand conventions in contemporary taxonomy, the ICZN code etc.) The subject has been waging personal-attacks against entomologists that he thinks are detractors. This is an autobiographical note and there are no reliable sources, nor is there any mention of his notability in any third-party source. This is quite different from the case of long dead scientists. Here is the very carefully worded summary of his work as described by a third-party source unconnected to him http://www.zmuc.dk/entoweb/sarcoweb/sarcweb/workers/Cur_work%5CLehrer.htm and you can decide how many on the rest of this list http://www.zmuc.dk/entoweb/sarcoweb/sarcweb/workers/Cur_work.htm should be considered notable. The most similar case I can think of is actually Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raymond_Hoser but in that case the subject had arguably become notable by attracting media attention which provided "independent third-party" sources. Shyamal (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient publications to show he is one of the major figures in his subject. That other workers in the field disgree with some of his work--or even most of it--is not all that uncommon among systemic biologists. The very object of a major publication in taxonomy (called a "revision" or a "monograph" is to re-arrange all the previous classification everyone else has done. The quote from the review is selective. The conclusion is in full: "Although describing many new species and creating the foundation for a rational taxonomy of a species-rich genus, LEHRER’s work ‘Bengaliidae du Monde (Insecta: Diptera)’ is an incomplete work that masquerades as a full taxonomic revision. It must be treated with the utmost caution and circumspection." One could just as easily have quoted the first part and used it as positive. Presumably this controversy will be judged by the general opinion in the field. Obviously, there's a great deal of editing to do, but that's another matter. DGG (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will assume that this takes into account that the suggestion by User:Dyanega "as far as I have been able to determine, all of his publications cited here and elsewhere are either self-published directly ("Fragmenta Dipterologica"), printed by a publisher who has no peer-review requirements ("Pensoft Series Faunistica"), or printed in a journal that has no peer-review requirements ("Entom. Croat.")." (from User:Dyanega on the Talk:Bengalia#Familiarity_with_what_WP:NPOV_means) Shyamal (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it meets the Zoological Code requirements for publication, it's published. This is one of the few fields that does have a standard. Basically the argument against this article is that he is not a particularly competent scientist, but that doesn't make him not notable--this is not one of the things we are supposed to be judging. If we started judging people by the intrinsic quality of their work, afd would be interminable.. DGG (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that it meets ICZN criteria to qualify as a published description. But there is still no policy that grants automatic notability for authors of species. The notability per WP require independent third party citations for it. The contents of the article are completely WP:OR. There is little scope of improving this article if there is no reliable source for any of the biographical information. Compare the case of an author (Ramana Athreya) who has described just one species (as an amateur and in a rather obscure journal). Shyamal (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shyamal's research and per Eric Yurken's original reasoning, which still seems sound to me. Not every taxonomical classification imparts notability to the taxonomist; WP:ACADEMIC requires peer recognition of a greater sort than has been demonstrated here. If, indeed, Lehrer is a Galileo unappreciated by modern science, well, 22nd-century Wikipedia can celebrate his sacrifice and curse our ignorance. Willing to change my mind if Frank Pais can show me more notability than currently exists in an article consisting entirely of WP:OR and WP:PUFF, but simply having a publication record doesn't confer notability to me. THF (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete ISI h-index = 4, I see no reliable sources supporting a notable impact on the scholarship of his peers. I'm not moved by the argument that notability is inherited from the automatic notability of his study organism. I know *lots* of scientists that totally non-notable, but have described many new species. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathan Hurrell, James McDonough, William Petrie, Paul Zaccone, Stephen Van den Eynde, Felix Vandebroek, Edward Popish, Marisi Palepale, Harold Meyer, Albert Miechielsen, Paul McLeod, Bertram Lock, Joseph Hendriks, Clarence Guerreiro, Thomas Choo, Lawrence Mampaey, Athanasius Bous, Andrew LaRiviere, Matthew Alencastre, Albert Leunens, Christopher Keahi, Clyde Guerreiro, James Anguay, Gaston Diels, Nobincio Fernandez, Albert Garcia, Clement Geysen, Herman Gomes, Father Edward Martin, Rev. Francis Schellemans[edit]

Delete All stub articles on non-notable ordinary priests containing the text "name is a Roman Catholic priest of the Hawaiian Province of the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary." and stub notices and categories. Rmhermen 20:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary or delete. SYCTHOStalk 21:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wot sycthos said. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Non notable. I'm sorry if this phrase sounds harsh to the subject or the author. I have not searched myself to prove they are all not notable - but the articles, as they are make, no assetion of notability. If one of these people is also a published author or is often quoted in the paper, that article can be recreated with that information.Obina 23:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without merge. Non-notable in this format; would still be non-notable as a list of same. I only viewed a few of the above pages, assuming good faith on the part of nominator that they all adhere to the same one-sentence stub format. -Ikkyu2 23:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as non-notable. --Cyde Weys 01:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not merge. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Not important enough. CalJW 04:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am sure these are good men of the cloth, they just are not notable. Furthermore, a merge would be unneccesary to boot. Youngamerican 04:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all unless some assertion of importance/significance/notability shows up, at which point I might reconsider. Maybe. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Youngamerican. Stifle 16:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A1 Generation[edit]

Reads like a notable claim, but external link is empty (one line of HTML code). Article itself is orphaned, and the "claim" itself reads like vanity. Kareeser|Talk! 20:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is http://www.rcammobile.com/products.html , which comes up with 404 for the actual content. As WP doesn't even have an article on RCAM Mobile (the company) there shouldn't be one for the product. Google only comes up with WP/WP mirrors and rcam site as mentioned. Seems totally non-notable to me. Petros471 20:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Petros471. Stifle 16:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A.m.haire[edit]

Sounds like a NN car manufacturer. Article claims "over 100 employees", but is that notable? Kareeser|Talk! 20:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nothing in the article or google establishes that it comes close to meeting any criteria of WP:CORP. Belongs to yellowikis or somewhere (the same text is already at wikicompany.org). - Bobet 04:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bobet. Stifle 16:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to University of Exeter Halls of Residence. I also took the liberty of merging the other Hall articles there. (Please note that this AfD is by definition no consensus to delete; it only resulted in a merge because most people suggested doing so.) Johnleemk | Talk 15:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holland Hall[edit]

Just a student hall of reidence of no great significance; unencyclopædic. Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Merge & Redirect — Most likely a vanity article written by a resident of "Holland Hall". Merge into University of Exeter per Kappa. Kareeser|Talk! 20:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere. Kappa 21:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but improve. There are plenty of articles on University Colleges and Halls of Residences. Some university articles even have a template to their Colleges and Halls. Give it more time to be written properly. --Bduke 22:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. There are 4 other articles to Halls at the University of Exeter - see the Category:University of Exeter, that I have just added to the Holland Hall page. These other articles are much better, and suggest that this one will get attention to improve it. --Bduke 22:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Complements our encyclopedic coverage of the University. Otherwise merge. -- JJay 00:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to University of Exeter. Youngamerican 04:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to University of Exeter, and leave a redirect. Most of the content on this page is unencyclopedic, and what little is left that is worth keeping will never be expanded beyond a stub. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have had an attempt to make this article more acceptable, although I have no direct knowledge of this university let alone this new Hall. I really do think this should be given a chance to develop to the standard of the articles on other Halls of Residence at the University of Exeter and of course many other universities. It is not sensible to merge them all into the parent university article. Also the comment that it will never be expanded is not supported by the length and quality of the some of the articles on other Halls at Exeter.--Bduke 09:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight merge and redirect to University of Exeter per WP:BAI. Stifle 16:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A4536 road[edit]

As far as I can tell, nothing notable ever happened on this "very short major road" Kareeser|Talk! 20:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, we have plenty of B road articles, A roads ought to be a no brainer. Jcuk 22:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Another good road article. Just needs to be expanded. -- JJay 00:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete line on a map belongs on an atlas, not in an encyclopaedia. --TimPope 22:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That's the Blackpole Road. --Tony Sidaway 04:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep per the rambling and entertaining conversation below. —Cleared as filed. 00:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A4133 road[edit]

Another non-notable road, in my opinion. Orphaned page. Kareeser|Talk! 20:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, A-road. Kappa 20:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we have plenty of B road articles, A roads ought to be a no brainer. Jcuk 22:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, a per above. Englishrose 23:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We clearly need all of these if we want to be an encyclopedia. -- JJay 00:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do? Well I guess Brittanica's been doing it all wrong then. Denni ☯ 02:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You bet they have. That's why we left them in the dust a long time ago. -- JJay 02:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quantity does not equal quality. More is not always better. The only dust we've left Brittanica in is the dust of sheer numbers. That's not too hard to do if you're going to keep ratty little articles on every road, school, and railway station in the known universe. The Nature study shows Brittanica still has the edge in accuracy, and since this is an encyclopedia, that's the one that counts to me. Denni ☯ 03:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Although quantity does it for me, I agree that your links are fairly high quality. And you should know it's not the size that counts... -- JJay 03:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Give your head a shake, boy. If you see an article which reads in its entirety "Edina High School is a public High School in Edina, Minnesota" as "fairly high quality", then you really have no business editing here. Denni ☯ 01:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I see you are as cheerful and positive as always. Must be the Canadian winter. -- JJay 01:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • You got right on that school article, I see. Yes, shame is a powerful motivator! Denni ☯ 00:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Shame? More my concern for you. I couldn't bear the thought of you rushing home from school everyday on those icy Canadian roads to see if the Edina school article had been expanded. -- JJay 01:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Essexmutant 09:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete line on a map belongs on an atlas, not in an encyclopaedia. --TimPope 22:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy move. Sarge Baldy 23:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roof collapse in Poland[edit]

This is a news story, not an encyclopædia article; the title is a news headline. There may be a place for the material, and if there is then I'd support a nmerge, but otherwise, delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page could be moved to a new title eg. 2006 Katowice trade hall roof collpase. I created the page from following a lonk on the Current Events page. The article will expand once more details are released and the cause is established. --Jorvik 20:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Wikinews, I think. Michał P. 21:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, what about Bad Reichenhall ice rink roof collapse. Unfortunately both accidents were terrible, and both shoul be described. Don't delete, help develop the story. --62.111.227.194 21:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and move. A notable topic, but a worthless title. Sarge Baldy 22:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move as per Sarge Baldy. MPF 23:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just need to change the title. --Vsion 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy move, notable incident needs a proper title. - RoyBoy 800 23:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insomniaddicts[edit]

NN band, a group of DJ's Draeco 20:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as {{nn-band}}. Clearly does not meet WP:MUSIC and has one of the main hallmarks of non-notability: a myspace page. Stifle 16:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Ingoolemo talk 19:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Doc ask? 10:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Case against alleged miracles at Lourdes[edit]

This page is essentially soapboxing and a general attack on Catholic belief. The article carries no real encyclopedaic purpose; it would be better for the reader to be given neutral information about the topic and allowed to form his or her own opinions. Some guy 20:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The same editor wrote Objections to Salvation Army Doctrines. That was deleted as this one should be. Lourdes says all that needs to be said about how people are deluded in this place. --Bduke 22:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but inject some balance. Maybe rename it as something like "The Alleged Miracles at Lourdes", then have a section on "The Case For", and a section on "The Case Against". It's a fascinating subject, and just removing the current text denies readers the opportunity to learn more about it. JackofOz 23:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the article on the Lourdes miracles, subtitling it as suggested by JackofOz. 23skidoo 05:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article as POV attack, rewrite whatever is salvagable into the Lourdes article -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a POV fork and is against Wikipedia policy. Merge anything salvageable into Lourdes. Stifle 16:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Clearly falls under Wikipedia is not a soapbox. — Hillel 09:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Barbara Shack 15:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC) There is a case for merging this article into one stating the case for and against miracles at Lourdes. What I wrote is referenced. The article on Lourdes says only that miracles are claimed. It doesn't say the case for or against.[reply]
  • Delete Redirect if you insist, but Wikipedia is not a debate forum. Objections should be in the main article. if that is too long a balenced article with the case for and against should be made. And it should not contain arguments against 9or for) miracles in general, only for/against Lourdes in particular. DJ Clayworth 16:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV fork. POV forks are not permitted; this is an integral part of Wikipedia's most core policy. Ikkyu2 07:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 10:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of Indian kingdoms during invasions and facts related to the wars.[edit]

Thoroughly unencyclopedic article, consists entirely of (literal?) excerpts from a single book, might raise copyright issues too. Basically a POV fork of Islamic conquest of South Asia. It's linked to from a single page, Rajput, the site of one of the worst recent POV disputes, whose link text makes it clear it's intended as POV pushing: "There is a big misconception that India was conquered very easily by Muslims. Facts are very different and are discussed on the page pointed to by the heading of this section or click here". Lukas (T.|@) 21:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this page, thoroughly encyclopedify the contents, and merge with the relevant section of the Rajput article. deeptrivia (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a horrible POV fork. Stifle 16:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is an article which is from a book to counter the stereotype that India was conquered easily by Islam. I would encourage people voting for delete to challenge the historical accuracy of this article. Each and every point mentioned in this article is historically true. Lukas is resorting to wiki stalking because I challenged his beliefs on Max Muller and Aryan Invasion theory. Shivraj Singh 18:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, add the Hunter reference to Islamic conquest of South Asia if not already there. dab (ᛏ) 19:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete— goethean ॐ 19:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wiktibooks if the authorof the book agree's,otherwise delete Wisesabre 13:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Tom Radulovich 19:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stay off this article. Wikipedia is the place where Indian history can be revisited by removing all the western propaganda stuffed into it by the racist british rulers. This article is a valuable attempt in this direction. Sisodia 07:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Excellent article on the failure of the Turk invasion of India...it broadly points out the reasons why the vast Indian continent was never conquered and why its people could not be converted to Islam.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.21.186 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 10:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriela González Tanon[edit]

nn bio, being the child of someone notable does not mean you are notable DeleteMakemi 21:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'd say being only one of fifty known people diagnosed with a condition is pretty notable. [32] Seems to confirm the diagnosis but not that she's only one of fifty. Jcuk 22:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can only find that one ghit on the girl, the one above(one's not very good, y'know), and I can't seem to find any on the disease. The only thing which is conceivably notable (which I would argue isn't actually) is not verifiable.
  • Comment Even though she is only one of 50 who has this disease, the disease doesn't even have it's own wikipedia page! Holding off on a vote until I can do some research on Sebastian syndrome. --lightdarkness 17:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having started the hare on this by finding the above reference, I'll reverse my vote if someone can prove she is indeed the victim of such an ultra-rare disease. Runcorn 20:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The disease may or may not be notable, but I don't believe it confers notability on a victim. I'd say to mention her at the page of the disease, but it doesn't even have one! Stifle 16:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Álbum de Guitarra Fácil[edit]

Article fails to show notability. Doesn't seem notable and does not list any references. James084 21:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. seems to be a book of Spanish guitar sheet music. [33] Jcuk 22:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless someone can rewrite this to add any context, I seriously can't get anything out of the article. It "is an album which is recopilated 2 albums"? "The company was based in 1997 in Guadalajara, Jalisco"? What company? - Bobet 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. incog 17:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 00:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid of Monsters[edit]

Seems to me like a NN Half-life modification. Delete Kareeser|Talk! 21:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 00:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HomeLife Digital Marketing Solutions[edit]

Advertising

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obliterate A whopping 0 Google hits. --D-Day 21:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Adverticement of non-notable company. --ManiacK 00:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted and protected as recreation of previously (multiply) deleted content. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Male bikini-wearing[edit]

Disputed subject, possible hoax, unverified. Glenzierfoot 21:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral I think this does occur. Delete or 'merge/redirect with Cross-dressing --D-Day 22:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the a statistically proven percentage is given Maltesedog 23:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Funnily enough, a friend of mine recently told me she had seen guys wearing bikinis on a beach in Thailand. However, innuendo and rumour of the kind I have just reported is all this article offers. Delete. --kingboyk 05:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article fails to make a case as to why this is considered notable. Maybe if there are such a thing as "male bikinis" then this can be discussed in a related article. 23skidoo 05:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As it stands, article does not meet verifiability policy, as no sources are given. But suppose sources were found. Then this content would still not qualify as an article, as it is not about male bikini-wearing in general, but about male bikini-wearing on the beaches of Southport and Blackpool. But suppose male bikini-wearing were shown to be an important and widespread phenomenon. There is still no reason why this should be a separate article, rather than a mention or section in Bikini. There's no value to leaving the redirect in place, as it is very unlikely that anyone would search for this specific phrase. It can't be merged, as there's nothing verifiable to merge. Therefore: Delete. Contributors are welcome at any time to add well-sourced, verifiable information on male bikini-wearing in Southport to Southport; on male bikini-wearing in Blackpool to Blackpool; and, if a widespread phenomenon, to Bikini. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. OK, I gotta ask: do they wear the bikini tops, too? And what are the "cultural reasons?"[reply]
  • Delete per Dpbsmith. As it stands it's unverifiable and (dare I say it?) a potential cause of offence to any non-liberally-minded citizens of the named places. Essexmutant 17:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. I won't do it because I've been involved with the previous incarnation. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 08:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article can be made into a full-length, proper article. It is a genuine article, not a hoax. If you check my contributions ([[34]]) you will see I have made some redirects to this article. This is a genuine phenomenon, and it needs cleanup, not deletion. --Andy Mabbett 11:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When have you made those redirects? They don't show up in your contributions or Whatlinkshere, and the article has been speedied. None of the edits in the deleted article there were yours. Could you please show some external reference concerning male bikini-wearing? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 12:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Andy Mabbett" is actually Bullis49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a (now blocked) self-identified sock of pigsonthewing (talk · contribs). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 00:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Beach Online Casino[edit]

commercial Ixtlan12 21:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete advert, possible copyvio. Stifle 17:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomObina 22:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 00:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De Passion Studios[edit]

NN studio with tripod website MNewnham 22:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Stifle 17:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 00:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid XXX Beach Volleyball[edit]

I'm pretty sure this is a hoax. Googling "Metroid XXX Beach Volleyball" yeilds no hits. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 22:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 00:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gfaqs1942[edit]

Patent non-notable webforum/IRC channel. Forum has 96 registered users; IRC channel has 20 regulars. Wish this were speediable. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-28 22:32Z


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 00:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rebellion Party[edit]

I don't think this is quite a speedy candidate. It could be expanded into an article, perhaps. For right now, I recomend deletion as unencylopedic. brenneman(t)(c) 22:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • -Keep Hello, I am the author of this article and I would like to thank the Wikipedia community for this opportunity to defend my contribution.

I was thinking the idea of Wikipedia (please, correct me if I am wrong) is that if one member goes to the trouble of writing about something he/she deems as important and adds that information to Wikipedia in Good Faith, then it is worth having until proven other wise. Since this is a real political movement, which has the ability of becoming an elected representative of the people, it is of great importance to many people to know about this party and that it is actively looking for members from the general public.

The point that I would like to make in defense of the article is that, thankfully, "unencyclopedic" is not an official policy and therefore not a valid argument for deletion. It is an argument for discussion, which I am more then happy to do. Xwire 21:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A minimum requirement is verifiablility from reliable sources. - brenneman(t)(c) 22:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that myself and other members are the only reliable sources on this topic. We are hoping that you would consider us to be the most important source in the event of vandals. Feel free to contact us if you need further evidence. .Xwire 23:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not the place to announce the formation of a new (formed in December 2005) political party which doesn't even have the required number of members or signatures yet. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At what point does a political party become old enough? You don't know how many members the party has because you are not a member. Xwire 23:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Sjakkalle. I wish Xwire all the best with his party. Stifle 17:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, er... The best to you as well. Xwire 23:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non notable. The time when it will get an entry is when many others are writing about it. Obina 22:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 00:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Journalist hall of shame[edit]

Delete because there is no official Journalist hall of shame; this page will never be NPOV John Broughton 22:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 23:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hopelessly POV and disrupts wikipedia to make a point. Youngamerican 04:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. First-person POV comments. Not encyclopedic in any way. 23skidoo 05:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 00:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Studios[edit]

Totally non-notable web site that fails WP:WEB in that it has not been the subject of any other published work. Actually claims low patronage for their forum. Kevin 22:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn-website. Pretty much just an advertisment. --lightdarkness 17:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 17:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom.Obina 22:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 00:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoner, Inc.[edit]

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoner, Inc.

Narrowly passed its deletion review, largely on the basis of Google hits. My own vote is delete unless someone cares to cite some non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself, as required by WP:CORP. —Cryptic (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Looks like more of a timeline/promotional piece than an article. -R. fiend 23:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to clarify, because this confused me at first: the review decision was to relist here on AfD, not necessarily to keep the article. Melchoir 23:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; of all those Google hits I found zero reliable sources. Melchoir 23:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom unless more info is given Maltesedog 23:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising, no evidence of notability yet presented. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per R. fiend. Maybe an encyclopedia article could be created (my guess is no). This isn't one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 07:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Sleepyhead 11:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. incog 17:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 10:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julian the Hospitallier[edit]

Article created in error - should have read Julian the Hospitaller. Contents move, can be deleted. Maltesedog 23:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whatever. But redirects are cheap! Melchoir 23:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but why create unnecessary redirects Maltesedog 07:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect If contents were merged, then per GFDL we cannot delete this article since this would lose the edit history. The practice in this case is to make a redirect, as much to hold the edit history as anything else. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 04:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was lack of consensus to delete. Ifnord 15:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fish on stamps[edit]

I found this article with a "db-nonsense" tag. It isn't patent nonsense, but I have moved it on to AfD. From the article's talk page:

"Lest anyone think this is frivolous, "fish on stamps" is indeed a standard collecting topic, and there is even a printed book on the subject."

Nominator abstains. — TheKMantalk 23:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete. Many stamp collectors do collect thematically, and fish is a major theme. But this list would be extremely large and of limited encyclopedia value, as well as being nigh on impossible to keep maintained, given the frequency of new stamp issues worldwide. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think this is particularly encyclopedia-worthy, but I'm not so strong in my opinion that I couldn't be swayed. Does Icthyophilately exist? Does it need to? -Ikkyu2 00:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm for keeping it. I don't have strong views but quite a bit of work seems to have gone into the various lists -- you'd actually be deleting many pages. There is a book, although perhaps predictably, it didn't hit the bestseller lists. Given the profusion of articles on Star Wars characters and their doings and other stuff like that, I can't really see that this does any great harm, although a worry would be how likely the different lists are to be updated. It's one of those pages that I wouldn't cry to see it gone but I don't see any great need to get rid of it. James James 00:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not a collector, but it seems to be a valid subject for "topical collecting". Though many stamps are issued each year, there are not necessarily many that are of fish. Agree with James James. —ERcheck @ 01:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I imagine a lot of work did go into it, and if it were for a book on stamp collecting that'd be ideal, but it's not encyclopedic. --Brian1979 02:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are a couple dozen "standard" "X on stamps" topics - people (for which we have an extensive collection of lists), animals of various groups, ships/boats, etc. Fish is certainly one of the common topics. List is stable and low-maintenance when the listing includes a terminating date ("the list is complete through 1986"). I note that FishBase includes stamp data, so at least professional ichthyologists find it useful. "Encyclopedic"? Hard to say, since we don't actually have a non-tautological definition of the word ("it's encyclopedic if it's included in an encyclopedia"). Stan 03:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki????????Youngamerican 04:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To where????????"Ikkyu2 04:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Thats what I was asking. Wikibooks seems the best bet, but I am leaning towards a keep vote here. Youngamerican 16:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think we're building a guide to stamp collecting but an encyclopedia. --kingboyk 05:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fish are a popular theme in topical stamp collecting, and I see no reason why Wikipedia cannot accommodate a basic list. Walkerma 06:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of main theme in topical stamp collecting. Plus on fr.wiki, these pages were created by a user specialized in biology and she underscored the errors of naming species on stamps. Sometimes these themes can be linked to some stamp designers like André Buzin with Birds on stamps of Belgium. Sebjarod 12:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems like a harmless list, would be of great interest to some people. Grandmasterka 22:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and ask nominator to stop and think next time. Wikipedia is not paper, people. Some day we hope all the articles are as thorough as this sort of thing makes stamp collecting. The editors of this deserve a medal, not a delete nomination. --James S. 09:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a popular stamp collecting topic. Lerdsuwa 13:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as a list that is of interest to very few people, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 17:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 00:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitherto[edit]

Dictionary definition. Entry already exists in Wiktionary. —ERcheck @ 23:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. —ERcheck @ 23:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per ERcheck --Whimemsz 00:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Obina 22:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 00:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microwave Boilers[edit]

A patent application. Submitted by User:BrDanIzzo. Vanity, source text, nonencyclopedic. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - vanity entry. —ERcheck @ 01:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 04:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity entry; his user page contains similar information. ChemGardener 15:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki to Wikisource. Probable copyvio. Stifle 17:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_28&oldid=1116878968"