Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 28 January 30 >

Purge server cache

January 29[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus keep. Suggest to merge into into Something Awful. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenlighting[edit]

Previous AfD vote was for Delete. Has been undeleted following a discussion on WP:DRV. DRV policy calls for undeleted items to be relisted on AFD. That was not done. Finishing the process. My vote is delete, nn forumcruft. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete after reviewing the other AfD I still think it is worth deleting... Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again: the article is a non-notable example of systematic bias towards internet users with too much time on their hands (ie, us). - squibix 00:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:Not indiscriminate collection, etc. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very intriguing story and hoax that was covered by Slate, so why would we want to delete this? -- JJay 00:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A small but interesting part of Internet history that is worth covering; if I heard about these events and came to Wikipedia looking for information on them, I'd want to find this article here. The Slate article provides verifiability and shows that it is not merely "forumcruft". –Sommers (Talk) 01:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Something Awful. Not worth an article. JoaoRicardotalk 01:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unimportant. Unknown outside of a narrow circle. Unsuccessful hoax that was immediately recognized and fooled few. Before finalizing this vote, I am going to do a reality check: I am going to see whether this was ever mentioned in The New York Times. If it was, I'll change my vote. I don't know the result yet. This is my own reality check to make sure this was not much more notable than it seems to me. I'm not saying this should be a universal criterion, I'm not saying we should never mention things that weren't in the New York Times. But we don't need to have articles on everything that was in Slate. OK, here goes. Between 2000 and January 28, 2005, the word "greenlighting" has appeared five times in The New York Times. All of them were usages in the show business sense (project approval). Dpbsmith (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See Jayson Blair for why the NY Times should not be viewed as an authority on reality. -- JJay 01:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A lovely idea, but sadly inconsistent with the reality of writing an encyclopedia. Phil Sandifer 08:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete We don't need an article for every little idea that some columnist mentions, especially an online columnist. Ashibaka tock 01:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete While it interesting, it is a hoax and, I have to admit, there's not much interest outside a small gorup of people --M@thwiz2020 02:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. -Ikkyu2 02:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just doesn't meet the standards of notability for one. One article in Slate does not make it notable. Cyde Weys 02:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 02:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good thing it's not a website then. Phil Sandifer 05:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:WEB "gives some rough guidelines which Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web specific-content ... should have an article on Wikipedia." To me, that includes internet hoaxes. -- Dragonfiend 06:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per JoaoRicardo --- Charles Stewart(talk) 02:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as barely notable. At the least, rename to Greenlighting hoax. Turnstep 03:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete By including in WP - there is a risk that a plainly unnotable event will gain substance. WP should be a record of fact not a creator of it--Porturology 03:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, based on the systematic bias and the fact that a WP article would significantly enhance the notability of a mostly unnotable event. Might merit brief discussion in Something Awful.--ragesoss 03:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep not a fan of hoax entries in general; needs to be labeled hoax to stay Amerigo 04:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable, major coverage, renaming is reasonable. Also because I oppose repeatedly AfDing until you get the result you want, and the needless and antagonistic uses of "nn" and "xcruft." Phil Sandifer 05:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean?! It was deleted the first time! - squibix(talk) 12:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, the Slate article just barely establishes notability.
  • Keep and rename, per Turnstep. Wisco 06:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jcuk 08:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, Strong merge to whatever-the-name-of-the-forum-is. Probably means something to somebody. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per Turnstep. Batmanand 10:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Should clearly be labelled Hoax to keep it from the dictionary name. Charles Merriam 10:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Requires a name-change but is otherwise fine by me. Kusonaga 10:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per JoaoRicardo - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 12:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Greenlighting hoax. --King of All the Franks 12:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable hoax, or merge to Something Awful. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. all the external links are to "greenlighter.org" obviously a non-third party source. plus the wikipedia self-references. plus two previous afd delete vote decisions where the majority of users in both cases voted to delete it. Greenlighting hoax gets only 105 unique google hits [1] -- Astrokey44|talk 14:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable hoax. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable hoax. Merge into Something Awful. As far as I can tell, it isn't now, nor ever was even mentioned there. Add it to that article, and if it gets too large to fit there, then split it to its own article. Peyna 15:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Something Awful Obli (Talk) 16:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. -WAZAAAA 16:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not notable. Arbustoo 21:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Harmless. Lack of notability is not a sufficient criterion for deletion. SP-KP 00:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I move that this vote be discounted because lack of notability is actually a significant criterion for deletion. --Cyde Weys 00:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely. Wikipedia:Notability keeps us from being an indiscriminate collection of information, and this information is indiscriminate. Ashibaka tock 01:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "I move that this vote be discounted" ... ??? AfD is not a voting process. I guess the two of you probably aren't aware that there are very different views on the use of notability in AfD debates; not everyone subscribes to the view that non-notability is a sufficient basis for deletion. Wikipedia:Notability is neither policy nor guideline; it's opinion. SP-KP 01:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is, however, a handy portmanteau term for describing whether an article is or is not likely to be verifiable from reliable sources, and whether or not it constitutes "indiscriminate" per WP:NOT. In this case the sources appear to be: the hoaxer, and: the hoaxer. Not quite what I would understand as reliable ;-) - Just zis  Guy, you know?[T]/[C] AfD? 11:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you claiming that Slate is not a reliable source? Or that the hoax was perpetrated by Slate? Please clarify. -- JJay 13:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. You know, I hear all the time that AFD is not a voting process, but have yet to see any evidence that it's true. -R. fiend 05:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete But to give R. fiend faith, let me be clear: this is just my recommendation as to what to do with this article; certainly not a vote. Eusebeus 07:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, three-day SA wonder. Pilatus 13:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to the article on the forum. Not an event worthy of an article by itself. Thryduulf 15:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Still stupid, still not notable, just because SA engages in something doesn't make it notable either. RasputinAXP talk contribs 16:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per Turnstep. --Caponer 17:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Cyrus Farivar. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 23:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:DRV must be pulling verdicts out of a hat again. --Agamemnon2 10:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I brought this article to DRV because of concerns about the process. After reviewing the content, I agree with Dpbsmith. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Sleepyhead 11:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not noteable. —akghetto talk 09:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Liberatore(T) 21:25, 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 REDIRECT to Danny Phantom (character), as there's clearly no consensus to delete, noone wants the article to standalone, and several editors assert we need not move the text to the target. It is of course still available from the history if someone wants it. -Splashtalk 02:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostly Wail[edit]

This subject is covered on the Danny Phantom (character) page, so this page is superfluous. Delete it please. Jack Cain 00:14, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic3d[edit]

Delete, nn-website. Only 177 Googles for a website isn't notable enough. King of Hearts | (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[2]. JoaoRicardotalk 01:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It matters per the notability link up top there. JHMM13 (T | C) 00:37, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Dogfish Productions[edit]

Does not meet WP:WEB, per article it is a place for 'people who are bored' to come and 'hang out'. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as per CSD G4: repost. --M@thwiz2020 02:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Dogfish Productions[edit]

Previously deleted, and remade. Tokakeke 00:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedied, G4. If it comes back again it might need protecting. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Detstar[edit]

Non-notable forum, same author as Evil Dogfish Productions Evil Dogfish. Tokakeke 00:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: not notable; also only a bit over 10,000 google hits
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 01:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toonami Digital Arsenal[edit]

Non-notable forum, by the author that brought you Evil Dogfish, another non-notable website. Tokakeke 00:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: not notable; under 10000 google hits
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 01:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoher and co[edit]

Delete - entry is only an ad ChemGardener 00:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable Tom Harrison Talk 01:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —ERcheck @ 01:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pn - maybe a CSD for no content? --M@thwiz2020 02:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-encyc, ad. The Deviant 02:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No thanks.--ragesoss 04:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reworded, stub tab added. Partly to counter systemic bias and partly based on Ghits for "Zoher and Company" (which it would need renaming if it survived this AfD) Jcuk 08:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad as per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Dont understand the Crystal Ball comment, could you explain please? Jcuk 19:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. Arbustoo 21:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom incog 17:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 20:32, 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 keep - Latinus 20:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amara's law[edit]

No source for who termed this "Amara's Law", too few Google hits for something technology-oriented. Looks like original research. JoaoRicardotalk 00:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep first result: [6] Tom Harrison Talk 01:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Tom - PC Mag is reliable --M@thwiz2020 02:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has citations to literature and is very likely that if it is deleted someone will recreate the article later. It would be better to keep it for now and allow further elaboration when the time is right. Merosonox 09:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have heard of this, and I am not a technology geek. (Oh and google and citation etc) Batmanand 10:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tom Harrison. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Harrison. Arbustoo 21:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting topic. Personally I have different feelings about "PC Mag" but at least serves as a 3rd party source.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was there's clearly no consensus to delete. Even if I don't count the "votes" that weren't signed, Mr Denni. Harrumph. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lissaexplains.com[edit]

Lissaexplains.com was nominated for deletion on 2005-08-28. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lissaexplains.com/2005-08-28.
  • Delete Fiftythree 13:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity page, Advertising and self promotion. The article was 90% written by the girls mother and fellow administrator of the site. Hongkongdongle 20:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have no idea why this page was nominated. Notable, verifiable. From the site: My site has been featured recently in the Washington Post, and several other large newspapers here in the United States including the Chicago Tribune and the Wall Street Journal. It has also been featured in several newspapers all over the world, most recently (May, 2004) in the Malaysia Star. Ifnord 14:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Again, I'm puzzled by the nomination. The web site clearly meets Wikipedia guidelines for website notability as evidenced by high Alexa rank plus media attention by national newspapers. I note the nominator and several of the delete votes have only edits on this specific AfD which makes me suspicious of puppetry. Ifnord 17:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In what way do you assert this article meets Wikipedia:Notability (websites) guidelines? Nowhere is Alexa rank mentioned. If this site's Alexa rank qualifies it for Wikipedia inclusion, then you, Ifnord, have a lot of work to do - there are 29,999 other sites to be added. You'd better get cracking. And then, at the end of that process, you will have made Wikipedia into a Web directory, in direct contravention of the guideline you cited. -Ikkyu2 09:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aside from Alexa rank, the article meets Wikipedia:Notability (websites) guidelines. Media attention suggests notability (CNN, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post). Thomas 9:17 AM 28 January 2006
          • Disagree. The media attention was likely trivial puff pieces about a trivial, non-notable site. -Ikkyu2 23:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You don't need to hypothesize what the articles are "likely" to be. They are linked to from the article, and you can read them. Uncle G 10:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 30,713 rank on Alexa, great for a website made by a child. Ruby 14:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity page -- If you view the history of the article, most was written by a relative. J8675309 20:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This newly created user has made three WP contributions, all to this AfD. Turnstep 04:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ruby. Children creating website is something uncommon. --Terence Ong 14:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The POV was pointed out in the last discussion about deletion, and most of it was written by a relative- if it's not popular enough to be written by someone that visits the site on their own accord, it probably shouldn't be here.
  • Delete per the above unsigned comment. --kingboyk 17:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Re-voting as the discussion has progressed and re-opened. --kingboyk 04:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable. -Ikkyu2 16:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete you gotta be kidding me. Eusebeus 17:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An earlier AfD TimBentley 19:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think an entry made by the girls mother should stay here really. The girls mother has been co-producing the website all this time, so it's not like it's entirely the work of a child, and the mother was probably also the one to call up the newspapers to do articles on her daughter.
  • Delete an 11-year-old kid with a website might have been big news in 1997, but it's nothing particularly special now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the site is pretty notable, I have cut out most of the advertising. -- Astrokey44|talk 23:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ifnord. TimBentley 00:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Astrokey44, most of the cruft has been culled out. Calwatch 02:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just like last time it was nominated. Denni ☯ 04:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - website appears notable enough -- Francs2000 10:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, notable. // paroxysm (n) 16:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Moving new comments to the bottom) NOTE: UNSIGNED VOTES WILL NOT BE COUNTED. Denni ☯ 01:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. 5:34 PM 27 January 2006 Its a good site. Very popular as well as well moderated.
  • Keep. Thomas 5:34 PM 27 January 2006 For reason stated by Ifnord. 500,000 + google hits seems notable enough to me.
  • Keep. LissaExplains 3:58 PM 27 January 2006
    • Note from Lissa at Lissaexplains.com One requesting deletion is actually a moderator that I removed from my forum considering his heinous behavior - the site was created by me alone, and the article was written by members of my forum. Relative is no longer a moderator, and really has as much to do with the Web site as all moderators do. I, personally, have never touched the article, and only recently noticed a slanderous comment within the article posted by two members who left my forum. I ran an IP search within my forum, and four users here are ex-forum members. This is an obvious case of trolling. 3:58 PM EST 27 January 2006
      • Comment I would also like to note that my above comment was deleted, and please, I do not want this immaturity to play out on the Wikipedia Web site. This is further proof of any personal issues held towards me, and please, if you have a problem with me, e-mail me, do not disrupt the credibility of the AfD process. 5:52 PM EST 27 January 2006
  • Keep Notable, verifiable per CNN, Washington Post. Jason 9:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Media coverage satisfies WP:WEB. Powers 17:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • whoah shit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.242.89 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom TheRingess 01:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets website criteria #1. —ERcheck @ 01:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Andrew Lenahan Nick Catalano (Talk) 02:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity page - how does the second voter (who didn't sign) know it was "90% written by the girls mother"? --M@thwiz2020 02:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Numerous articles in major media means this site meetsWP:WEB. Another one of the Washington Post's articles about the site is here. -- Dragonfiend 02:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep Notable, but oozes vanity... The Deviant 02:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable website with media coverage thus meeting WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 03:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per prevoius AfD. Lbbzman 03:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it easily meets WP:WEB, plus previous AfD still stands - no additional information / rationale offered. Actually, I'm calling this a speedy keep as nominator offered no reason whatsoever for deletion. We really need more than a signature. Turnstep 04:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ikkyu2. --kingboyk 04:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are three links right on the page to notable sources (Including CNN!) It's certain notable enough for wikipedia. --light darkness 05:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It might "ooze vanity," but that's what the "edit this page" button is for. The website is clearly notable. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 06:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per comments above. If I was a cynic I'd say another case of "It didn't get deleted last AfD, lets keep nominating it til it does"....but as I'm not a cynic I wont.... Jcuk 08:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am a cynic. Wisco 08:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Just as a site is made by a child doesn't make it notable. ComputerJoe 09:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one is easier than most. Usually a lengthy search involving some effort is required to find the non-trivial published works from independent sources. In this case, they are handily linked to at the bottom of the article. (The article could be improved further by citing the initial article in the Australian newspaper, as well.) I've read the subset of the news articles that are actually legible, and they are not mere incidental mentions or web directory listings. The primary WP:WEB criterion is satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 10:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Meets WP:WEB. Nomination seems in bad faith. Englishrose 12:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Owner of the site tries to influence the voting. User Jessily that voted for delete received a per direct ip ban on her site:

http://www.tuinslak.be/tmp/leia1.jpg Another user that editted the article was punished also: http://www.tuinslak.be/tmp/leia2.jpg Site owner admits it on the second screen. Two more users that either voted for delete or editted the article also went in problems. I think that the voting will be disturbed by these actions. If her site was good enough there was no need for these actions. This plus the other reasons stated above are clear enough for me.

Site owner banned my ip since she discovered my ip while i was editting my vote without being logged in. What a democratic voting proces! Dave83 16:23, 29 January 2006 (CET)

Comment: The process you are participating in is neither democratic nor a 'vote' in the sense that you are using the word. Refer to WP:DP for more. -Ikkyu2 19:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree with Englishrose per above comment, bad faith nomination. Above user, please stick to the issue, which is the article in question.Jason 1128, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have heard of this website, and it clearly meets notability guidelines. Dave83, there is nothing wrong with banning a person who vandalized the site article from the site forums. SYCTHOStalk 23:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It wasn't vandalism. The article was updated to reflect the current state of the forum, and was factually accurate. Lissa is definately trying to influence the outcome of the vote by retaliating against those that vote against the article. I resonded to her first comment, but it was deleted. I pointed out that she was lying in her comments here, and since it was deleted, I feel as though she is being allowed to say what she wants (whether accurate or not), and nobody else is allowed to provide the truth- either because it will be removed or we will be retaliated against. If that's not "disrupting the credibility of the AfD process", I don't know what is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.0.178 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. If CNN did an article, notable enough for me. --maru (talk) contribs 20:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as bad faith nomination, WP:POINT. I'm also going to transfer the comment stuff to the talk page. Stifle 18:59, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta Systems[edit]

Delete - entry is only an ad for this company ChemGardener 00:49, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of video screen manufacturing companies[edit]

Delete - list appears to have been started as ad for Zoher and attracted additional spam ChemGardener 00:56, 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} consensus delete' ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omnicrotient[edit]

Delete Neologism, likely made up in school one day, no Google hits. Brendan 00:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 01:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, cromulent protologism though it is. By the way, is it pronounced omniCROtient, accent on the third syllable, rhyming with "quotient," or omNICroscient, accent on the second syllable, rhyming (crudely) with "omnipotent?" Dpbsmith (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I always thought omnipotent was pronunciated omniPOtent. Is this a geographical variation? JoaoRicardotalk 01:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which side of the pond are you on? The American Heritage dictionary entry shows only one pronunciation, with accent on "NIP." They have an audio snippet, too. And, no, they don't have "omnicroscient." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I'm on neither side of that pound. ;-) I had checked the American Heritage pronunciation, but I was mistaken in reading it. I've noticed now that they place the accent sign to the right of the stressed syllable, while the custom (in the International Phonetic Alphabet for instance) is to place it to the left. Funny thing. Thanks for the information! JoaoRicardotalk 02:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (I always pronounced it omniPOtent but, upon looking it up, it is omNIpotent - then again, I used to pronounce plethora as pleTHORa, even though I now know it's PLEthora) --M@thwiz2020 02:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tomato (tom-A-toh) - Tomato (tomAHHHtoh). The Deviant 02:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 16:03, 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 speedily deleted as per CSD A8: blatant copy-vio. --M@thwiz2020 02:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blish Digital Marketplace[edit]

Pure press release; an ad, basically.--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Advertising. First two paragraphs are direct compy from the company's homepage. —ERcheck @ 01:29, 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 02:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Todd[edit]

Not really a nn-bio but close, only claim to notabily is to become one of the first settlers of a very small town. Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 01:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The consensus from past AfD votes seems to allow for articles on important historical figures from small towns. JoaoRicardotalk 01:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete not only is he non-notable, but there is no source - then again, Joao brought up a good point, so I'll make it a weak delete --M@thwiz2020 02:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would look at voting to keep this if there was any verifiable information cited or available. However, a quick Google came up with nothing (not surprising for someone from the nineteenth century, I suppose). Capitalistroadster 03:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - without sources articles like this will make WP a repository of family folklore--Porturology 03:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many have said this would be a keep if it were sourced, so I say keep it and tag it as needing sources. -- Samuel Wantman 07:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if verifiable, which it doesn't appear to be, I'd say NN. Marskell 08:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only on the condition that it can be sourced. Once we have a source, send it to cleanup.Peyna 15:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless verifiable. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 16:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, provided it can be sourcedHelzagood 21:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and encourage citing of sources SP-KP 00:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced. I'll switch to keep if it's sourced properly. If the author finds sources after deletion they should be able to get this undeleted. --Rob 05:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that there are some sources, it will be necessary to review them more carefully before voting. --Rob 16:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced/unverifiable. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He appears to exist [7], along with laying claim to one of the first water records [8], and the small part Google will let me see seems to indicate he negotiated with Indians for land [9], backed up to a point by this geneaology site [10] which notes him as the first known settler. Maybe mentioned in a textbook, too? [11]. Regardless, it needs to be sourced better and I'm not sure how to add these in having zero knowledge of the man, but this is absolutely worth keeping. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obscure yet notable stuff is still notable. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 23:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Adrian Lamo. Ardenn 07:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Barnhartvale, British Columbia. --Dogbreathcanada 07:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the provided sources are clearly insufficient, as they basically only prove that a man by that name existed in that region. I have seen that a post has been left on the original author's talk page, without any effect. I vote for delete given the impossibility of better sourcing the article and the fact that we really at the border of being non-notable. - Liberatore(T) 21:34, 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.

HE IS ONE OF MY ANCESTORS ... CHECK THE CARIBOO TRAIL FILM ...JOHN TODD .NOTTINGHAM UK.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 01:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The black alley screens[edit]

nn band, nothing at artistdirect or allmusic, only 70 Google hits, and see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Sign Of The Times. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:12, 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 that this redirect was improperly listed here. Moved to WP:RFD by me. Chick Bowen 01:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Dick (1950s footballer)[edit]

Delete as page is a dead end since being moved to John Dick (footballer b.1930). The John Dick disambiguation page has also clarified the differences in a more satisfying manner. Spyrides 01:05, 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 02:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huntington Mall[edit]

Article nominated by 64.12.117.10 with no explanation. Finishing listing. No vote. JLaTondre 02:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a place to create an article for every mall in the US. The Mall of America is notable due to its astronomical size, but I find nothing notable about this one. --Zsinj 02:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. The criteria for mall inclusion should probably be the focus of a centralized discussion. Until then, the articles should be kept by default. (note: I am now going to add that it is the largest mall in West Virginia, for what its worth. Youngamerican 04:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment NM, that factoid was already included. d'oh. Youngamerican 04:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Youngamerican. It'll be much easier to delete after such a discussion that to recreate it. My personal feeling is that it and similar large malls should stay. ×Meegs 05:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep largest mall in a state sounds notable enough -- Astrokey44|talk 14:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being the largest mall in WV isn't that big of a claim to fame (by itself). This mall looks no different than the hundreds of other malls across the country. If there is more to it than the standard department stores and being "the largest by area" in a small state, then it might be worthy of inclusion. Peyna 15:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, especially is the state's largest mall. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 16:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even as the state's largest mall by area, this mall is not encyclopedic. Also delete Martinsburg Mall, the other mall in Category:Shopping malls in West Virginia. - squibix(talk) 18:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as verifiable and notable. If we can have an article on every tiny hamlet in the US from here to Walla Walla.... Turnstep 19:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Turnstep. Arbustoo 21:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another shopping mall. That it's "the largest in [insert small political unit here]" means very little. --Calton | Talk 00:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been doing some research on the mall about some crimes that have taken place there. In the 1980s, there was a serial rapist that attacked women in the then-poorly lit parking lot. A man was tried and convicted, only to have his convistion quashed years later when it turned out that the DNA lab guy was a liar and a fraud. Furthermore, just a few years ago, a Marshall University student named Samantha Burns was kidnapped from the same parking lot and never seen again. Two guys have been convicted of her murder, but a body has never been recovered. Im looking to find more info before I spill any ink on the topic, since they are sensitive in nature and deserve the utmost care. Youngamerican 02:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable block of concrete filled with too many people, without prejudice to Youngamerican recreating the article with something interesting. 'Largest in the state' for me is a statistic, not a claim of notability, and if it was it would beg the question of where we draw the line. Largest in a county? Largest in a bit city? What population city? And so on. --Malthusian (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Youngamerican's response to Calton's opinion. West Virginia has few shopping malls in comparison to other states with comparable populations so most of them are notable in their own right. Oh, and I love how it's always an IP address (i.e. 64.12.117.10) that nominates articles for deletion...the real question here is which one of the above delete votes is 64.12.117.10? --Caponer 17:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I have seen other shopping mall articles with much less information but because they weren't in West Virginia, but instead in some other more wiki-favoured U.S. state, were never nominated for deletion. It's the largest of its kind in the state of West Virginia, 'nuff said. --Rokafela 17:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator was from an Aussie IP, so I doubt they have any preference for any particular U.S. state. Second, articles on obscure subjects in larger states are more common because those states have more contributors. However, that doesn't mean those articles would survive an AfD either, it's just that very few people ever come across them because they're either orphan articles, or no one cares enough to search for them. I think you are looking for bias where there probably isn't any. Peyna 17:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bias on Wikipedia is present whether we like to admit it or not, especially when it comes to specific places and their equal representation. I don't see it so much as looking for bias as much as noticing and identifying it when one sees it. --TwilaStar 21:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, per Youngamerican's first comment: "mall inclusion should probably be the focus of a centralized discussion." Malepheasant 08:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, per Youngamerican and Malepheasant's comments...I coudln't have said it better myself. --TwilaStar 21:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with Cabell County. I still doubt this mall is of some relevance outside of the geographical area where it is located, so a mention in the article on the area is probably better than an article by itself. - Liberatore(T) 21:37, 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. -Splashtalk 02:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daft Punk Expansion[edit]

Translation of an article from a student magazine about rumours surrounding Daft Punk. WP is not a crystal ball. Article misnamed. Could easily be one sentence in the main article. Possible copyvio, too. Delete kingboyk 01:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC) I think there's good reason to imagine it is a copyright violation, but if that's going to be focussed on rather than the merits or otherwise of the article it would be prudent of me to strike out that 'charge'. --kingboyk 03:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you please name the website it is a copyvio of? --M@thwiz2020 02:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible copyvio, and not everything comes from the web. It's a direct translation of a magazine article ("Translated from Le Résumé Bat Student times"), which one might reasonably assume is subject to copyright! However, that's not the key point on which I am proposing it for deletion and I'm happy to strike out that point if it's going to complicate things. The point is, it's entirely speculative and at best is a merge without redirect, not being on a topic important enough for a seperate article, imho. --kingboyk 03:22, 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 speedily deleted as per CSD G1: patent nonsense. --M@thwiz2020 02:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kajigabyte[edit]

  • This term is complete nonsense. What is this supposed to mean. Please DELETE! Georgia guy 01:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh. Delete and possibly move to BJAODN. Vslashg 01:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - complete nonsense. —ERcheck @ 01:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but move to BJAODN first please... Nick Catalano (Talk) 02:09, 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 that this redirect was improperly listed here. Moved to WP:RFD by me. Chick Bowen 01:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Dick (II)[edit]

Delete for same reasons as deletion request for John Dick (1950s footballer); That the John Dick disambiguation page, and all subsequent page moving and clarification of all holders of that name now make these pages redundant. Spyrides 01:26, 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. Mushroom 14:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WCRO Radio[edit]

Appreciate the enthusiasm but this appears too new and non-notable to deserve an article. wcroradio.com was created 09 Dec 2005. Google returns 12 hits for "WCRO radio". And the article is created by a new account named Wcroradio. This may one day be a notable webcast, but for now delete. Vslashg 01:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- nn internet radio vanity. - Longhair 01:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with your statistics. yes, I am the owner and yes we are NEW, but you saying 12 hits is almost comical. Here are the correct stats from my server. Beginning January 1, 2006 to today, January 28, 2006, I have received 8,809 hits to the main page alone. Listeners to the stream equals 6,234. New or not, if you recommend deletion for every single NEW entry, I don't see how anyone can stand a chance for submission. Wcroradio 01:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • internet radio vanity? I give the correct stats, which contradicts Vslashg's and you move to delete based on "internet radio vanity"? That is so lame. Even lamer? Longhair edited this page and made it a point to make sure his comments were above mine, especially after his comment originally fell under my first response. Go ahead and delete it. I thought it would be nice to have a listing under wikipedia, but after the hassle you all have given, it's not worth it. Wcroradio 01:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was a little inprecise... by "12 hits" I really meant a search on "WCRO radio" returned 12 results. Also worth noting the page has no Alexa rank. Vslashg 01:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As I said, delete it. But, it needs to be made known that it seems to be a popularity contest here and not "open" to "new" submissions, unless they meet a certain rank on Alexa (ever consider the no robots tag I use?) or a certain number of results via Google. Go ahead and remove the listing. I'll rely on my correct statistics and listener base. Can't wait to discuss this on the show. Maybe I can get Jimmy Wales to call in ... CHEERS! Wcroradio 02:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Popularity is not the concern. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Until your web site has been the subject of published secondary source works, it is unverifiable. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. You have your own web site for that. To satisfy our WP:WEB notability criteria, those secondary source works must furthermore come from someone other than you or your web site and must be more than trivial directory listings. Wikipedia is not a web directory. If you have come here thinking to add yourself to a directory of web sites, you have come to the wrong project and do not understand what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. There are other wikis that have the goal of being web directories. Our goal here is to be an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 09:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vanity. If this becomes a notable internet broadcast, the site owner will not have to create this article. --Zsinj 02:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete author has agreed to removal. —This user has left wikipedia 03:59 2006-01-29
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 01:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuppers[edit]

Suspected hoax. Google: tuppers+sideburns or tupper+sideburns finds nothing relevant. Article created by the duo Crimeandpunishment and 142.161.237.41 apparently on a joint fact-changing spree. Weregerbil 01:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – very likely hoax for the two reasons given in nomination. ×Meegs 05:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only relevant thing I can find is a single blog posting. The guy did have some sweet sideburns, though. Peyna 15:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 16:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - joke article. Latinus 20:32, 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 speedily deleted as per CSD A7: unremarkable people or groups. --M@thwiz2020 21:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krish seenauth[edit]

Vanity, duplicate of user page jafmuse 01:53, 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 delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Cole[edit]

Aspiring film actor/writer/diretcor. Has worked on two high school plays and one community theater play. Plans to write something later this year. No IMDB entry. Delete as non-notable biography —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-29 02:05Z

  • Delete fails all tests on WP:BIO --M@thwiz2020 02:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mathwiz2020. Lbbzman 03:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mathwiz2020 Nick Catalano (Talk) 03:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as non-notable bio. No real claim to notability under WP:BIO in this article. Capitalistroadster 04:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Per Capitalistroadster. ComputerJoe 09:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable bio. If there is no IMDB entry, that means is non-notable. --16:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per nom. Arbustoo 21:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 20:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Most certainly authored by the subject himself, high school plays and community theatre aren't impressive.Batman2005 04:51, 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 KEEP. -Splashtalk 02:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivity (philosophy)[edit]

Subject matter requires original research Amerindianarts 01:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been nominated before, but "saved". "Objectivity" does not rate article space in Dictionaries of Philosophy or Encyclopedias of Philosophy, thus there is no standard outside of original research. The article's past has been for editors to concentrate on what individual philosophers call "objectivity". You can enumerate all the philosopher's versions of what they call "objectivity", but neither this compilation, nor individual versions, comprise or define "objectivity (philosophy)" as a term within the discipline. That is the reason there is no standard for a NPOV article.Amerindianarts 02:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The term can be found in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy here. Lapaz 22:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If deleted, this should be redirected to Object (philosophy) or metaphysical objectivism rather than an article about Ayn Rand. Chiok 04:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ayn Rand is not a viable option. "Objectivity" is a technical term. The article Objectivist philosophy is basically the position of an individual author using the term in a non-technical sense, and who is not recognized by most philosophers as a philosopher. The basic reason for deletion defies redirect to this article. Amerindianarts 04:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chiok: Objectivity involves the truth and falsity of the things we say about objects. Objects cannot be true and false, so what would be the impetus to redirect to Object (philosophy)? The article on Intentionality would be a better candidate. Look at that article and access your reasons for redirecting to Object (philosophy).Amerindianarts 04:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that Objectivity is exclusively about propositions. I generally think of it in perceptual terms instead. I also try to avoid the term 'objectivity' altogether as is it confusing and go with something like 'observer-independent' or 'agent-independent'. Sure, objects can't be true, but they might be mind-independent. Intentional objects are (agent-dependent) phenomenal objects that may or may not correspond to mind-independent or noumenal objects, so that's completely different. Chiok 05:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Objectivity involves a mental act. Objects may not be and I fail to see the real direct relevance about mind-independence. True, propositions may not exist, but objectivity requires a mental act and communication between at least two individuals. Unless, of course, you have some solipsist tendencies or a private language and can relate it to objectivity in an isolated mental event. I don't like using the term objectivity either and the reason I describe it as a "propensity to be objective" is because of the mental act aspect, and an intended object. Sure, they make objects mind or agent dependent, but the mental act is the nature of objectivity. Mind -independent objects seem to be of no consequence if they cannot be the intended object of a mental act, which is the essense of objectivity (distinct from objectivism). You otherwise run the risk of having it confused with forms of objectivism. Intentionality is not a form of idealism, it is a form of realism. Whether or not propositions exist is really secondary to the assumption that they may exist. Otherwise you lapse into forms of relativism, which is its opposite. I'm not overly concerned with where the article is redirected as I am with the prospect of it being reintroduced and mutilated and confused. If you check in Macmillan's Encyclopedia of Philosophy you will not find an article on "objectivity", but in the index to the eight volumes most references are directed toward language and intentionality, with little reference to individual philosophers or forms of objectivism. Amerindianarts 06:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a merely confused layperson- Objectivity is a technical term. - but not found in Encyclopedias of Philosophy - rather in what discipline is objectivity a techical term? Also - in lay views there are wooly(?) uses - which may at least appear to be philosophical in nature. My view is that even if philosophers have nothing to say about this term - the article may have merit just stating that. (Obviously this would be a special case). It is also interesting to see that the current article still sustains 20 odd links to it, and certainly not merely concerned with Rand. - I oppose deletion, but do not oppose a rewrite. (20040302 10:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I tried to explain the problems with this term when you recruited me for a rewrite. Another rewrite will not solve the problem that it requires original research, and it is doubtful that a rewrite will be NPOV. Amerindianarts 17:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  ::Amerindianarts - I am grateful for the good work you put into the article. It shines in comparison to what used to be there; my comment was addressing your own disgruntlement with the existence of the article, not an attack against the work you put into it. I believe that any article may be written with a NPOV. My belief may be founded on blind faith! I am aware of articles which have a community of editors who aggressively share a political objective - but I doubt that this article falls into that category. (20040302 10:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong Redirect to Metaphysical objectivism. What this article is attempting to explain is closest to the concept in that article, not objectivism, regardless of the similarity of names. KrazyCaley 10:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The current article distinguishes itself from objectivism. I think you are confusing the two terms.

Amerindianarts 17:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think so. See for instance the quote "If they do exist, do they exist independently of the mind as do the objects of various objectivisms, or do they come into being when an object becomes the intended object of a mental act?" This is definitely setting up a sort of objectivity vs. inevitable subjectivity problem, which is just the sort of thing the metaphysical objectivism article deals with. We are talking about the quality of detachment, of a view on a particular object without the lens of subjectivity. I think the article is a bit too close to the metaphysical objectivism article, so my vote remains as a redirect/merge. I'd rather keep it than have it redirected/merged to the article on Objectivism, though. It really doesn't have anything to do with that. KrazyCaley 16:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Objectivity means something, it may be important to find what exactly. Especially when Wikipedia's official policy is neutral point of view - in others words, objectivity. Philosophers have deeply thought about objectivity, and User Amerindianarts is wrong in saying that "each personal philophers's conception of objectivity should belong in their pages". Quite to the reverse, I'm sure it's a lot more interesting having philosophers' own definition of objectivity - which, minds you, is not like they're a thousand of them either!!! it is something which has been thought on at least since Plato and the emergence of scientific thought in Ancient Greece, as did François Châtelet for example show in his history of philosophy -, rather than a mix of Wikipedians' opinions on what it means - which is (i'm not even sure it's a mix though) what the article is like now. I find it quite incredible for someone to even discuss the fact that objectivity is linked to truth!!!!! This article should be given proper attention. It is quite ironic that Wikipedia hasn't yet thought it deserved it. Lapaz 20:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per others. Arbustoo 21:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference article more extensively (works, pages, excerpts; NOT entire books); if this isn't done by the end of this AfD, Delete as original research. Don't merge original research. -Ikkyu2 22:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no question about it. Better article and better title that metaphysical objectivism which now redirects to objectivism (metaphysics) --Salix alba (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is--don't merge or redirect. Useful discussion, and useful counterpart to Objectivity (journalism), though maybe the two aren't as clearly distinguished as they could be. —rodii 02:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. "Objectivity" is a major question in philosophy (especially philosophy of science, philosophy of history, epistemology, etc.). Entire books written about it. It is not the same thing as Randian Objectivism at all. Now whether the current article needs to be rewritten is an entirely different question than whether the article should exist or not. Original research not required in the slightest; article should be a synthesis of major positions and questions in the relevant literature. --Fastfission 03:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank u Fastfission; so maybe we will be able to find some objectivity in the treatment of this article after all... About the precedent comment regarding journalism (objectivity): philosophy as no definite field, thus entails everything. This specific objectivity (philosophy) should speak about various fields where objectivity is important. Objectivity in sciences (maths or physics) is certainly different from objectivity in historic studies, which themselves can't be compared to immediate history, i.e. neutral point of view which makes US press standards. Lapaz
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 01:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATKingdom[edit]

Nothing but an advertisement. Zsinj 02:25, 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 to Sequel. -Splashtalk 02:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threequel[edit]

Delete neologism/dicdef. Postdlf 02:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sequel as Turnstep suggests below. I hate this word, but my understanding is that it's more of a second sequel than the third of a planned trilogy. In any case, the term should just be mentioned in the destination article, there's no content worth merging. ×Meegs 02:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it isn't a neologism it's a dic-def. Marskell 08:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to sequel. This is definitely not a neologism (it predates Wikipedia), and deleting will just encourage people to try and recreate it later. Seems perfect as a small section inside of sequel however. Turnstep 19:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is definately not a neologism, as evidenced by the source, but it is also not a dicdef because it goes into sufficient def. -- User: Henry, Lord of the Dance
  • Redirect to trilogy or sequel. Please do not consider this a keep vote; the content is not useful and is original research. Chick Bowen 01:59, 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 keep and move to Bharathidasan Institute of Management - Latinus 20:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bharathidasan institute of management[edit]

Blatently obvious copyright infringment, but Google can't find it online. Anybody else able to find source? Tony (Talk), Vandalism Ninja 02:55, 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. Shanel 01:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdo magnet[edit]

This looks like nonsense to me. Wanted to get consensus rather than listing for speedy deletion. Lbbzman 03:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn. I had seen the mirror site, but the comment about Buck 65 seemed just as nonsensical to me. Lbbzman 20:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like nonsense to me. This has been here since August? And yet none of our mirrors seems to have picked it up. But a Google search comes up with a deleted page at www.run-shoes.com/articles/Buck_65 which claims copyright on it, though why they would want to copyright this nonsense, I can't imagine. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a Wikipedia mirror, and the article being mirrored is our Buck 65 article. There is a comment on this article's talk page and an HTML comment in this article's wikitext saying that it was split out from there. Uncle G 09:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom (I would say it is nonsense). --Hansnesse 03:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Change to Keep per good catch by Uncle G. --Hansnesse 19:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete pn (nonsense) Nick Catalano (Talk) 03:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is intelligible and clearly describes an album entitled Wierdo Magnet by a musician named Tefry. A quick glance at the article's talk page and "What links here" indicates that this musician is Buck 65, whose discography lists this album. I encourage editors to perform these very basic checks on articles nominated for deletion and to not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. Allmusic confirms that this album exists. Keep. Uncle G 09:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is a very basic check, perhaps it should be mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or even integrated into the nomination process, so this sort of mistake does not happen again (at least not often). --Hansnesse 19:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It already says it at the top of the AfD page under "Things to consider". Peyna 19:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow, not my day for careful reading I guess. I stand corrected. --Hansnesse 19:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added a note re talk pages there - thanks for the suggestion. Turnstep 20:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Complete bollocks. Essexmutant 09:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Batmanand 10:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to Buck 65, this is a conceptual series of untitled tracks released by said artist. This is not patent nonsense and absolutely should not be speedy deleted. [12][13][14][15][16] Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - per Uncle G. -- Geo Swan 11:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Uncle G and clean up by clearly identifying Buck 65 as the artist. Capitalistroadster 11:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup and make it conform with any style requirements for album pages so it is clearer what it is. Peyna 15:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect per CSCWEM. Turnstep 20:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep -- This article is far too much original analysis, it's entirely unsourced, and is fairly devoid of facts about the album. IT needs so much reworking to be a valid article that it may be best to delete and start over. keep only if entirely rewritten. Night Gyr 08:55, 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. It is also a copyvio from [17]. -Splashtalk 02:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer Enterprises[edit]

Appears to be a company/student organization; an interesting idea but not notable. Hansnesse 03:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This student organization is one of the first in the nation to be completely student driven, and is as far as I can tell, one of the few completely student driven. Kevin Lamb 01:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete not enough google hits, but interesting idea that may be worthy of inclusion later... Nick Catalano (Talk) 03:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to University of Dayton. If it overwhelms that article, then it will need its own. Peyna 15:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 16:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure how "crystal ball" applies in this case, as it does exist. Peyna 17:04, 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 deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obtainium[edit]

Delete. Neologism. WP:NOT a dictionary. Vslashg 03:43, 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 Speedied. CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MOHO - Mobile Office / Home Office[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable idea/discontinued (?) product line from a Chinese company called "newpalm" (material no longer on the site, but google cashe here, or Wayback Machine. --Hansnesse 03:47, 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 as re-creation of previously deleted content. The only substantial difference between the previously deleted article and this one is that the previously deleted article explicitly told us that the song was a hoax, whereas this article is a straight promulgation of the hoax. We would keep a hoax if it were a well-documented hoax (i.e. one that had been publicly debunked by reliable sources) and thus were well-known as a hoax, but in the earlier AFD discussion SirGeneral attempted to find such documentation and reported failure. Neither this nor the previous article cite any sources whatsoever. Uncle G 08:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stairway to harlem[edit]

Nonsense. Went through an AfD before under the differently-capitalized name Stairway to Harlem. Vslashg 04:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It's a rumour that the song may come out, but article suggests that it's a finished piece. --Walter Görlitz 04:39, 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 06:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fonts by Ray Larabie[edit]

nn collection of font names. Kill it before those red links turn blue. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:27, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devilsrule.com[edit]

Non-notable fan site. Alexa rank of 3,296,617. Vslashg 04:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Why these groups think they warrant an article is beyond me. - Lucky 6.9 04:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —ERcheck @ 16:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this remake, was speedied previously. Article makes no claim of notability. Ben Kidwell 19:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. mtz206 19:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 20:31, 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. This crosses the two-thids thresholdy thing (lowest level that has any kind of community support to delete), but doesn't quite make it for me to delete it. In an editorial decision, revertible by anyone, I'm going to redirect it to 40th Canadian federal election. -Splashtalk 02:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

40th Canadian parliament[edit]

Believe me I don't want to nominate this. I was going to edit it for accuracy, but then stopped because it seems so unsalvageable. To start with, it's purely speculation. There probably will be a 40th Canadian parliament one day, but when that day comes, will Harper still be prime minister going into the election, as the article suggests? What if Harper's Tories resign and the Liberals form a minority government without an election? It's happened before. Even if the Tories are still the government going into the next election, how do we know Harper will be consulting the Governor General as to when the election will be held, as the article says? What if Harper resigns or dies in office? That's happened before in Canadian history, too. Which brings me to my next point. This article isn't about the 40th Canadian parliament. It's about the 40th Canadian federal election, which already has an article. And that's because we don't know anything except that the next Parliament will result from the next election. Unless I'm remembering my politics wrong, and a switch in governments actually signals a new Parliament, but even then we don't know if that's what causes the next Parliament to be formed. Delete as either speculation or unexpandable, as a simple fact, namely that there probably will be a 40th Canadian parliament one day. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, this article should be deleted and should not be recreated until the writ for the 40th General Election is dropped. Canadian popcan 05:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: textbook case of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I may nominate the election article for AFD as well. 23skidoo 05:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Legally Canada will have a new parliament in no more than five years, and I see no speculation in the article. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 06:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete needless, Wiki not crystal ball. Though the current minority will likely not last that long, a Yes vote in Quebec as early as '08 may actually render this uncertain. Marskell 08:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not crystal ball. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, having a future article like this, though not obvious, has a political motivation, ie, it smacks of 'lack of neutrality'. Merosonox 11:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this is deleted, then 113th United States Congress which starts in 2013, should be deleted, along with other similiar American articles. --Rob 12:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 23skidoo. Rob is right about 113th United States Congress: it and similar articles shoulde be deleted.--MayerG 16:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's not forget Category:Future events and Category:Future elections. Given the fact its official policy to exempt these types of things from the crystal ball rule (e.g. it gives specific examples of a future election, and future Olympic games), those wishing to change that policy, should pursue a central discussion to do so; rather than randomly AFDing individual articles, which are often not the "worst cases", compared to some others. Surely, we don't want to re-argue the same issue over-and-over separately. --Rob 20:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 23skidoo, as well as all the US versions of such articles -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think we all know here that the likelyhood of Canada not having a 40th Parliament in some form or another is around the same odds of someone in this afd being hit in the head by a meteor. Just remove any POV speculation to get around the crystal ball issue. Karmafist 19:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason to delete, WP is full of verifiable future events: US Congress, Olympics, solar eclipses, etc. This one hardly seems crystal ballish. Turnstep 20:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So far no one has quoted any specific part of the Wikipedia policy to support their position that this should be deleted. The only thing they have done is quote the non-specific title of one section of Wikipedia policy. I may change my vote if someone quotes something specific in the future. Qutezuce 20:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 40th Canadian federal election. While certain specific future events may have articles, this is a thing which does not yet exist. This article will not be anything other than a placeholder until the parliament exists. Everything that could be here, will be covered at 40th Canadian federal election. So while we have U.S. Presidential Election, 2008; 44th President of the United States just redirects to that article, because no such things exists yet. While we have U.S. Senate elections, 2006 and U.S. House elections, 2006 we don't have 110th United States Congress. Peyna 20:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, so the 110th congress article exists, but it's nothing more than the same thing that is on the election pages and probably would be a redirect if there was one article it could redirect to. Peyna 20:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while the 40th Canadian federal election should stay, this page will not be able to contain useful information until after the election to form it (the 40th election) is called. - Jord 21:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't exist yet. --GrantNeufeld 00:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 40th Canadian federal election if that article is kept, else delete. This article doesn't and will not contain any useful information that isn't about the election until the 40th parliament is actually elected. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I also agree that this article should be deleted. After all, it is purely speculation right now, I mean, the 39th Parliament hasn't even begun its first sessions, and the MP's haven't even been sworn in either. For all we know, the Canadian government might completely fall in this Parliament and form the 1st Canadian Republic, not that I'm say it's likely to happen, but we shouldn't be speculating about events that we can't even place a date to. (Grizzwald 03:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak keep While it's not a bad idea to get the perfunctories out of the way, particularly given the short-lived nature of the last government/assembly, this article is a tad premature just yet ... hell, the recently elected Parliament hasn't even met yet! I don't think we should delete an article that will be resurrected later, however. If it remains, it should be edited to generalise any notions therein (e.g., nix mention of Harper, etc.) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though a 40th Parliment may exist someday. It's still assumptious to say that Harper will still be PM by then (Harper could suddenly resign or die in office). Therefore since this article is based partially on assumptions, it should be deleted. GoodDay 17:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I thought a redirect might work well, nobody will look up the 40th parliament until its formed or until the 40th election is called Royalguard11 23:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Qutezuce Ardenn 07:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 40th Canadian federal election. Future events are permitted articles under certain circumstances, but there's nothing that can possibly be written about the Parliament resulting from an election that hasn't happened yet...or at least nothing that isn't a complete duplication of the election article. Bearcat 20:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The election is notable since it could be called at any time, but this is unnecessary until the 40th election. CrazyC83 03:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary article until 40th election is called. --Dogbreathcanada 07:19, 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. --BorgQueen 16:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plai (group)[edit]

non notable band. I vote delete. Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 04:53, 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 delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schrödinger's Date[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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan speculation (Teen Titans)[edit]

The entire article is unjustifiable speculation. The name of the article even has speculation in it, for Jimbo's sake! KramarDanIkabu 05:43, 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 02:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryggenet[edit]

A community network with 3500 apartments. Not notable, not encyclopedic.

  • Delete Renata 05:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ComputerJoe 09:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful resource, even though it is limited. Arbustoo 22:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Part of the beauty of Wikipedia is that you can search for obscure topics like this and expect to find them. SP-KP 00:38, 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 keep. Shanel 01:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

40th Canadian federal election[edit]

Like the article up for AFD on the 40th Parliament, this is a pure case of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Will this election happen? Yes. But other than that there is no way to know when it will happen, especially since the 39th election is less than a week old! Let's at least wait until a writ is dropped, or Harper makes an indication he may call an election. 23skidoo 05:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not sure how this is a pure case of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Specifically which part of it applies to this case and rules it out as an appropriate article? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball specifically mentions that 2008 U.S. presidential election is an appropriate topic, so how is the next US federal election any different from the next Canadian federal election? (other then one having a specific date and the other not) Qutezuce 06:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Personally I feel it is far too early for this type of article but this event will happen, much like 2024.
  • Delete. As noted on the Parliament page, this election actually may not happen, at least in the expected form, if there is a soveriegnty vote in Quebec and Yes takes it. I doubt it, but we have crystal ball for reasons of this sort. Marskell 08:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Next" (and, for very important elections, maybe even "next but one") elections, particularly for important legislatures are notable, and not crystal ball-like. Batmanand 09:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The next future elections exist as articles for a variety of countries, and I see no reason to delete this one. —Nightstallion (?) 10:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per Marskell, and its existence before an election call can be considered a form of lack of neutrality. Merosonox 11:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on clear precident for certain elections. Also, its worth noting certain signficant election related events, such as party nominations, will likely happen before an official election call (since everybody wants to be ready for what they know will happen). It wouldn't make much sense to delete this today, only to recreate a little later. --Rob 11:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very important upcoming election. CalJW 13:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove speculation from the article. It should only state facts, not what may or may not happen. Peyna 15:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's worth nothing there will be a 40th federal election no later than 5 years from now (assuming Canada's government is still largely intact at that point). Peyna 20:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't believe this article is being supported. If that's the case maybe someone should create articles for the 41st, 42nd, 43rd, 44th ... we have to draw the line somewhere! 23skidoo 16:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite simple, we draw the line at the next election. Just make sure the article gives cites for any kind of speculation, etc. Quoting from WP:NOT:

Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. A schedule of future events may also be appropriate.

Peyna 16:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peyna's got it right - there is a line, and its supported by numerous precedents on Wikipedia. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. --Otter Escaping North 15:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article on the 39th election was created soon after the 38th election ended. - SimonP 16:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The 39th Parliament will be led by the smallest minority government ever in Canada, barely 40% of the seats, and all of the previous Conservative minorities (all four of them) lasted less than a year (1926 - a matter of days, but a special case; 1957-1958 - 9 months; 1962-1963 - 10 monnths; 1979-1980 - 9 months). It behooves us to start this article and track the positioning of the 39th Parliament so that we will have a good article should the 39th Parliament fall as quickly as history suggests it might - Jord 19:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments at other AfD. Turnstep 20:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So far no one has quoted any specific part of the Wikipedia policy to support their position that this should be deleted. The only thing they have done is quote the non-specific title of one section of Wikipedia policy. I may change my vote if someone quotes something specific in the future. Qutezuce 20:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Write the article as the event approaches. Arbustoo 22:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the above argument is invalid, the election can happen at anytime, the government stands a likely chance of being accidently defeated, we could wake up one morning in the next few months and find were in another election. --Cloveious 06:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep While it's not a bad idea to get the perfunctories out of the way, particularly given the short-lived nature of the last government/assembly, this article is a tad premature just yet ... hell, we're just emerging from an elxn and the recently elected Parliament hasn't even met yet! I don't think we should delete an article that will be resurrected later, however. If it remains, it should be edited to generalise any notions therein. As well, when the date is known, the article should be renamed to be consistent with prior election articles: Canadian federal election, 200x. (Speaking of which: this may pose a problem if the 40th is sometime in 2006!) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Future election articles are already set up for the US and other countries, so why not Canada Cmc0 17:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with caveat While it's useful to have this article in a stubby form in which events leading up to he next election can be added, passages predicting that the parliament will be unstable or predicting what the major issues leading to the next election may be are purely speculative, particularly when they are presented in the form of "some pundits think...". Homey 01:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are countless other examples of such prognosticating articles, it does not seem to violate any of Wikipedia's policies (the suggestion that predicting an election violates neutrality makes no sense to me), and (as has been said) this is a very precarious Parliament. --Otter Escaping North 15:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as we are under a weak minority government that can fall at any time (although it may not). CrazyC83 03:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But attention needs to be kept to ensure it is prognosticating. --Dogbreathcanada 07:18, 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. – ABCDe✉ 00:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed History of The Matrix Series[edit]

It was suggested that this article be merged into Matrix (fictional universe). However, I've removed all of the fan speculation in the article, and it now seems that there isn't anything left that could be transferred across to improve Matrix (fictional universe). So I think this one can now be safely deleted. Nick RTalk 05:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fan-fiction, and delete the remnants of fan-fiction as well. Peyna 15:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Your article is irrelevant, only fan speculation. Delete your article and a new world awaits you. We demand it." --Canley 23:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Latinus 20:21, 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, with a possible move. -Splashtalk 02:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with unexposed contents[edit]

Pointless listcruft. I'd like someone to explain how this could possibly be useful. (If by chance this article is kept, the confusing title needs to be changed.) 23skidoo 06:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete about as indiscriminate as an indiscriminate collection of information can possibly be. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 07:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Possibly useful by merging into MacGuffin or another one of the articles within the category of Narratology. These unrevealed contents are all plot devices to make the mechanics of storytelling work, or to increase the narrative tension. At least a couple of items on this list are already represented in MacGuffin. Just a thought. --Lockley 08:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this list partially because neither "red herring" or "MacGuffin" properly covers this particular film device. The device is perhaps important only to film theorists and enthusiasts but it has a rich history in early avante garde cinema and became progressively more popular in mainstream films. The fact that it has been a device employed by a wide variety of important directors from a multitude of countries also lends it some legitimacy. I was unable to find a decent list anywhere else on the internet and so I decided to begin compiling one on Wikipedia. I am new to Wikipedia so if I'm violating some specific rules, please let me know what needs to change to meet the proper structure and boundaries. Walrus125 08:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - good beginnings, although introduction needs to be expanded. Essexmutant 09:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I had written up my explanation and then must not have saved it. Whoops. Anyhow, I think this list is great. This article is useful for anyone trying to learn about film devices. Also, how is the list an indiscriminate collection? The list is pretty clearly defined and not very vague: how is a list of films with an object whose contents are never made visible to the audience hard to define? It's a limited list that is verifiable and mildly notable. Folkor 09:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Firstly, Walrus125, thank you very much for joining Wikipedia, even if your first experience of article-writing has ended here! Your courteous response is much appreciated. I hope the people here who will disagree with you do not put you off. Anyway, keep, as it is a potentially updateable, not inherently-POV list, and is not paper. Batmanand 10:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a tightly-specified list, and the concept seems meaningful/useful for film studies. Nice one, Walrus125. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list is well-defined in its premise and is definitely interesting and unique enough to warrant its own page. Kusonaga 10:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Possibly rename? Should probably have a link from Narratology. Dlyons493 Talk 10:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Good article. Glad to see Ronin on there. Cyde Weys 14:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Unexposed contents (film) to talk about the plot device. If the list of films overwhelms that article, then split. Peyna 15:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My vote is conditioned upon someone providing a cite or something to show that this is an actual term used in the industry or otherwise to describe this device. Google came up very scarce on the subject, which might me we are bordering on original research. Peyna 15:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Similarly I may change my vote and withdraw this AFD but only if someone can provde me proof that "things in boxes" -- which is what this appears to be -- is actually an aspect of film studies anyone cares about. None of these votes have convinced me. 23skidoo 15:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm still waiting for some sort of explanation to indicate how and why "unexposed contents" has any value as a film term. I'm personally baffled. 23skidoo 15:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Unexposed contents (film), as previously suggested. Jeff Silvers 19:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Unexposed contents (film), per above. I've been realizing lately that there's a difference between listcruft-type lists and lists that actually have some analysis, and really should be articles rather than just lists. This is one. —rodii 02:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move/merge per above, pending confirmation that this is the industry term. Nicely defined, unlikely to grow out of control. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all listcruft: Create decent articles, not lists :: Supergolden 17:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as seriously trivial article. It's partially listcruft and partially documenting a painfully irrelevant movie device. Stifle 18:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Painfully irrelevant"? Maybe film devices don't interest you, but they interest other people. This may fare better as an article with a list of examples, but still, it's an aspect of film worth taking note of. Folkor 20:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If one is not interested in film theory, technique or history this may appear trivial. There are many fields that I am uninterested in, yet I regard the input of those studying in such fields to be of value. The price of tea in China DOES matters to those who drink large amounts of tea and live in China (and that is more people then one might guess). Walrus125 23:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - cover at McGuffin. Johntex\talk 01:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either move to Unexposed contents or do not move, but do not delete: this seems a valuable article on a valuable device (speaking entirely without prejudice, I have never met this term nor have anything to do with it, but the article was really illumintating and informative.) You might think that List of ... something like above would be just a listcruft, but it is definitely not: it is really a good article. 131.111.8.101 01:25, 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 delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bran Barr[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. No mentions on either Amazon or Allmusic and only album apparently has to be ordered through the band's website. Lists discography so I didn't speedy. Second album has apparently not been finished. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. God must have loved non-notable bands, because he made so many of them. --Lockley 08:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:NMG. PJM 22:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 20:21, 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) 01:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devil in the Kitchen[edit]

Non-notable band that has only released EPs and demos. This doesn't meet the WP:BAND standard of two full-length albums on major labels. No mentions on Amazon or Allmusic. Includes discography so I didn't speedy. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Lockley 08:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per decent nomination (I've taken the liberty of removing the unnecessary "vote" and the formatting bit that shouldn't have been there, just to make it even more decent). I agree with you that this article should have gone to AfD. Discographies are good for assertions of notability, I reckon. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, but I sure wanted to give this band a listen and see what folk metal sounds like! Unfortunately the one mp3 link was a 404. - squibix(talk) 12:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:21, 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. -Splashtalk 02:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turisas[edit]

  • Delete: Non-notable band that has only one album (with some EPs and demos). This doesn't meet the WP:BAND standard of two full-length albums on major labels. No mentions on Allmusic and Amazon only has the one full-length album. Includes discography so I didn't speedy. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Lockley 08:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ComputerJoe 10:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Well known band within genre. Wolfmoon 10:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable band (lots of Google hits) with two non-self released albums [18] and lots of reviews [19]. Would be more "notable" if they were not Finnish and played bubble-gum pop instead of metal, but let's not hold that against them. Definitely rises above the typical garage band that I have no trouble voting delete on. Turnstep 20:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: FWIW, only one of those albums is a full-length album. And I won't even go into whether the releases were on "major labels" like WP:MUSIC stipulates. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've said it before and I'll say it again: there's a big difference between obscure and non-notable. Delete: All bedroom DJs, unsigned bands, vanity articles. Keep: Anything borderline like this. The history of popular music is rich and colourful and should be recorded. --kingboyk 22:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: apparently a moderately well-known band within the genre and their country of origin (witness this review, for example). - squibix(talk) 13:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has articles on the German, Polish and Finnish wikipedias -- Astrokey44|talk 13:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well known band within its genre, listed in other music encylopedias. --Morrigan Targaryen 21:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Okay, I'm amazed at the support here. Maybe I need to check this band out?! Are they similar to Finntroll? How can they be such a big deal with only one release? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if they're a big deal or not, but their rendition of Leningrad Cowboys' Those Were the Days is truly horrible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Agamemnon2 (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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abysmal Torment[edit]

  • Delete: Non-notable band that has only released one full-length album. This doesn't meet the WP:BAND standard of two full-length albums on major labels. No mentions on Amazon or Allmusic. Includes album mention so I didn't speedy. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Lockley 08:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: their one album is not even a full-length, apparently, and it doesn't seem to be available on Amazon. - squibix(talk) 14:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:21, 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) 01:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agiel (band)[edit]

  • Delete: Non-notable band that has only one full-length album (with an EP and demos) released by less-than-major label. This doesn't meet the WP:BAND standard of two full-length albums on major labels. Only the one album mentioned on Allmusic and Amazon. Includes discography so I didn't speedy. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Lockley 08:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as non-notable band (CSD A7). SYCTHOStalk 21:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per no evidence of notability even within the genre. - squibix(talk) 14:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:21, 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 (both). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demilich (band), Nespithe[edit]

  • Delete All: Non-notable band that has only released one album (and several demos) on a non-major label. In fact, as the article states, the label was so non-major that they didn't pay the band which is what sunk them. This doesn't meet the WP:BAND standard of two full-length albums on major labels. Only the one album is mentioned on Amazon and Allmusic. Article includes discography or I would have speedied. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There are more non-notable bands than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Wknight94. And thank you for mopping up. --Lockley 08:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable band. Too bad it dosen't classify as speedy. SYCTHOStalk 21:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:21, 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 Result: Speedy deleted as non-notable bio. Capitalistroadster 11:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Burbidge[edit]

Self-admitted vanity page. Appeared to undo another editor's attempt at moving it to userspace. 23skidoo 06:08, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Capurro[edit]

Hoax article. Google searches for both "Johannes Capurro" composer and "James Capurro" composer turn up no results [20] [21]. Delete --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The very article says he is not notable. --maru (talk) contribs 07:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 11:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —This user has left wikipedia 13:38 2006-01-29
  • Delete. Even though he is a "well-known composer... who wasn't very well known". Peyna 15:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. According to the article, the subject would have left home to venture about Italy at age 8. He would have had to have had his private lessons with Haydn (incorrectly spelled in article) by age 1, since Haydn died the year after the subject's birth. —ERcheck @ 16:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this hoax. It was speedied previously as nonsense. Ben Kidwell 19:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as it was deleted yesterday. I've tagged the article as such. Turnstep 20:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it wasn't. An article with the same name was speedy deleted as patent nonsense, but this wasn't it. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was it by the same person? If so, I would think that even if speedy does not technically apply, some admin judgement could go a long way here. Turnstep 14:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To speedy on those grounds it has to be the same content. Doesn't matter if it was the same author. Peyna 15:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 20:20, 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 (non-notable). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peato Cook[edit]

Delete. Article says that this "child star" appeared once in a pretty non-notable B-Movie, and that this was the only time that he got "close to famous." Doesn't seem quite up to notability standards to me. KrazyCaley 06:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as non-notable. The article itself describes Peato as 'close to famous only briefly'. --Lockley 08:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —This user has left wikipedia 13:38 2006-01-29
  • Speedy delete as hoax, since neither actor, film, nor director show any trace of existing. Wasn't the film title enough of a clue? Monicasdude 17:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 20:19, 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) 02:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Boats of Frankweiler[edit]

Delete This page is nonsense Greglocock 06:26, 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. I will userfy it to Figaro's space. -Splashtalk 02:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TransLink (Brisbane) connections[edit]

Delete. The page duplicates information in pages such as List of Brisbane bus stations and List of Brisbane railway stations and the various pages for each interchange; I see little need to keep it. It is poorly written and inconsistent with the other articles. SM247 06:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. --WikiCats 06:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page was set up for the reason of cataloguing all the contributions of bus information made by SM247 in one single article for greater ease of accessibility. If SM247 wants to decrease the ease of accessibility of his contribution, then that is his perogative. It was not meant to duplicate information, but to complement it, and to gather all the relevant information in one place. Figaro 10:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki this and related pages, possibly to wikitravel. Information is not of an encyclopedic nature, in that it needs to be kept up to date, whereas encyclopedic information does not need to be kept up to date. Andjam 11:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Transwikification of material from here to Wikitravel is not legally possible as Wikitravel uses a Creative Commons licence. The article author must resubmit his/her own text. Stifle 18:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If this page was set up to keep track of User SM247's contributions, it should be set up as a user page or alternatively as a Wikiproject space rather than an article. Capitalistroadster 12:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if this page really does exist solely to track one user's contributions to a project. That belongs in userspace. Peyna 15:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Yep, and - much as I love Brissie - they should be deleted too (bus cruft anyone?). --kingboyk 22:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Stifle 18:53, 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 it is, indeed, a speedy delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made Ready[edit]

Delete. Doesn't rise to WP:BAND: article says they're hoping to get signed by a major label, and finish their mix tape this year. Vslashg 07:08, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mine (card game)[edit]

The article proclaims this card game is less than a week old. No way, then, is this game notable by Wikipedia standards. I propose this is deletable as original research as well. Vslashg 07:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's way too new (and thus unknown). We can't include every card game that a group of people randomly makes up in Wikipedia.Anabanana459 07:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Nick Catalano (Talk) 08:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Although it did amuse me how, within only a week, they already have lots of named strategies, with the strengrhs and weaknesses of each. Batmanand 10:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. —This user has left wikipedia 13:34 2006-01-29
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:19, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huppie[edit]

From article: Coined in 2006. Delete this neologism. Vslashg 07:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[23] where the word is discussed, but they're admittedly not valid sources. However, they do prove that the word is being used by some people somewhere. Maybe it's not needed, though, because people I know would just refer to them as bobos, yippies, or, more accurately hypocrites.--Hraefen 22:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unreferenced. Stifle 18:52, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Brady[edit]

Delete this silly hoax. Google returns 12 matches for "Adriana Brady". Sarah Connor was not a character on Roseanne. Nola Rice in Match Point was played by Scarlett Johansson The whole article is filled with this sort of bullocks. Vslashg 08:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete warpozio 09:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —This user has left wikipedia 13:34 2006-01-29
  • Delete. Complete nonsense claims ... such as she is an American Idol judge. She bought Abercrombie and Fitch. Married to Tom Brady, Patriot's QB. —ERcheck @ 16:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm. Deckiller 17:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete definite hoax.--Alhutch 17:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and bonus points to someone who finds a way to speedy this. Turnstep 21:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Arbustoo 22:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this entry clearly seems to meet Speediy deletion criteria G1 ..."implausible theories or hoaxes". (I voted delete above, but this seems a clear case for a speedy delete.) —ERcheck @ 23:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You misread CSD. G1 says "This does not include: ... implausible theories or hoaxes." Vslashg 23:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - joke article. Latinus 20:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - hoax. Poulsen 17:13, 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. Mushroom 14:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Arbuthnott, 4th Viscount of Arbuthnott/Temp[edit]

This is a temporary page. All information it contains is already available in Robert Arbuthnott, 4th Viscount of Arbuthnott. Conscious 08:30, 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 as a combination of three criteria: vandalism, short article with no context, and attack page. Although each criterion is only weakly satisfied on its own, I take the view that in combination they warrant a speedy deletion. The article purports to give the expansion of an acronym that was coined (by my clock) just over an hour ago. Reviewing its history, I see that the article appears to be the fallout from a war that has spilled over from some other place into Wikipedia, as several versions of the article are attack pages on some pseudonymous people on some discussion forum. Clearly, Wikipedia is being mis-used as a public scribbling board by some discussion forum participants to write attacks on one another. For future reference, I also note that expansion of acronyms into phrases is dictionary article territory, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Uncle G 09:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SFTAKY[edit]

There is no encyclopedic value for this article. Buchanan-Hermit 08:39, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Rogers[edit]

File:Adriennenesser.jpg
I found this photo of her with her husband

Delete. This is less obviously a hoax than the Adriana Brady page, but I still think the page is bad-faith. The body text claims this is an article for someone named "Adrienne Nesser", not "Adriana Rogers", and indeed some searching shows Adrienne Nesser is the wife of Billie Joe Armstrong from Green Day. However, Google News searches make the Slash rape charge seem highly implausible: 1 2. IMDB shows no record of either an Adrienne Nesser or an Adriana Brady performing in any movies. The history of this article reads like evolving fiction, and the future (in my opinion) bad-faith edits made by User:Billie joe121 point to hoax. Vslashg 08:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Apart from the dubious and potentially libellous claims about Slash, it claims she met Tre Cool at a Beatles concert. Given that he was born in 1972 and the Beatles broke up in 1970 with their last live concert being in 1966, this is obviously a hoax. Any factual information about Nesser can be outlined in an article on her if she meets the criteria. Capitalistroadster 12:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Capitalistroadster.--MayerG 16:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Capitalistroadster. Part of a series of hoax edits by Billie joe121 (talk · contribs). —ERcheck @ 16:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obvious hoax by same user. Turnstep 21:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 20:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I saw something about her on many Billie Joe Armstrong pages.

Although all of the pages were fansites,I also saw on thair fansite that she is real. Pojojo 05:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment- Adrienne Nesser may exist and be Billy Joe Armstrong's wife. However, this article still appears to be a hoax. Adriana Rogers, according to the article, would have been 10 when she helped form the band and been 15 when she married. The dates of the children's births and names are inconsistent with information on Billy Joe Armstrong. So, weaving one Nesser's name seems to be something to add some seeming truth. However, this "biography" does not ring true -- no verifying sources. —ERcheck @ 06:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You'd think such an amazing women would have some incoming links, wouldn't you?! --kingboyk 02:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Ifnord 15:11, 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 REDIRECT to the dab page seems most correct. -Splashtalk 02:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of the Five Rings (game)[edit]

Delete This page was created as a disambiguation page, but it could refer to no less than four games: the CCG, the d10 RPG, the d20 RPG, or the miniatures game. The former page has been moved to Legend of the Five Rings (collectible card game) and all links have been changed. WestonWyse 09:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a disambiguation page (I'll go do that now). TimBentley 20:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully I've got it correct (feel free to alter it as necessary). TimBentley 21:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Legend of the Five Rings, which has links to the games already in Wikipedia. Tim, it's a good disambig page, but it's redundant. -- Grev 21:07, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VisualSurf[edit]

Seems to be an ad for one of those interwebnet thingies. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:33, 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, and also read what Wikipedia is not. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Papareto Principle[edit]

I wish we had a way to speedy things like this - "an ordinary Singaporean, Jeffrey Ho, coined the term..." - vanity, unverifiable, etc. (ESkog)(Talk) 09:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article describes a principle that was, it says, invented roughly 48 hours ago. The article cites no sources and I can find no sources. There is no evidence that this principle even exists outside of this Wikipedia article, let alone has been acknowledged by people other than its inventor and accepted into the corpus of human knowledge. The article is unverifiable and original research. Delete. Uncle G 11:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research and unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 12:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as Complete bollocks, hoax, Can't call it original research since it's not research. 99.999/0.001 rule ?! *shakes head*. —This user has left wikipedia 13:28 2006-01-29
  • Delete and admit confusion as to why this isn't an obvious speedy. Article obviously admits non-notability of subject as something thought up one day, even if it wasn't in school.Ben Kidwell 19:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A bon mot, nothing more. —rodii 02:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it should be deleted. The Board of Directors of GIC and Temasek Holdings number no more than 20 people and as far as the GIC is concerned and unlike the Hong Kong Monetary Authority which publishes its investments on a regular basis, the Singapore Government Investment Corporation, does not even account to Parliament for its investments performance, let alone its composition.[User: Singapore Citizen]

How lame! Since Wikipedia is not a soapbox, ALL entries should be deleted? [User: Singapore Citizen]

(Well, at least you didn't delete my comment this time. That's progress. I'm glad you're talking instead of vandalizing.) No, that just means that you can't use Wikiepedia to argue for a particular political position--an encyclopedia is for communicating facts about a subject, not inspiring people (except indirectly) to political action. Did you read the page I linked to? An article reporting, in a neutral way, about the makeup of PAP or the GIC--about which I know nothing, so please don't think I'm against you politically--would be welcome, and, who knows, having those facts out in the open may do more to make change happen than some random witticism like the Papareto Principle. The point here is not about what's good for Singapore, it's about what's good for Wikipedia.
By the way, please sign your comments by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your posts. —rodii 12:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I have NOT deleted anyone's comments here. To Wikipedia ADMINISTRATORS: I am not into semantics as far as the title of the entry is concerned. Although what is stated is not verifiable, the content of the entry is CONSISTENT with the following FACTS: Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's Prime Minister from 3 June 1959 to 1990, then Senior Minister until August 2004 and now Minister Mentor, gave an interview, on the occasion marking the 20th anninversary of the GIC, to the Asian Wall Street Journal which published it on 22 April 2001. The AWSJ article listed the Directors of GIC - Government Investment Corporation of Singapore - for the first time, as far as I know. The then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong was NOT on the list of Directors of the GIC Board which was then, and I believe still is CHAIRED by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, with the then Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, who is current Prime Minister, and son of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, as the Deputy Chairman of GIC. Any rational thinking person would want to know why was it that the Prime Minister of Singapore at that time, Mr Goh Chok Tong, was not even on GIC's Board, since as Prime Minister he was the HEAD OF GOVERNMENT. Although the Singapore Constitution was amended by the PAP administration under Mr Lee Kuan Yew giving the President of the Republic of Singapore a DUTY to protect Singapore's reserves, the former ELECTED President who had prior to his election as President had served under Mr Lee Kuan Yew's administration for around 14 years with his last Cabinet post as the Deputy Prime Minister, had PUBLICLY let known that he was not given the list of Singapore's reserves when first taking office and it was only three and a half years later that he was given an incomplete list, with the excuse from the then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong's administration that it would take 56 man years to have a complete list. As for the veracity of whatever financial statements which might be available to the other Board Members of the GIC, no one really knows, as according to Mr Lee Kuan Yew in the AWSJ interview, the financial statements of GIC were "CHECKED" - PLEASE NOTE: NOT AUDITED - by the Auditor General of Singapore, who is a CIVIL SERVANT. Mr Lee Kuan Yew had been PUBLICLY reported to have said that the "PAP IS THE GOVERNMENT", which would mean that there was/is NO INDEPENDENCE. Incidentally, the Auditor General is Mr Chuang Kwong Yong, whose first degree is in PSYCHOLOGY and had been a civil servant since his graduation and later studied obtained his Master's in Business Administration. His last most senior ranking positions were as the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Labour, which is now known as the Ministry of Manpower, and as the Chief Executive Officer of the Housing and Development Board. As far as is known, Mr Chuang had NO EXPERIENCE as an auditor before his appointment as the Auditor General, although the public do not know who in the Auditor General's Department, actually did/does the "CHECKING" of GIC's accounts and financial statements and to what degree of "CHECKING". Despite the huge losses suffered by a computer disc drive manufacturer, Micropolis, which was shut down within two years after it was bought with a total loss exceeding S$600 Million; and the accumulated loss of over US$1.0 BILLION, currently - although the loss of around US$750 million in FY2002 - suffered by Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing, which is listed on NASDAQ and the Singapore Exchange, Ho Ching, the wife of the current Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong and who was directly responsible for the purchase of Micropolis and was directly responsible for the start up and management of Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing, was appointed as the Executive Director and thus EFFECTIVELY the Chief Executive Office of Temasek Holdings, which is responsible for the managing of assets worth around S$180 BILLION.[User: Singapore Citizen]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smart cliche[edit]

I'm not sure what this is (dicdef? attack page?), but it isn't an encyclopedia article. Delete. Angr 10:03, 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 Speedily deleted by RexNL as nn-bio. Stifle 18:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanyam malhotra[edit]

Non-notable. ComputerJoe 10:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ugh, 10 google results. —This user has left wikipedia 13:25 2006-01-29
  • Speedy delete. Even if claim is true, still very non-notable. Added speedy tag to the page. Turnstep 21:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Turnstep. I was just about to tag the article, but was beaten. SYCTHOStalk 21:50, 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. Ifnord 15:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon butty[edit]

This is an unreferenced article, but this food stuff is not such an established part of British life to warrant a separate article. The line "it is essentially a bacon sandwich" is factually skewed - a butty IS a sandwich. The article links to similarly articles which give currency to foods which don't deserve it doktorb | words 10:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As the nom says, unreferenced. If the unreferenced information (which I am sure there will not be references for) the article would be nothing more than 2 lines stating that it is a bacon sandwich. -Localzuk (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unreferenced - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 12:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary, 18K results and lots of images AmeriKan Wikipedians: This ia a british term. —This user has left wikipedia 13:24 2006-01-29
    • "Bacon butty" is not an idiom, and Wiktionary has a stub dictionary article for butty, thank you. It has no need of an encyclopaedia article about a type of sandwich. Uncle G 13:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite but keep - sadly, a notable British food. --Celestianpower háblame 15:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The combinations and permutations of foodstuffs are astronomical: a few will deserve dictionary treatment, and a very few encyclopedia treatment. This isn't one of them-- it's merely a noun phrase.--MayerG 16:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in some form. It sounds like there's a certain ritual to butty-making, and it'd be unfortunate to see the whole concept buried under "sandwich". I agree, this may be a better Wiktionary entry than Wikipedia, and I think bacon butties, chip butties, etc. might be better served (ooh, bad pun) under a single "Butty" heading. Please also see my latest talk page entry (from today) --And what's so sad about butties being a notable British food?!. Zephyrad 19:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an iconic British snack. Delete this, and Big Mac has to go, surely? SP-KP 00:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Why is this even being considered for deletion? Any person living in Britain knows what this is, and many people overseas as well. But if there must be written evidence then this can be easily produced, if a bit of a pain. This notice is trivial. M3Plus 10:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is something people like to eat Kurando | ^_^ 16:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why not? It exists, and from the comments here it's at least somewhat known.Vpoko 16:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, evenif it's bad for you. Stifle 18:44, 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 KEEP. -Splashtalk 02:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of films set in an unnamed city[edit]

This is just a pointless list to me. Is anyone really going to look this up? It's trivial. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete My word, is their no end to listcruft? Is there a union for people with anorak tendencies to join? doktorb | words 10:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A bit too random for my tastes. Kusonaga 11:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, if changed per Dlyons' suggestions below. Kusonaga 11:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are lists of films set in Quebec, Dallas, New Jersey, Budapest, Sicily, Morocco, Miami and so forth already on Wikipedia. I feel that a list of films whose setting is unnamed (which has thematic and artistic interest) is at least as important as specific settings (which has personal and at best geographic interest). This topic came up during a discussion in one of my film courses and I could find no pre-existing lists on the web. Walrus125 11:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if expanded explaining the thematic signicance in a few specific films. Also definition says location while title says city. The latter seems more focussed and less likely to degenerate into cruft over time. Dlyons493 Talk 11:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above Jcuk 12:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Seems good content, not sure how useful... I'll assume Good Faith... —This user has left wikipedia 13:23 2006-01-29
  • Keep As long as it stays limited to examples where the city being an unnamed one is important to the film.--T. Anthony 13:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems well written, not just a list for the sake of one. There's a whiff of original research though... --Canley 23:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per Walrus125, it isn't really that random. I also agree with Dylons493's suggestions. This is an interesting list that parallels the lists of films whose locations are thematically important places. It is a verifiable list and it is kind of notable. I wish there could be more sources, but if they don't really exist online, then using literature or the movie pages themselves should be fine. Folkor 00:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - appears to be leading somewhere. Essexmutant 11:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all listcruft :: Supergolden 17:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as it is a list which appears to have been created just for the sake of having such a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 18:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So then would you like to also delete all the lists of movies set in specific cities? This list serves just as much as a purpose as those lists, and tends to be more interesting. Folkor 19:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's perfectly useful, interesting and factual.--Gene_poole 05:16, 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. Shanel 01:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chip butty[edit]

in common with Bacon butty, this is unsourced and when it mentions meat and cheese, not that logical or factual. Also puts an importance on a foodstuff which is barely worth an article. Not notable enough and as it stands, this is a personal essay on what is a snack in some regions of the country - and original reserach is not liked round here. Delete vote. doktorb | words 11:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: A chip butty is original research? Are you a southerner??? :-o lmno 11:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am Lancashire born and bred, but don't think this, or the equally useless Bacon butty should be here. I've just read that Bacon and eggs is "culturally significant" which is yet more patent nonsense. This article is essentially "people in one region of one country put chips on some bread and eat it". It's borderline original research, without any references or citations, it's not notable outside a small region of the country. doktorb | words 11:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite It's good food, but the article looks really bad Sceptre (Talk) 11:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Notable item of British cuisine. I'm Australian and I've heard of a chip butty. Capitalistroadster 12:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary, no encyclopedic content. —This user has left wikipedia 13:21 2006-01-29
    • "Chip butty" is not an idiom, and Wiktionary has a stub dictionary article for butty, thank you. It has no need of an encyclopaedia article about a type of sandwich. Uncle G 13:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not worthy of an article of its own. Should we have an article for every type of sandwich? It is unreferenced also. -Localzuk (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to Sandwich -- Astrokey44|talk 15:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite but keep - a notable British food. --Celestianpower háblame 15:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The combinations and permutations of foodstuffs are astronomical: a few will deserve dictionary treatment, and a very few encyclopedia treatment. This isn't one of them-- it's merely a noun phrase.--24.209.173.129 18:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC). Forgot to sign this.--MayerG 18:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How often do you hear anyone asking for a Chip sandwich? We dont all live in the home counties.--Pypex 19:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't believe that this is up. Englishrose 21:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is up because, as mentioned above, the permatations are endless. This is just a regional foodstuff of little note, and in any case the article is inaccurate. Deletion should avoid other such articles. doktorb | words 22:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. Arbustoo 22:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, like it or love it the chip butty is part of British 'culture' (I'm a Brit so I can put culture in quotes if I want to ;) ) --kingboyk 22:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep!! Next... (in the style of Simon Cowell) SP-KP 00:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand what sounds like a culturaly notable sandwich. - squibix(talk) 14:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is something people like to eat Kurando | ^_^ 16:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as tasty and certainly encyclopedic. Stifle 18:43, 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; merge unnecessary. Johnleemk | Talk 06:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The devil's robot[edit]

Unnecessary page concerning a character alluded to in 2/3 lines in one episode of the Angel TV Series Kusonaga 11:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest it's merged into then? Kusonaga 15:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion would be The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco (Angel episode), the episode it's mentioned in. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, just delete it. I'll put the information into the episode article. Kusonaga 05:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, people? Deletion time? Kusonaga


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lakay[edit]

creole dicdef Melaen 11:09, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space Garden[edit]

Garden in space to end the Cold War. A work of fiction by mr. Paulo Fontaine (talk contribs). Weregerbil 11:19, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Dimensions[edit]

WP:NOT Self-Promotion, Advertising . Also identical content to 5 or 6 similar stubs Alex Bartho 13:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Utterly misleading title. Stifle 12:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Sceptre (Talk) 11:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete While Zakir Abdul Karim Naik seems to be somewhat known, this article seems to be on one of his books "islamic dimensions" .... not notable. —This user has left wikipedia 13:12 2006-01-29


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 14:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Stone[edit]

Article is about a non-notable actor with a very limited number of appearances. His "Fan Site", together with this encyclopedia entry, suggest an attempt at astroturfing. - squibix(talk) 12:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - A Google search only produces a handful of hits; the first few seemingly written in the same sort of hyper-enthusiastic style as the article. Possibly the same person. Eurosong 12:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His IMDB page shows 4 roles showing he has been an extra and TV contestant. Not yet notable enough to meet WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 12:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable biography. —This user has left wikipedia 13:08 2006-01-29
  • Delete: To quote from the gentleman's own IMDB forum posting[24], "I am not on IMDb yet but anyone who is curious who I am can put my name, Liam Stone, in a yahoo search engine.." If he's an actor, not on IMDB has a total stub of an IMDB entry, and his primary networking tool seems to be MySpace, I humbly submit that he should try again later. Looking semi-decent shirtless isn't criterion for notability. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 19:35, 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 14:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lou E. Perella[edit]

Doesn't seem to be very notable. Has 10 hits on google. [25] The most prominent seeming to be this. Delete per WP:BIO KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 13:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nn-bio. —ERcheck @ 13:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Land 23:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm tempted to argue that if every athlete who's ever played in a single professional match is notable (as seems to be the case), then this individual ought to be too. But I won't. Perhaps in a few years professional Ultimate Frisbee will have reached the heady level of other sports, but that day is not here yet. - squibix(talk) 14:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And also this particular article is probably a complete hoax. - squibix(talk) 14:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable biography. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 00:01, 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 KEEP. -Splashtalk 02:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Localism (politics)[edit]

Original research / soapbox

Unfortunately has been spammed into other articles as well, which may have an effect on google.

  • Delete --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 13:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 480k googles and you claim they're all spam? Article has a source. Rewrite to fix POV as necessary, and don't make WP:POINT nominations. Radiant_>|< 14:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article provides sources. Second item from a Google search is this article by George Monbiot from the Guardian so it is a real political position. [26]. If POV problems, should be cleaned up rather than deleted. Capitalistroadster 23:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has anyone actually nominated this?. In any case, keep; very bad article but definitely an encyclopedic topic. The Land 23:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Localism as a term is a widespread one, however there is neither in the article nor in the sources provided here or there evidence of the use of the term as a specific political philosophy. The references in the article do not even use the term; the Guardian link above defines it solely as "the proposal that everything which can be produced locally should be produced locally" without further discussion of the other issues that 'localists believe'. I don't think this article should be deleted (although it's a close call), but it does need to be considerably rewritten to emphasize that this is an amorphous set of philosophies that may or may not include the positions that the current article seems to imply are universal. In any case, it needs citations that link the term to the ideas, otherwise it is Original Research and should be deleted. Ziggurat 23:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article presents Localism in its purist form. The artile is worded though in a POV fashion and I have taken it upon myself to rewrite much of this over the next few days. Polzsa 23:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Even if the article content is cr*p, the subject merits inclusion SP-KP 00:49, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Johnston[edit]

Tagged as speedy, but claiming to be the "founding member" of something means it should come here, however briefly. The band has no allmusic entry, I couldn't find anything on google to link them, and in fact nothing I could see was this AJ at all. Always happy to see more information, of course. brenneman(t)(c) 13:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I added the "speedy". Thanks for notifying the author of the page. I think the article should be deleted unless more information surfaces. --Austrian 15:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Former member of a non-notable band. Judging by the photos, it looks like that was a long time ago, too. - squibix(talk) 14:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Squibix. Stifle 18:31, 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. Babajobu 14:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indefatigability[edit]

Not encyclopedic. There may be an article in this, but I'm not seeing it right now. brenneman(t)(c) 13:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Send to WikiDictionary. More of a dictionary entry than encyclopedic. Kusonaga 13:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Highly POV. Dlyons493 Talk 13:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not encyclopaedic. Latinus 20:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. Stifle 18:31, 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. Babajobu 14:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gumpism[edit]

dicdef Melaen 14:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable dictionary definition unverified neologism. SYCTHOStalk 16:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the ever-articulate SYCTHOS. - squibix(talk) 14:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SYCTHOS. Latinus 20:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, unverified neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 18:30, 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. Babajobu 14:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ragai Stino[edit]

Person not known in the Egyptian Business Community, seems like an add for his company for which he provided an external link. JaManna 14:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not Notable/Self-Promotion
  • Delete per above. Mushroom 15:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Company and person seem to exist but not be notable. Link in article is dead. Dlyons493 Talk 15:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity ad. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 17:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity. Latinus 20:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Stifle 18:30, 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 TRANSWIKI to Wikt. -Splashtalk 02:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blogography[edit]

delete neologism. Melaen 14:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • transwiki to wiktionary. blogography gets 192k google hits [27], but I dont think you could write an article about it -- Astrokey44|talk 15:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per above. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 17:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and delete. Stifle 18:30, 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. Babajobu 14:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim oconnor[edit]

Same non-notable "professional" skateboarder, different article name. Ugh. Cyde Weys 14:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not even an assertion of notability. Vanity or attack, depending on how the subject views the anecdote related.--MayerG 16:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable vanity. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 17:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this nn. So nn that even no sockpuppet votes? feydey 01:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't all professional athletes notable? What is this bias against skateboarding?! Skateboarding is not a crime! Just kidding, delete. (Although I do think there's a case to be made for tightening the current criteria for including athletes.) - squibix(talk) 14:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appears to have been deleted early by Drini. Curious. I suspect it would qualify for G4 speedy anyway so I'm not bothered to DRV it, although I would have been inclined to vote keep per WP:CSB. Stifle 18:30, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CodeSimian programming language[edit]

Non-notable programming language. 109 Google hits, and only 10 of them are considered different enough by Google; two of these are from Wikipedia. cesarb 15:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all programming languages SP-KP 00:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While CodeSimian is new, it is an actual programming-language, and only a few thousand programming-languages exist while maybe a million softwares exist. CodeSimian is freeware (GPL) which makes it public information. ~~BenRayfield

  • Plug: Please come help develop the inclusion guideline Wikipedia:Notability (software) for articles such as this. --Perfecto 03:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, CodeSimian is not as popular as those rules require for software, but a programming-language is not just any kind of software. Its what is used to build software, and should be given more leniency. ~~BenRayfield
  • Delete until such time as there are articles in Linux Journal or Dr. Dobbs about programming in CodeSimian. Haikupoet 06:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Haikupoet. RasputinAXP talk contribs 16:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definitely non-notable. Also, "only a few thousand prog languages" is untrue; in the 1970s, languages were as plenty as programs. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-03 13:29Z
  • Delete. Anyone can write a programming language and put it under the GPL. A Turing-complete programming language can be written in under 15 lines of code — and with better syntax than this language's poor imitation of Lisp. I see no reason to give leniency. --Mgreenbe 18:01, 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 - empty article. -- RHaworth 20:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel3[edit]

delete non notable musician. Melaen 15:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as vanity, self-promotion, and lack of content. Tagged. SYCTHOStalk 21:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as {{nn-band}}. Stifle 18:28, 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. Babajobu 14:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English Histerya Corps[edit]

A former userpage, moved to article space; was re-userfied but then re-created. Apparent hoax or highly non-notable. -- Curps 15:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--MayerG 16:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Curps. -feydey 01:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 20:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Longhair 22:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. Stifle 18:27, 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. -Splashtalk 02:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Roche[edit]

Local artist. Notability not established. No major exhibits or reviews. —ERcheck @ 15:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Ghits only for artist listings, not major reviews or exhibits. ?Vanity entry? - contributing author has same last name and only contribution is this entry. —ERcheck @ 15:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elena Roche: Please reconsider deletion. This entry would facilitate the public whereas Elena Roche receives inquiries several times a year from collectors trying to establish the identity of the artist vis a vis signatures "E. Roche" on their paintings. Elena Roche was the subject of a documentary that has been aired continually on Discovery Times Channel since 2003, and consequently she has been sought out by viewers. This listing would facilitate their search. Elena Roche has first page position in Google for her most pertinent keywords, for example: "floral watercolors" and "portrait commissions". Her website contains in excess of one hundred pages. In her "hometown" of Tver, formerly Kalinin, Russia she is a local celebrity. Thank you for your consideration. 24.176.195.165 04:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Warren Roche[reply]
    • See WP:BIO to see general guidelines for biographies. If you are related to Ms. Roche, please note the information on autobiographies/biographies written by relatives. Also see WP:NOT for what Wikipedia is not (advertising, etc.) —ERcheck @ 00:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable outside her hometown. Wikipedia is not a free wiki host, a biography site, or a directory. See also [http:/www.wikime.org WikiMe]. Stifle 18:27, 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. -Splashtalk 02:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural animateur[edit]

Not nonsense, or balls, but a short article with no context and little chance of getting any. < 50 Ghits MNewnham 20:19, 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. -Splashtalk 02:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folz Vending[edit]

This article is nothing more than an advertisement. Much larger companies that do more business are not included beccause they are not big enough.

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This isn't an ad, this is a real article. The bot that makes ads doesn't know how to make it look all wiki-ed and everything Ruby 00:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, the bot only finished the AFD process that someone else didn't finish. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be a well-established company. Camillus (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If it's been around that long, it could very well be expanded. Royboycrashfan 01:26, 4 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Schifberg[edit]

Unverifiable; just look at the references section. "Victorybriefsdaily" is a blog, "Nflonline.org" says nothing about our hero, and then we have three personal conversations. The article is full of original research. Delete. Melchoir 20:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dragonfiend 17:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeremy Schifberg is a public figure worthy of an encyclopedia entry.... —the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.16.112.123 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. If someone shows me two or three news references for the claimed notability, I'm prepared to reconsider. Stifle 16:57, 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 Persian Bayan. -Splashtalk 02:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motammem Al-Bayan[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. -Splashtalk 02:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Claus incident[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable pop culture debate. --D-Day 16:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This incident is already described in more detail at Philadelphia Eagles#Fan_Behavior, and IMO there is not enough information presented to warrant a separate article. --Thunk 19:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per Thunk. - squibix(talk) 14:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thunk. Stifle 16:56, 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 Goodbye Hedley 22:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runecrypt[edit]

This seems to just be an advertisement, and I don't think this article is notable to begin with. Croat Canuck 15:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not an advertisment. This site has a history that people who visit are constantly curious about. There will be things added to it in the future. You have no right to delete it. It is not an add. If you don't like it, don't look at it! -Gunny, Runecrypt User — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.30.116 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-29 15:51:38 UTC
  • It is not an add, did you even read the whole thing? It has infomation about Runecrypt, its not spam along the lines of: "omfg!!!!! u must join our site!!!1111one!!!!1" -Plant Dude — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.242.133.16 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-29 15:53:16 UTC
  • How is it an advertisement there is much history in runescape that comes from runecrypt,it is a big fansite and there are links and pages to fansites for homestar runner,star wars, world of warcraft, ect. ect. -I am me and only me,runecrypt memeber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.221.40 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-29 16:18:23 UTC


  • Comment I'm not deleting it, I'm putting it up for deletion, there is a difference. Wikipedians will vote whether it should stay or go, its not my decision. Croat Canuck 16:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but this link even fails to get a mention on the external links page of the Article it is about. Advertisment or not, it's not needed and should get deleted. J.J.Sagnella 16:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Seems like a borderline notable website, though the article does need a more encyclopedic tone. BTW, Runecrypt fanatics, please consider at least glancing at Wikipedia:Talk pages before posting a comment here. Dbtfz <small16:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please remember that on The actual Runescape page, it was recently decided to delete this link, and the ones kept don't have their own website, so they? J.J.Sagnella 16:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article about a game fansite with an alexa rank of over 200,000. Not one of the most visited runescape sites, no claims of notability in the article. - Bobet 16:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable by its own admission ("over one hundred members regularly visiting the site").--MayerG 16:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks ok to me, it's well written and informative. Who cares if it's not one of the most visited sites for Runescape? You definitely give a very bad impression when you admit stuff such as the "Liger" article and that stuff. That article is not an advertisement and it's informative enough. These people tell what it is, it's purpose and some background information on it. It should stay I think. --Cotusa 17:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point though is if Runevillage's wikipedia article recently got deleted, and it has more traffic than this, why keep it? J.J.Sagnella 17:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article cites no sources. Searching for sources, all that I find are a multitude of submissions to web directories. There is no secondary source material upon which this article is based. It appears to be original research, a description of the web site from firsthand knowledge that is being first published in Wikipedia. There is no secondary source material from which to construct a verifiable encyclopaedia article that would be more than a web directory entry. Wikipedia is not a web directory. The WP:WEB criteria are not satisfied. Delete. Uncle G 18:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if objectionable phrases such as "By the way are you in a 'special class'?" are an indication of the intelligence of this sites users. Jcuk 19:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G. --Thunk 19:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How can you even think of deleting it? It has great information, and tells all about the fansite. Even with background info. Zaico - Active Runecrypt member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.97.182.65 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. Wisco 21:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Uncle G. No indication of meeting WP:WEB, no outside sources and presence of people probably brought in by notice on Runecrypt who have not previously contributed to Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster 21:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 21:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)". Capitalistroadster 21:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not meeting WP:WEB per Uncle G. Turnstep 21:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, I did check it out after the rewrite, and while it is much improved, it still fails WP:WEB. Turnstep 02:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You guys from Runecrypt are in Wikipedia territory. That means that you follow our rules, including WP:CIV. All of that flaming you guys posted just makes me want to delete it even more. SYCTHOStalk 21:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete web cruft, pure and simple. --kingboyk 22:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the half-witted article wasn't bareboned enough, the flaming spam of its authors certainly is. Webcruft of no worth here doktorb | words 22:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, Runecrypt users. I wish your site much success in the future, but currently, it does not seem to belong in Wikipedia. --Joel7687 23:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am terribly sorry about the actions of my fellow crypters. I'm trying to edit the article now and I've eliminated whole sections of the article. I have started citing sources and following wikipedia guidelines. I can clearly see where you would think this was an ad, so I've completely changed the tone of the article. I don't know if I can change the article to conform to Wikipedia standards; it's written from as neutral a perspective as I can get, and research is backed by some sources, though it is not possible to verify some bits of material. Kevin; Original Writer
  • Keep Delete: There have been many improvements to the article on 30 January. These deal with many of the criticisms above. I would have voted to delete the original version (and the flaming above doesn't help its cause), but I think the current version is not a bad article. I don't feel qualified to judge about the notability of the subject matter, but that is often subjective anyway. If you voted before 30 January, you may want to reconsider your vote. -- Avenue 23:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed my mind, having looked into the notability aspect more. Of the 5 fansites listed at the end of the RuneScape article, four of them have much larger membership than this one, and none seem to have articles on Wikipedia. So this one doesn't seem notable enough to keep. -- Avenue 15:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The rewrite is great, but doesn't address the notability problem. I would like to delete the idiots above though. —rodii 02:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yeah, unfortunately there's nothing I can do about the notability factor...the site is what it is I suppose. -Once Again, the Original Writer
  • Delete. The rewrite was a good effort, but it's still a non-notable fan site.-gadfium 03:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still delete per Gadfium. - squibix(talk) 14:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Although I hate resorting to it, the Alexa rank is 241,596. Discussion is plagued by meatpuppets. Stifle 16:55, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dopetopia[edit]

Article chronicles a non-notable website in an unencyclopedic Q&A fashion. --Mysidia (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, does not meet WP:WEB. My attempts to find verifiable, reliable sources (through google, nexis, etc.) have all failed. -- Dragonfiend 17:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no Alexa data, i.e. no rank. NN. feydey 17:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --ManiacK 13:42, 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. -Splashtalk 02:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wictionary:Gletscher[edit]

  • This is probably a page originally expected to end up in Wiktionary. The user probably doesn't know how to spell "Wiktionary". If this can be made into an encyclopedia article, keep and move to Gletscher. If not, delete. Georgia guy 15:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons stated by the nominator. --Mysidia (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, malformed. Gletscher already exists as a redirect and it is explained in the glacier article. Punkmorten 15:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 20:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OOps sorry. I am the culprit. Have created Wiktionary entry and will create the proper link. Iani 21:26, 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. -Splashtalk 02:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bleeding star clothing[edit]

Advertising, article even says it's newly founded Obli (Talk) 16:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the first two sentences of the article. Stifle 16:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Ruby 01:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising, non-notable Camillus (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not very good ghits on first page, blatant advertising, non-notable, etc. Royboycrashfan 01:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vanity! AdSpam! AdCruft! Delete! ++Deiz 02:09, 4 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. Johnleemk | Talk 06:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Smelley[edit]

Delete Minimal amount of Google hits and from the sounds of things, did nothing spectacular. Me and one other person tried to speedy this, so I don't feel it had that much importance. J.J.Sagnella 15:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - a Google search on "Chris Smelley" QB provided a number of hits for college scouting. He is scout.com's #27 ranked high school QB, #9 for rivals.com, and #27 from College Football News. I don't know what the hurdle is for HS football players, but he has certainly had national notice among college recruiters. —ERcheck @ 16:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems to me that there is adequate reason to keep this bio, under Wiki's bio perameters....." Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, ___or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports___, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles Keep

I think that this article will do nothing but grow. Also I think It is hard to say that he did nothing spectacular if you have read the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwh68 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 30 January 2006

  • Delete. Unless it is exceptional circumstances and a high school athlete is competing at the higher levels of his sport, a high school athlete does not meet my criteria for an article under WP:BIO. If he enters the NFL, or has a distinguished college football career, we should reconsider. 136.153.2.2 00:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dunno why the AfD is broke, but Keep due to mention at ESPN.com's Class of 2006 prospect list. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to all the reasons and sources already provided. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. If he achieves some sort of fame at the college level then consider relisting. Batman2005 05:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I actually came to this web site to see if there was anything on this athlete. I say keep hit, he has drawn much national interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Playsguitarbadly (talk • contribs) 10:20, 1 February 2006
  • Delete per nom. If we list every joe-blow athlete who signs to play college football it cheapens the status of other actual notable athletes. 4.224.144.135 20:18, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Schmidt[edit]

Philip Schmidt is a staff member, communications director, for congressman Jose E. Serrano. Congressional staffers are not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -- Kjkolb 16:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. When he gets his boss's job, we'll give him a page. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 21:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article was created from the US House shared IP address 143.231.249.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (the same IP that has been getting us in the news recently). Probably autobio. -- Pakaran 23:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, almost certainly autobiographical. Cacophony 00:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity --Ryan Delaney talk 11:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity. Latinus 20:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since I already voted. Inclusion of information like pets' names is strong evidence for vanity (that's not something an objective observer would find important about him) -- Pakaran 21:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Know Vandal, Vanity Etc... Fosnez 00:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Definetly vanity. Nhandler 04:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not apparently notable enough for inclusion.--SarekOfVulcan 07:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unexceptional individual, bio from known vandal IP address (U.S. House of Representatives) - Eric 18:28, 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 speedy keep. Punkmorten 20:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zur Geschichte der Handelgesellschaften im Mittelalter[edit]

Right spelling is Zur Geschichte der Handelsgesellschaften im Mittelalter - Article already moved there Deltazero 16:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a harmless redirect. I'm gonna call keep here since it doesn't belong on AFD anyway. Punkmorten 20:48, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dringoism[edit]

Looks like (non-patent) nonsense and a hoax. 0 google hits. - Bobet 16:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as uncommon hoax. Tagged. SYCTHOStalk 16:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - joke. Latinus 20:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Turnstep 18:21, 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. Those citing crystal ball have enough grounds here since there is a total absence of any kind of proof that such a thing has ever been considered. -Splashtalk 02:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xboy[edit]

Rant speculation and see previous deletion debate Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Xboy. Unfortunately, the current article does not meet a speedy criteria, non-notable allegations just don't belong in an encyclopedia. --Mysidia (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Actually, the article does meet speedy criteria. Tagged for recreation of deleted material (CSD G4). SYCTHOStalk 16:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a repost... CSD G4 refers to content that actually reached a delete consensus or had a legitimate CSD; in any case, it doesn't apply to this. --Mysidia (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete CSD G4. Rumors, heh. feydey 17:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a speedy deletion, unfortunately. CSD:G4 only allows re-deletion of something which was already deleted by AFD or other consensus. This article was originally speedied; it must still meet a criterion for speedy deletion in order to be deleted again. It doesn't. That said, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so delete. Stifle 16:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a real thing; keep. Not speculation. WikiFanatic 23:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article isn't completely baseless. What about Halo 3, then? It's on wikipedia too. --Fire 19:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When the rumors become reality, then someone can write an article that is verifiable. —Cleared as filed. 23:41, 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 speedied. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Homes[edit]

Advert article for nn-band CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article contains no real assertion of notability. I will speedy it. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:09, 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. Peyna 15:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Goldfish[edit]

Came across this through the random article feature. Looks like a nn band to me. --D-Day 16:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:MUSIC. Has at least 2 albums released - yes. Verifiable - yes, is listed in Allmusic.com [28]. Has also 4th album on sale on Amazon.com [29]. feydey 17:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per Feydey. Verifiable band which meets at least one of the notability guidelines as per WP:NMG. Capitalistroadster 21:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, per Feydey. Stifle 16:51, 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. Author hasn't edited since, but if they want it userfied they can drop a note on my talkpage (or indeed that of any admin). -Splashtalk 02:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cake Prophecy[edit]

tagged as speedy, but does not seem to fit a speedy cat. This is, however, a description of some patently non-notable fiction,and also appears to fail WP:NOR (and quite possibly WP:NFT) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The books sound interesting, but Wikipedia can only dedicate articles to novels that are published and well-circulated. There are better places on the web to promote your work, anyway. ×Meegs 01:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn nonsense. incog 00:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have seen the first novel published, although only in Western Australia. Maybe it is going mainstream soon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.205.7 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete as junk. Stifle 16:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not junk, but if it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, say so. The author probably took an hour to write it, you hopefully took a minute to read it, and I suggest it's worth 15 seconds to give a real reason for deletion instead of just insulting the author, who contributed in good faith. ×Meegs 18:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete above comment is far too kind. 15 seconds is all it takes to see that this falls into WP:NOT. Definitely doesn't belong on WP - tells of books which only exist in author's mind. Camillus (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you may know, I am broadly in favour of userfying well-intentioned but naive articles (assuming good faith, obv.) like this and autobiographies, per WP:BITE. If a consensus emerges to delete and I end up closing the AfD I will probably do that. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and userfy, because of notability issues. --kingboyk 00:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 01:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, straddles the line between fiction and patent nonsense. People can spend 6 years writing fiction if they want. This still won't be where to put it and no amount of unsigned desperate rescue attempts will change that. ++Deiz 02:19, 4 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. Babajobu 22:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WoWMine[edit]

Looks like a quasi-illegal "company" selling "online money" for real money. No WP:CORP notability and looks like promotion too. feydey 16:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fails both WP:CORP and WP:WEB guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Feydey's nom. --Oscarthecat 21:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is similar to IGE. I have personally used both of their services. They are breaking their EULA with the respective game publishers at most. They've also been reported by 1UP.com, and Terra Nova, which makes them not WP:CORP unnotable, to say the least. In additon, if this article is deemed promotional, then IGE looks like an advertisement. -- 06:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 20:13, 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 delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V-dart[edit]

Delete Non-notable folded paper toy with no relevant Google results. Probable hoax. Brendan 16:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Brendan. Probably hoax -- Speed record holder: "The shooter of the V-Dart was unidentified, as he ran away to another town and changed his name." — User:ERcheck 18:33, 29 January 2006
  • Delete as something made up by bored schoolkids. Turnstep 01:18, 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; userfied. Johnleemk | Talk 06:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris airola[edit]

nn bio, suspected vanity page (name of author is Chrisairola, the name of the headshot is MeHeadshot.jpg) Obli (Talk) 16:48, 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. Thank you, Ashibaka. -Splashtalk 02:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deishling[edit]

Non-notable fictional species created by "well-known roleplayer Janna Willis". Exists in pictures drawn by her and at least 3 other people. - Bobet 16:52, 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 redirect; anything relevant has been merged, though if you find something mergeable, be bold. Johnleemk | Talk 06:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crema foam[edit]

If there is consensus (which so far seems to be the case) for merging whatever information is not already there into Espresso, I propose that this page be deleted, as it's not useful for redirection and there is already a disambiguation page Crema. - Magnus Holmgren 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge anything interesting into Espresso. Haikupoet 06:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything relevant per Haikupoet. Stifle 16:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but can Crema foam be deleted afterwards or should a redirect remain? I say it can be deleted. - Magnus Holmgren 08:42, 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. Babajobu 22:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fairfax[edit]

Delete. Appears to make very little sense and has no context Johnlp 16:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no context, no notability.--Alhutch 18:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Borderline speedy under A1, but no reason not to let it limp on for a few more days I guess. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:13, 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 delete. Babajobu 22:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday attachment[edit]

Simply WP:OR (i.e. original research). Article written probably by the author mentioned in References. No wikilinks in. Not encyclopedic i'm sorry. feydey 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, reads like original research. Jawz 08:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not encyclopaedic. Latinus 20:12, 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 delete. Babajobu 22:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jjmehta[edit]

tagged for speedy as advert, which is not a WP:CSD criterion. It is, however, plainly just that. I say delete. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...ADVERTISING


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. From the redirection point-of-view do note the full-stop at the end of the article name. -Splashtalk 02:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Driving on the left.[edit]

tagged as "patent nonsense", which it isn't, it is, however original "research", POV, and missing the point (which is that if you drive on the left you can have at an oncoming driver with your sword). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, WP:NOR & WP:NPOV. Buckle up. PJM 17:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We cover this subject in depth in Rules of the road#Left_or_right. This article adds nothing new that isn't blatant personal opinion, and has a title that isn't useful. Delete. Uncle G 17:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to a redirect page to Rules of the road, where the contributor's comments might be included in a non-biased way in a new section. NFH 18:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please look at the title of this article carefully. A redirect is not useful. Uncle G 18:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while opposing a redirect as original research. The article is not that useful, and mostly common sense. SYCTHOStalk 21:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename and rewrite Valid subject, bad title, awful content. There is research out there (as to where, memory fails me, though) on the respective safety levels of right hand and left hand driving. SP-KP 00:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Malformed title. Haikupoet 06:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make redirect to Rules of the road. Someone might look for the subject under this title. The POV essay there at the moment is not encyclopaedic. David | Talk 16:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there's a period at the end, who's going to type that? Stifle 16:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and do not redirect per Uncle G. Kusma (討論) 15:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the other comments. No need for a redirect, because no one's going to type this. —Cleared as filed. 23:39, 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. Babajobu 22:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ptmarion.com[edit]

Non-notable website. I visited the site and there appears to be little activity in the past year. Says 6000 members but there is no evidence that they are active. Delete Atrian 17:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Their Alexa rank is 1,259,680, so if they really have 6000 members they must all be really shy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or they don't install the Alexa toolbar. I don't use it, do you? --kingboyk 22:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, it just isn't notable and we can't allow WP to become home to tens of thousands of articles on web sites. --kingboyk 22:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There may be some local media coverage in "Ptmarion"'s 223 hits, but find it I cannot. --Perfecto 03:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:12, 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 speedy delete. Punkmorten 20:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SYNEK, Miroslav[edit]

Delete - spam?, possibly confused with user page? ChemGardener 17:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I've userfied it and left a message. Dlyons493 Talk 17:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that it's been userfied it's an easy speedy delete as nn-bio. Tagged. --Malthusian (talk) 17:51, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 06:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Mountains north of Grey Havens[edit]

Context is lacking, but this is apparently the setting for a level in The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. Note in the LoTR: BfME2 article, there is a section called 'Game locations', but all the other wikilinked places have more background to them, whereas this doesn't. Apparently those are parts of the Middle-Earth 'universe', whereas this is just a game level. Delete. --Malthusian (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC) NB Context has been improved, my other concerns still stand. --M 19:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this item of random videogame info, seems too random and non-encyclopedic to be worth moving to relevant articles. Ben Kidwell 19:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fictional mountains already have their own article at Ered Luin, which is linked from Blue Mountains (disambiguation). There's no need for a separate page about their role in a video game. ×Meegs 01:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect w/o merge is perfectly fine too. ×Meegs 18:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Latinus 20:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Ered Luin James084 16:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Ered Luin. The Blue Mountains are divided into ranges north and south of the Grey Havens in Middle-Earth; they are a real fictional place, not just a game level. Some of the game information may be worth saving. I did some tidy-up, but I don't think it worth saving. Note that dab with the Blue Mountains in New South Wales will be needed. --Surgeonsmate 05:30, 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. Babajobu 22:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freako[edit]

"It refers to somebody who is wierd or acts like a wierdo or a total idiot." —Home Row Keysplurge 18:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Obli (Talk) 18:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and check the spelling. Always remember - we put the "we" in "weird". Grutness...wha? 05:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not encyclopaedic. Latinus 20:11, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 06:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mesh Computers[edit]

Article is about an English computer maker which appears to fail WP:CORP. The only incoming link to the article is a line in Mesh (disambiguation) added by the article's author. - squibix(talk) 18:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • week keep one of the better known UK computer makers. --Salix alba (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Royboycrashfan 01:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per User:Pfafrich --kingboyk 01:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone has a better reason for keeping this than that's its virtually adcruft for "one of the better known UK computer makers" who nevertheless fail WP:CORP. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like another one that will test the "it's not a vote" aspect of AfD. Google news says nothing, and the links from the vanilla Google search are mostly just product reviews and thus do not indicate notability. This link indicates that there may be something in it, but for right now, delete as not notable and failing WP:CORP. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Brenneman. Too small to be notable. Dr Debug (Talk) 04:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication why the company would meet WP:CORP. (As an aside, I've lived in Britain for ten years now and never saw one single box manufactured by those people anywhere.) Pilatus 05:28, 4 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. Johnleemk | Talk 06:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Buffyverse-related topics[edit]

This is a recreation of the list deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Buffyverse articles. I feel like this should be grounds for a speedy.Dave 18:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; a very comprehensive 'See Also' sub-page for the article Buffyverse and massive improvement to 'List of Buffyverse articles' which had different function. Although the Buffyverse articles can be navigated by category (and this page directs people to search by category if they prefer), the categories are divided into numerous sub-categories' this is the only a-z list of all Buffyverse articles on one page, a massively useful tool for Wikipedians reading about the Buffyverse. -- Paxomen 19:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just discovered Dave is also trying to delete other items I have produced. For some reason Dave has had grudge against my contributions toward the Buffyverse articles, and has history of deleting/removing/changing whatever he can over past month. -- Paxomen 19:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not simply a recreation of the previous article that was deleted as is being suggested above, or a duplication of the category listing (see my explanation below for more details). -- Paxomen 00:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Paxomen - article duplicates category listing. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Thesquire that we have categories for this, but we also allow for Lists and that is really what this is. I do feel the name should be something like List of Buffy-related articles. --Allycat 21:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with that is that, as you said, is what categories are for. Plus that particular article already achieved consensus for deletion. Dave 22:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rename I agree with the proposal by Allycat above to rename. Whilst the Wikipedia categories are very useful, it is also useful to offer a comprehensive alphabetical list in one place, and Wikipedia seems to accept such lists in addition to categories.
The previous list was deleted because some non-Buffyverse fans considered TV show stuff to be 'fancruft', and also because the list was not even almost complete, it is now complete.
Should we delete the following lists?
They all already have categories, namely; color, economics, Hinduism, Japan, journalism, philosophers, religion, and sociology respectively (see here for more details on this and an example of how lists can be useful where categories aren't always conveniant.
Obviously having all articles in alphabetical order on one page can be useful and is encyclopedic. In fact check the following link to see dozens of more lists of topics, which already have categories: 'List of topic lists', but the existence of the lists remains justified.
The 'Buffyverse' category is divided into dozens of sub-categories, it divides Buffy and Angel very strictly, and encompasses a few dozen pages, all this can sometimes be extremely unuseful. This article up for deletion needs to be renamed to what seems to be already accepted by Wikipedia. According to that formula, instead of deletion this article should simply be renamed to List of Buffyverse-related topics, and also redefined in its opening sentences. I am willing to make such changes. -- Paxomen 22:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User:Paxomen has copied the article in question to List of Buffyverse-related topics, in case anyone's interested in AfD'ing that page as well. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 01:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renamed I don't think I've copied the article to that place, pretty sure I've renamed the whole article to List of Buffyverse-related topics including its case for deletion? That is twice proposed above to bring it into closer line with wikipedia policy. I used the 'move' button, made some edits, and linked the discussion pages. I believe it should bring it into line with other 'structured lists' like those here; 'List of topic lists', unless we believe we should start deleting the majority of those lists? -- Paxomen 01:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list seriously illustrates that our notability guideline WP:FICT is unfollowed. --Perfecto 03:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The whole basis for deletion is categories vs list not notability? Just was looking round Wikipedia and read this which is extremely important for this discussion; Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. Amongst other things it says Wikipedia offers three ways to create groupings of articles: categories, lists, and article series boxes. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages.. These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other.. That link also contains 'Disadvantages of categories' and 'Advantages of lists':
Disadvantages of categories
  • Listings cannot be annotated (e.g. length of a river).
  • They cannot contain invisible links to talk pages, which cause edits to those pages to appear when the user clicks on "related changes". (Thus: [[Talk:ABCology| ]])
  • Red links to not-yet-existing articles cannot be added to categories.
  • Categories are not operational on most mirror sites.
  • Categories can impose a load on the servers. See WP:AUM for perspective.
  • Cannot include alternative names for the same item.
  • Newbies do not understand how to add an item, how to link new categories into existing schemes, or POV concerns.
Advantages of lists
  • Lists can be annotated. For example, a list of soccer world championship teams can also list when the championship was won.
  • Lists can include items for which there are no articles (red links); categories can only list things for which there are articles, unless stubs are created.
  • List items can be sorted using a variety of methods. An article can be listed several times or in different ways in the same list, or shown both in its major category as well as in several different subcategories, without cluttering the article with crossreferences.
  • Lists can link to items inside other articles.
  • Lists can include invisible links to discussion pages, so that clicking on "related changes" will include those. Format: [[Talk:Omphalology| ]].
This List of Buffyverse-related topics has the potential to have functions that categories simply cannot such as notes, invisible text, red links, recent changes, and discussion pages alongside articles. Of course 'lists' also have their disadvantages, and 'categories' also have their advantages, both of which are given on that link, but that's the whole point, both navigation systems can complement each other therefore just because one is in place should never mean the eradication of the other is required. -- Paxomen 03:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has that potential, but does it now, or is it likely to ever do so? As far as I can tell, no. Unlike List of Eagle Scouts, which is annotated, this is just a linkdump whose function is already dupicated by applicable categories. My vote to Delete stands -- Thesquire (talk -
That article is years old, yet you give this one less than a week? Here's what that article looked like after its first 2 weeks of editing back in January 2004: List of Eagle Scouts (Jan 2004). -- Paxomen 01:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
contribs) 08:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The potential expressed only needs to be actualised. Why not give people that chance? See if it's still the same in a month and put it up again if it is, I say. Kusonaga 17:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a list it is usefull. --Allycat (Talk - Contribs) 22:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD:G4, redundant to the category, and Wikipedia:Listcruft. Stifle 16:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article Wikipedia:Listcruft was created by Stifle -- Paxomen 01:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a single convenient list is obviously not redundant to a bunch of smaller categories. Kappa 00:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is too long. I think the information of a phenomenon as rich as the Buffyverse requires to be classified into more specialized categories, which should have links to the individual articles for each character, episode, species, concepts and analysis topic

  • List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes
  • List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer comics
  • List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer novels
  • List of Angel episodes
  • List of Angel comics
  • List of Angel novels
  • List of Buffyverse characters
  • List of Scooby Gang Members
  • List of Angel Investigations/Team Angel/Angel's crew Members
  • List of Buffyverse villains
  • List of Buffyverse demons
  • List of Buffyverse vampires
  • List of Buffyverse organizations
  • List of Wolfram & Hart characters (Wolfram & Hart has a pretty big list of related characters: lawyers, clientes, employees, freelance associates)
  • List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Angel concepts (The Slayer, Watchers, Gender issues, family dynamics, social issues.--Gonzalo84 22:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, however those articles already exist (except 'List of Buffyverse concepts', and 'List of Angel Investigations'(Angel's main characters presently are listed in a section on the main Angel page) why not also have the catch-all list available? -- Paxomen 23:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Paxomen has at least two points that have convinced me. First, there are plenty of other lists that are much less useful than this one (for example, List_of_Japan-related_topics). Second, Paxomen says he is willing to address many of the complaints that have been lodged against the page during this vote. Therefore, to vote to delete this page now is tantamount to purging an incomplete page on the grounds that it isn't very useful when incomplete. That is true of every page on Wikipedia! My personal preference would be to use categories and subcategories for this, because I won't myself find this page all that useful, but I don't vote to delete pages that I don't find useful. Perfecto pointed out that this violates the WP:FICT guidelines; this is true, but I think that the genie was out of the bottle a year ago and a deletionist philosophy will never win at Wikipedia. I'm a Mergist myself, but we can't have true Mergism until Wikipedia software can force an unadorned link to redirect to a subsection of another page. But that's another story.... Lawrence King 00:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Paxomen. Much more useful than the categories for someone wanting to look something up about the Buffyverse. --Cooksey 19:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Please provide an example of a time when you would need to find something about the Buffyverse and need an alphabetized list. If you already know the name of the topic, just go straight there. If you don't, then a list of a whole bunch of related topics in an arbitrary (as opposed to conceptually systematic) can't be useful. Dave 23:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lists complement categories; "categories, lists, and article series boxes.. should not be considered to be in competition with each other" [WP]. List not arbitrary. All topics in one place, red links for unstarted articles, annotation, links to discussion/revision, alternative names for the same item... Also use of lists impose less of a load on the servers than use of categories, which is a very important point because wikipedia is becoming increasingly popular, and the servers are increasingly struggling to cope with being overwhelmed. For list of potential usefulnesses of list, see above,'Disadvantages of categories', and 'Advantages of lists'-- Paxomen 14:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edited/Editing: Check out the article, I have added discussion, and history to each topic this kind of thing cannot ever be done with categories. This article can hugely benefit even more by annotation (although i have already semi-annotated many of the articles by using '|' after the link and using a more appropiate entry for the index e.g. 'List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes' is entered into the article as Buffy episodes to make more sense of the indexing system. Annotation, 'discussion' links, and 'revision' links are all impossible within categories, lists are supposed to complement categories and help the wikipedians to navigate topics. -- Paxomen 22:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have only just begun the process of annotation, and feel that an annotated index with all topics in one place is seeming more useful than even i had imagined, there are hundreds of opportunites for cross-referencing between completely different sub-categories, yet because it's a list, the reader/editor can go straight to associated topics. Just one example is annotation has the potntial to link the Buffyverse actors to their characters, and the Buffyverse characters to those who portrayed them. -- Paxomen 18:32, 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 deletion. enochlau (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Hill[edit]

non-notable, most 'famous' for featuring as a zombie in a music video by a band that barely meets Wikipedia's notability standards, itself. Obli (Talk) 18:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Completely non-notable person. Edrigu 19:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity.--Alhutch 19:27, 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 both. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How's It Working Out For You, Milk2Sugars[edit]

Non-notable album released by a band I'm not even sure is notable itself, called the Milk2Sugars. Edrigu 19:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: added Milk2Sugars into the AfD nomination.
  • Delete album and band pages. They do not meet WP:MUSIC. ~MDD4696 21:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Milk2Sugars has only published one album. SYCTHOStalk 21:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nn band. I love the cover, but three-week-old albums by bands we don't have cannot be here yet. Daniel Case 21:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but don't speedy. I think having released an album must count as an assertion of notability for a band: WP:MUSIC is an aid to discussion on AfD, not an excuse for shooting articles on sight. Never use WP:MUSIC to justify speedy deletion. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notabilty isn't quite working out for me today :( Delete. Jawz 08:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:11, 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 keep Victoria and merge Oxford. Johnleemk | Talk 06:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House of Fraser Victoria and House of Fraser Oxford Street[edit]

Normally we don't include individual stores of a larger chain in here; the individual stores are non-notable in my opinion. Delete. Andy Saunders 19:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article: House of Fraser Oxford Street - for the same reason. --Andy Saunders 19:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect ... Oxford Street to House of Fraser. Move ... Victoria to Army and Navy Store - which was an household name and needs an article. This is the tip of an iceberg - AndrewSE19 has created several store stubs. Can we agree on Andy Saunders policy above. -- RHaworth 20:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
House of Fraser Victoria[edit]

I have created separate entries for the department stores Andy Saunders has nominated as both have architectural features, a wealth of history and an important place in the consciousness of local people which are unique to their respective locations. I would apply the same reasoning for their retention in Wikipedia to many other businesses which have grown from small independent shops to become a focal point of town and city centres and local communities. In the case of 'House of Fraser Victoria', whilst it might appear to be just another outlet of a retail giant, its history is in fact unique. For example, it was a main supplier of goods and services to the British forces in India during the 19th Century and similarly to South Africa during the Boer War. The store was established as 'The Army & Navy Co-operative Society Limited' and changed its name again before being re-named 'House of Fraser Victoria'. I believe it is sensible to write my entire entry for the store under its present trading name and not former names as its history is continuing. I am in the process of expanding the aforementioned stub. Please do not delete. Keep Andrew Fife 21:00, 29 January 2006

  • Keep as per Andrew Fife for House of Fraser Victoria with the hope that the article will be further expanded and referenced. Merge Oxford with House of Fraser. Capitalistroadster 00:57, 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 keep the album, merge redirect the song. (nothing worth merging, really, though anyone who disagrees is free to merge something.) Johnleemk | Talk 06:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actions[edit]

Album released by a barely notable band, called My Awesome Compilation. Any info about this album (and there isn't much) can be placed in the page about the band. Edrigu 19:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating Put_Up_a_Fight which is a song on that album. There is no reason this NN song needs its own page. Edrigu 19:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, album and single by a band with an article. Albums always get there own page. Kappa 20:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to My Awesome Compilation. I can find no reference to "albums always get there (sic) own page". Stifle 16:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the album, Merge the song. Hirudo 14:21, 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 06:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libby Hodges[edit]

Non-notable/vanity, possibly patent nonsense? Mark83 19:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - at best non-notable. ISBN not found in any major library or bookseller. Having an online presence does not establish notability. —ERcheck @ 20:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, wow. Delete possibly borderline Speedy candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article implies that her novel is limited to her web site. Her other claims to notability, like being a vampire, are... not verifiable. ×Meegs 01:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self-published author with rest of article not verifiable - potential original research on types of vampires. Capitalistroadster 01:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to come to Saint Louis and attend a blood ritual and let me drink your blood so you can know I am actually a real vampire please email me (I am always looking for new donors provided you are HIV negative, No hepatitis and No Staph) because I am very careful about my health and my donors health. You are more than welcome to fly to Saint Louis, Missouri and do so. My vampirism is in my medical record as well, unlike most so call notable vampires. The isbn numbers for my books are isbn 1-59971-040-4 and Isbn 1-59971-268-7. Just becaue you Andrew, ERcheck, Meegs, and Capitalistroadster do not know me personally does not mean everything on the planet earth is a lie. The are real vampires in almost every country of the world. Some live in tribes, covens like the Massai or maybe even right next door to you. I take great offense to you saying that I am a liar, you could have easily went to my web site and emailed me or googled my name and the word vampire before you took it upon yourself to call me a liar. Also if you put in the isbn for Exodus From The Den of Demons it does show up at Borders Bookstore Nationwide in the United States but I guess Borders is just a mom and pop operation. I can gurantee you that in the future if anyone adds anything about me to wikipedia I will ask that it be deleted because I do not like being called a liar especially when I am standing up for my vampire community who hates talking to the general public because of untrue hollywood movies, and folklore stereotypes that plagues the real vampire vice the myth. Funny how everyone wants to believe the folklore and the movies but actual real vampires are demean and belittle by strangers.

Respectfully, Libby Hodges [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 777anton (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. Dear Libby, Wikipedia does not include everyone on the planet - see WP:BIO. Also, you are not a vampire. Very respectfully, Malthusian (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE per...i dunno...Libby Hodges is a looney toon? A Vampire?? Come on. Pure vanity...if that's what vampires call it. Batman2005 05:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After writing the long message above, 777anton, the subject of the article, blanked the page [30] and moved it to her user page. I don't think it's a candidate for speedy deletion (it wasn't created by accident, and was created and edited by several anons who may be different people), but since the outcome is quite clear already, there's no need to pile-on deletion votes, especially disrespectful ones. I'm guilty too for my edit above, but these last two edits are nothing but personal attacks. It's fairly rare for article authors to actually brave AfD to defend their work, and this kind of response is a big part of the reason why. Civility. ×Meegs 05:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meegs, her main claim to notability is that she is a vampire. If she actually was a vampire, she would certainly be a notable subject for an encyclopaedia, so the fact that she is not a vampire is, I feel, entirely germane to this discussion. I'm not going to defend Batman's wording though. --Malthusian (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Libby Hodges here says that if you go to St. Louis and let her drink your blood...that will prove that she's a vampire? How does that prove anything? I could drink blood...doesn't make me a vampire. I could drink gasoline...doesn't make me a car. I could go to a Bar Mitvah...doesn't make me Jewish. Just Curious. Batman2005 20:16, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinionist[edit]

Delete. Article writer wants to "start a debate", apparently about people who say they are journalists but who he thinks don't deserve that label John Broughton 19:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this unstable neologism written to promote a particular P.O.V. "My coining the term opinionist is to give some label to this menace on our society." That quote could be used as an example for what WP is not. Ben Kidwell 20:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this garbage as quickly as possible. CJCurrie 20:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This doesn't belong on Wikipedia Chiefmartinez 20:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "This is simply to start a debate that I think we should be having." Then put it on a blog, not here. Daniel Case 22:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Latinus 20:10, 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. Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 03:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Gilberti[edit]

non-notable musician; less than 60 Google hits for his name. Andy Saunders 19:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Actually this is a young classical music composer whose works have won awards and been performed at concert halls. Also, according to concert notes, he has done scoring for National Geographic. Durova 00:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC) [31] [32] [33] [34][reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable. --Nick Boalch ?!? 09:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will keep for food (or if wikified). Alphax τεχ 13:51, 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; do expand it, Vegaswikian. Johnleemk | Talk 06:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuca (disambiguation)[edit]

Only two known meanings, a link before "Yuca" is enough. Harg 20:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not a reason to delete an article. If anything Yuca should be moved to Yuca (slang) and the dab article moved to Yuca. By the way, Yuca is also a Miami restaurant, a band, a restaurant in DC, and the abbreviation for Youth United for Community Action. So there is likely to be more entries on a DAB page. Vegaswikian 00:18, 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 withdraw from Articles for Deletion. Punkmorten 20:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimeet-London3 18.jpg[edit]

Vanity. Mivvin 20:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This appears to be a grudge listing of some kind, but to my knowledge there's no precedent to deleting a free image due to "vanity", as thousands of users have pictures of themselves, not to mention this picture being taken at a Wikimeetup. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 20:31, 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. Babajobu 22:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cock-ass[edit]

Neologism. Andy Saunders 20:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Even if this were a widespread word, Wikipedia is not a dictionary in any event. Vslashg 21:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "The term is gaining popularity amongst younger kids in the midwest part of the United States." Really? Given that "dickass" has been around as an insult since well before I was in middle school, I'm not even going to give backhanded credit to the creator of this article for making this up in school one day. Daniel Case 21:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dictdef. Durova 00:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 20:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cock-ass. incog 00:26, 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 Shirt. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poets shirt[edit]

no enough context. Melaen 20:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to appropriate article... if anyone can find one. Surely there must be an article on frilly shirts, like Mozart's? I can't find one though, and 1750-1795 in fashion doesn't mention them. ~MDD4696 21:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to shirt for now. It's real (I have two!). Seinfeld's famous "puffy shirt" is another example. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:34, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boring Talk Show[edit]

Vanity article for boringtalkshow.com. Google shows no links to this site, and site has no Alexa rank. Vslashg 20:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Boring Wikipedia article. Daniel Case 21:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, boring vanity article. Jawz 08:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity. Latinus 20:10, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:10, 4 February 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. Shanel 01:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turninable[edit]

Delete. Quote from article: Fictional word created by Hampshire student . Vslashg 21:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as neologism. ~MDD4696 21:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fictional word, but is quickly becoming popular slang. I'd give it its fair shake. Slinger650

Sorry, Slinger650, but Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Vslashg 22:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This would be suitable for the Urban Dictionary, not Wikipedia. Durova 00:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, it has been submitted for the Urban Dictionary.

  • Delete - not encyclopaedic. Latinus 20:10, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OpenFree.org[edit]

Non-notable website/forum. Traffic Rank for openfree.org: 2,229,181. Forum members: 1,690. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-29 21:01Z


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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Ashibaka tock 23:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sungazing[edit]

I wish this were somehow speediable. A low-content BALLS page. Vslashg 21:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will add more content. And it does not make sense to me that there is a wikipedia article on Hira (since April 2005), a famous sungazer, but no article on sungazing. --Mmmsnouts 21:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Hira article doesn't mention sungazing at all, but I feel I must apologize. I thought the article as posted at the time -- Sungazing is the practice of staring directly at the sun to receive the sun's nourishment. -- was intended as a joke; I honestly didn't imagine it was something folks actually believed. But Google searching does turn up some pages on the subject. If you can site some references published from a reputable publisher per WP:V, I'll withdraw my nomination. Vslashg 21:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn. I still think the whole notion of staring at the sun for nourishment is dangerous and silly. That said, there clearly exist communities that believe in it, and the author of this article is obviously acting in good faith. Article needs some NPOV balance but I withdraw my nomination for deletion. Vslashg 04:23, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Falconer[edit]

I was about to take this one at face value until I saw the Paddington reference, which made me suspicious. Yup, nothing on Google for this guy as a porn star. Nothing either for this guy's alleged musical career. Daniel Case 21:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable as per nom. Capitalistroadster 01:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - squibix(talk) 15:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per nom. Obviously a hoax, but I have to make it a "weak" delete because that line about the chord structure of "Let Your Love Flow" is utterly brilliant comedy. Thankfully it's been WP:BJAODNed. --Aaron 18:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 20:09, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serb hellenic forum[edit]

One month old phpbb forum with eleven members. Sorry, folks, I have to ask you to come back when you're verifiable-- Perfecto 21:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a site launch announcement service. --Perfecto 21:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lukas (T.|@) 23:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 20:09, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 06:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flank two position[edit]

24 fancruft. I like the show too, but there is no indication this particular term is used in the real world, nor does the article give any. Nor do I think it could. Daniel Case 21:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki: except now it is, as an inside joke for 24 fans on the Internet. Google for "flank 2 position" and "flank two position" and you will find many references, including several uses by famous columnist Dave Barry. Transwiki to wiktionary. Calwatch 22:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wiktionary is not UrbanDictionary. Has no relevance beyond small fan community. So, make it go away. FCYTravis 01:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 01:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Belongs on either a) a 24 guide for that particular episode, or on Urban Dictionary... not here. --Kinu 02:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Joe 05:25, 4 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balclinton[edit]

This is nonsense. In German, Bill Clinton's last name is "Clinton". Austrian 21:42, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death Ring[edit]

Disambiguation page that points to nothing but red links. No other articles point to it. -- MisterHand 21:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 21:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, orphaned article with links to nonexistant stuff. Jawz 08:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 20:09, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Cancer Treatments[edit]

This article is nothing more than an advertisement for the website Alternative Cancer. On the website is a plea from the "webmaster" asking for people to "Spread the word." The text of this article is taken practically verbatim from the Spread the word page. James084 21:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is this a copyvio? RJFJR 22:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would not call it a copyvio simply because the author of the website is asking people to send emails with some of this text to people. This would imply no copyright issues exist. James084 22:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam (and IMO a particularly noxious form of spam). Durova 00:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is a breach of our policies concerning having verifiable information in articles based on reliable sources. Capitalistroadster 02:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 16:38, 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 keep. Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 03:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional game[edit]

Disambig page that points only to red links -- MisterHand 21:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, neologism. Nothing links to it. Ashibaka tock 01:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no real information contained on the page and is not a common search term. Hdstubbs 15:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - going to be on of the top-level Computer and video game genres --Larsinio 16:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if an article is going to be created it doesn't need a disambiguation page to discern it from another article that doesn't exist. Just create the article and if there seems to be other uses of the term then create a disambiguation page. Hdstubbs 17:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- based on the new article which redefines the term as a computer game genre. I verified via Google, and the term is widespread and used as described. -- MisterHand 17:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per changes made. Hdstubbs 18:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (I don't know how to strike out my text, but I want to change my delete vote to a keep vote.)[reply]
    • Hey thanks, whoever struck out my text! Now I know how to do it. Hdstubbs 01:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hdstubbs --Naha|(talk) 21:45, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NOLA Hurricane Fund

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ketley[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Would have speedied this as nn-band but since it focuses more on this guy's alleged promise in the ring it didn't really qualify. Daniel Case 21:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn. He can have a page when he becomes a superstar, not whilst he's aspiring to be one. --kingboyk 22:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per kingboyk. Stifle 16:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and I still would have speedied it as a non-notable bio. —Cleared as filed. 23:38, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 06:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salma Umm-ul-Khair[edit]

Non-notable ComputerJoe 21:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but cleanup, if it can be verified that she is indeed closely related to one of the Sahabas, the early companions of the prophet Muhammad. Genealogies of these guys are apparently considered notable by Muslims. As the mother of Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, she'd certainly be noteworthy enough. Unfortunately I can't find her mentioned in any of the linked pages Sahaba's ancestors, Sahaba, or Abu Bakr right now. Lukas (T.|@) 09:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: did some cleanup now, information clearly verifiable. Lukas (T.|@) 10:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable indeed, obvious to anyone that is familiar with the topic. --Striver 11:00, 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 consensus delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zomg.co.uk[edit]

OMG, Wikipedia is not a site announcement service. Please come back when you can satisfy WP:WEB.-- Perfecto 22:03, 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.

Turbo turn[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 ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your swimming technique. Unfortunately, we cannot accept original ideas here.-- Perfecto 22:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Perfecto 22:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks. This is not an original idea. It's more on the how-to side than on the encyclopedic side, though. Article concerns a technique used in competitive swimming. Durova 00:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you certain it isn't called something else? --Perfecto 03:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually I'm not. Any swimmers out there? Durova 14:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author This is neither an original idea nor a user's guide entry. In fact, it is an internationally accepted technique used especially in competitive swimming. I am a swimmer and any other will tell you that it isn't called something else. --tendo 18:30, 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 ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TwIT[edit]

Delete Silly hoax and excuse to say "twit", or, at best, extremely non-notable. Google returns zero hits. 1 2 3 Vslashg 22:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nonsense. — TheKMantalk 22:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. PJM 22:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – nearly certain hoax ×Meegs 01:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - joke. Latinus 20:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN and delete. Stifle 16:30, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Table of Judgments[edit]

This page is primarily links to 2 web pages and a comment that that is permitted by the author of the web pages. This has been tagged for cleanup since March with no success. This is an interesting subject but It is hard to find people qualified to work on it. RJFJR 22:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a very short listfarm. Durova 00:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Latinus 20:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Durova. incog 00:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ComputerJoe 20:42, 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 as an attack page. Alhutch 22:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Cheong[edit]

This page is simply an attack on someone else and has no encyclopedic value. --Buchanan-Hermit™..contribs..speak! 22:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy as attack (done) -Drdisque 22:44, 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 deleted. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bradley[edit]

Not actually a member of Sinister Dexter.[35] Hoax.  — TheKMantalk 22:31, 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 speedy delete.

BarneySplat[edit]

DeletePromotion of non-notable game Bugturd 22:48, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Astemborski[edit]

Non-notable autobiography. Started by User:Mark Astemborski on December 15, 2005 (currently, all of that user's edits were made on that date). The content of this article appears to be the same as what is on his user page. Relatively small number of Google hits for "Mark Astemborski" reinforces my opinion that an article devoted to him does not belong in an encyclopedia. Delete. Joel7687 22:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. His job in mortgage banking doesn't rate an article and it doesn't look like his work as a musician meets WP:Music. Durova 00:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. you can't wirte an artical on yourself...the picture is sortof amusing though --T-rex 02:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article is an exact copy of his user page. He also created a page for his girlfriend, which is also up for deletion. Powers 14:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity article, even created by a user with the name "Mark Astemborski" just to make it a little more obvious. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 20:08, 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 deletion as non-notable vanity. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Ward[edit]

Non-notable person. G-test gives a bunch of unrelated hits for "Ryan Ward", and in combination with a keyword such as "Staatsburg", gives none. — TheKMantalk 22:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Looks like someone just wants attention --Bugturd 23:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. This was so tagged, until the article creator removed the tag, which further argues for its deletion. Daniel Case 23:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Opinion(from a local punk) I'm personally from Poughkeepsie and I know Ryan Ward and see him all the time. He's a very influential person through out the scene and everyone knows him. Hes friendly with pretty much everyone and has brought unity and solidarity to a shattered scene. I believe his article should be left up as a tribute to his work in the scene of dutchess county.

-Nick (rock the 2 litre)talk

We have a standard here, and that's all that matters to this debate. I'm sure he's a great guy. But there are lots of great guys who don't have their own Wikipedia articles. Simply "(bringing) unity and solidarity to a shattered scene" doesn't merit inclusion here. Daniel Case 23:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nick's entire edit history consists of this AfD dsicussion. Daniel Case 23:13, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Nations[edit]

To be fair, just because it's still in beta, doesn't mean it won't make to full stage. It has a large amount of growing players every day and it's quite possible it will continue. Just give it a while; if the game fails, obviously this will be removed. MattShipwrighter 23:04, 29th January 2005 (UTC)

Weak Delete I nominate this primarily since the game is still in Beta, and therefore may be somewhat non-notable. It looks legit, but it could be just a way to get more people to go to the site. Bugturd 22:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's essentially an advert for a non-notable game. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. It's harder to determine notability for online games than the retail-box kind, but this one doesn't even have any Alexa rank yet! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If it does become notable the article can always come back. Durova 00:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Please come back when you're verifiable. Wikipedia is not a place to announce new sites, not even if they ask for a chance, sorry. --Perfecto 01:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ... how about an article on the organization that is doing this game, in which this is listed as one of their production efforts, then only do articles on their major implemented works. User:AlMac|(talk) 04:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advertising. Latinus 20:05, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 06:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ages of Peanuts characters[edit]

mkay: this article is being considered for deletion because it qualifies as original research and is rather non-encyclopedic. the content was originally copied from the peanuts faq, to which i put a link on the peanuts article so people so interested can read about this and a hundred other bits of trivia. thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob A (talk • contribs)

  • Delete for the reasons listed on the article's talk page. The only advantage to having this as a separate article is that it gives Janet6 and her anonymous IP a place to post this information rather than repeatedly adding it to the main Peanuts article. --Birdhombre 20:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The main point of the article seems to be that the ages of the characters are rarely discussed (only a handfull of examples in a 50-year run) and aren't very consistent when they are. Therefore, it's pretty much a non-issue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not encyclopaedic. Latinus 20:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Peanuts. Looks like a POV fork. Stifle 16:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above...and why is it written in the present tense, as if Schultz were still alive and publishing new strips? Postdlf 21:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Peanuts. Sandro67 22:52, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 06:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-rocker[edit]

This appears to be neologism. James084 23:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep – about 1000 google hits, none of the best quality, but a wide variety of sources. There seems to be a number of manufacturers that either name or describe their wheels this way. ×Meegs 00:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. Furthermore, the article appears to be of interest only to a limited group of people. Stifle 16:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO and the fact that it's basically just a dictionary definition and I don't see a whole lot of room for expansion. —Cleared as filed. 23:37, 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 by Andrew Lenahan per WP:CSD article criterion number 7, non-notable clubs. Stifle 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WeArePhilosophy[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable IRC group... Three hits on google. --Hansnesse 23:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that the page was only around for a few minutes before this edit, which I took to be vandalism and reverted (before the nomination). --Hansnesse 23:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism was designed to bring the page down. The guy who wrote it is an aging mental defect who will incessantly spam us with the page if you don't delete it. Please do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.14.171 (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. Johnleemk | Talk 06:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archos av400[edit]

This article reads somewhat like an advertisement for an unremarkable product. I don't know what the policy of individual consumer electronic products but it doesn't seem likely that an article for every product needs to be created unless it is remarkable in some way, i.e. the iPod which is has become a pop icon. James084 23:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, too model-specific and yet too vague to be useful. Haikupoet 06:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks like an advert. Latinus 20:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Did you guys even try searching google? [36] The page needs to be rewritten, but it should be kept. --Liface 22:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just because it shows up on Google a lot doesn't mean it's notable as a product - almost any tech product out there now is going to have reviews, comments, etc. The iPod is culturally notable; this thing isn't. —Cleared as filed. 23:35, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puertollano Refinery

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

The result of the debate was delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

HardwareHacks 2000[edit]

Strong Delete Advertisement article Bugturd 23:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Don't DeleteI disagree with the idea of deleting this article, it's just explaining knowledge about a COMPLETELY open source project. Sorry if my post is wrong, I have not done anything with conversations Hcsron 08:46, 31 January 2006 EST

  • Comment: The article in the heading does not exist and has never existed. Stifle 16:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There was a missing space. Restoring. Stifle 16:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wish Hcsron all the best with his project, but I would refer him to WP:WEB to see when website and other articles belong on Wikipedia, and to WP:ISNOT to see what does not. Stifle 16:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Stifle. Petros471 15:44, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheesy Comics[edit]

sprite comic hosted on a free server. looks like a vanity article. Fightindaman 23:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete If some support can be shown for the popularity of the site, I might begin to lean toward keep, but just because a site exists does not necessarily mean that its notable enough for a Wiki article --Bugturd 00:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be NN, article was created by user named Cheesyyo, which strongly suggests this is a vanity article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears that it does not meet WP:WEB guidelines. -- Dragonfiend 15:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no good. Latinus 20:03, 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.

Autumnal face[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is somebody's poem or something. I don't know what this is. James084 23:53, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_29&oldid=1116878969"