Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 2 January 4 >

Purge server cache

January 3[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The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn -- Krash 21:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Labero[edit]

Not notable. Vanity page. -- Krash 00:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was a name I pulled off List of magicians a few months ago. Seems as though he is notable enough in his home country. As such, I withdraw the nomination. -- Krash 21:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable enough to tour the world in large venues is notable enough for Wikipedia. Needs to be expanded though--Irishpunktom\talk 00:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Probably notable enough, but have edited it down as he's certainly not the most famous Swedish magician. Carl Einar Hackner has a fairly good shout of being just as famous. Davidbod 00:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. POVs were removed so it's no longer a vanity page, seems notable enough, and has a minor entry in the IMDB [1]. — TheKMantalk 03:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donabate Portrane Community Centre[edit]

nn. n even in the ballpark of being n. BL kiss the lizard 00:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. -- WB 01:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Donabate. Cobra 01:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge or Redirect into Donabate
      • Results 1 - 10 of about 110 for "Donabate Portrane Community Centre".
      • Results 1 - 10 of about 268 for "Donabate Portrane Community Club".
--Phanton 04:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions.
  • Can somebody confirm this is definately Donabate, Ireland (which seems likely)? It was tagged as a U.S. building, but that was only in the last edit. Either somebody should link to the appropriation location, or it should be tagged {{db-empty}} for lack of context/content. --Rob 05:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, it is in Donabate, Ireland. See their official website for more details. I have updated the current article as well with this link, as well as the location of the centre/club. --Phanton 06:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • retain:Article needs more work, but is a quite significant building in the north Dublin. It caused huge controversy in Donabate, which spilled over into Fingal County Council. The wider issue of community centres is very notable in Ireland at the moment. - Bolak77 12:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ifnord 17:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity article on a non notable club.Gateman1997 20:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect with Donabate. It is a verifiable building and seems important to to the community in which it is located. Movementarian 20:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NeoJustin 23:23, January 3, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Oliver Keenan 22:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 20:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was gone. DS 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Neutron 2: The Search for Carl[edit]

As far as I can tell, this film was never made. If it was it certainly didn't make $80m or get an Oscar nomination, although the first film did both of these. Maybe the uploader got confused, but this should be deleted on the grounds of non-existence. (I believe a sequel was planned at one point, but it came to nothing). Rje 00:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badass Horror[edit]

This article describes a book that should be available from major retailers (etc.) "sometime in Q2 2006". WP:ISNOT a crystal ball; there is no evidence that this book will have any impact and the topic of an article should have already achieved significance; the creator of this page shares a name with an editor of the book (vanity). Delete. Sliggy 00:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a wiki for advertising. Yellowiki. Movementarian 08:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - brenneman(t)(c) 06:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters messaging[edit]

Advertising. While this is an extremely well crafted article, it is written in a highly promotional style about a commercial software product, and appears to have been written and uploaded by a member of the Reuters communications staff (see http://www.techforum.com/sf2005/ for a reference to Eran Barak). Tim Pierce 00:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'd stick an NPOV tag on it. As you say, the article itself is not bad, although totally biased. I don't think there's any need to be dogmatic about the author being self-interested. We can edit out any bias he's introduced. I might even work on the article myself. Soo 01:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good article on this product. I don't think it needs a tag. -- JJay 01:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I don't really mind either way, but do you really think User experience is a simple, cost-effective approach to improving business communication workflow within buy-side and sell-side organisations. is neutral? It reads like an advert. - FrancisTyers 01:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It reads like an advert and it means nothing. Amazing how many adverts are complete gibberish and nonsense! 131.111.8.100 02:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Makes good sense to me and really no worse than most of the articles here. -- JJay 03:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Added a NPOV tag as it is arguable whether or not things are 'simple', 'cost-effective', etc. These are opinions based on the product and there is no evidence to show that this is an accepted opinion amongst users. --Phanton 04:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As long as some work is done. -- WB 02:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 90K Google hits says keep to me. GeorgeStepanek\talk 05:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The issue is to do with NPOV and not so much whether or not this software is noteable. --Phanton 06:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've reworked it. Fagstein 07:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's nothing about being written by a Reuters' employee -- if so -- that disqualifies it from inclusion. That being said, there are entries for AIM, ICQ, Microsoft Windows, Quickbooks and any number of commercial programs. RGTraynor 18:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it doesn't seem too bad now. Although I'm not sure about the "secure" in the first sentence. It is notable. Dan 20:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I removed 2 references to "secure", including the one you mentioned. See my comment below in reference to ViolinGirl for more details. --Phanton 06:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten. Movementarian 20:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's fine now. NeoJustin 23:29, January 3, 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks nice now. I even like the "secure" sentence. Some, such as Windows Messenger, from what I've heard, are not.--ViolinGirl♪ 00:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 02:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Byzantine Empire and the Realm of Gondor: A Comparison[edit]

Violates original research and personal essay policies. Delete, as this isn't an encyclopedia entry. Harro5 00:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 01:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not good for wikipedia. --Snakes 01:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- WB 01:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pn! - FrancisTyers 01:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic --Dysepsion 02:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yet another school essay unnecessarly pasted into wikipedia. What happened to just hanging up your "A" work on fridge? -- MisterHand 02:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - brenneman(t)(c) 06:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Órale[edit]

Dictionary definition? x42bn6 Talk 01:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. The article gives a certain amount of context to the word, and establishes some notability with regard to the Beck album. I'd be inclined to keep this in the absence of a compelling reason to delete. Soo 01:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - still really a dicdef. --Daveb 02:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is any truth to the claims of the article, I think it is an interesting and keepable subject. More that a dicdef already. ike9898 02:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a VERY common spanish slang phrase and in certain times and areas becomes a social phenomenon. Its importance is definitely worthy of an article to explain it to english speakers. -Drdisque 04:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons stated by others above. Aaron Jacobs 07:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete, though some sourcing, especially for the title of the Beck album, could change my mind. TomTheHand 16:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary and Delete. NeoJustin 23:32, January 3, 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary and Delete. --ViolinGirl♪ 00:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per others. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is more of an article than a dictionary definition. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Can't sleep, clown will eat me. --Terence Ong Talk 14:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep same as above.--Fito 01:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – ugen64 06:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shardhead upcoming video[edit]

Speculative article on a video that a band "may" be releasing sometime in the next year. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Tim Pierce 01:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- WB 01:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pn! - FrancisTyers 01:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ~MDD4696 01:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure speculation -- MisterHand 02:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... if only it were. Then we would be able to spot these even more than a mile-off. Dan 19:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 23:34, January 3, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anything with the word "upcoming" in the title is most likely a WP:NACB candidate. Turnstep 04:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari 04:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Terence Ong Talk 14:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, hoax; see the other related articles on the What Links Here page. Google shows nothing at all for this band, and there's no mention of them on any Billboard charts. I tagged the others speedy delete, I'll tag this one as well.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 06:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Globol[edit]

Unverifiable, non-notable football/soccer variant. "Globol extreme" returns only three responses on Google: the wikipedia article and two patent-office notices. There is no information regarding the alleged sport available online. The website listed in the article contains no information other than a few contact details. Daveb 02:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per above. --Daveb 02:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable or verifiable. -- MisterHand 02:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons already noted. -- Mmccalpin 03:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme pleasure. Dan 19:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Lug[edit]

Unsourced, unverified dicdef that looks like a copy and paste Paul 02:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:. Can't find any proof of copy and pasting, but it's an article that gives a specific definion to a rather general description/nickname. — TheKMantalk 03:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete well written, but nothing links there and its not terribly encyclopaedic -Drdisque 06:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dictionary definition at best. Fagstein 07:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No claim for notability + unsourced = delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 14:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete you big lug! ; ) Dan 19:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 20:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep as redirect - brenneman(t)(c) 06:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Godmodder[edit]

From speedy. I really wish it fitted under a speedy criteria. Delete. r3m0t talk 02:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 freemasonry since there's no consensus to delete, it has been merged and a redirect is the simplest means of GFDLing it. -Splashtalk 23:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Masonic organizations[edit]

  • Delete. No content whatsoever: list of links. Contents have also been merged to, & so appear at, Freemasonry's page Grye 02:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Complete the merge with Freemasonry, there is no point in retaining this page. -- (aeropagitica) UK 02:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per reasons above --Phanton 04:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion to finish the merge and retain attribution of the info to the contributors of the list (and not just the one person who copy-pasted it into freemasonry). - Mgm|(talk) 11:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as merge has already occured.Gateman1997 20:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand with short descriptions of these organizations. Listing on freemasonry page, which is already too long, is no help whatsoever. -- JJay 22:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, merging and deleting is not allowed under the GFDL. - ulayiti (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eee... that's not 100% correct. There are a several options. The simplest would be to copy paste the history into the talk of the target page, but that one's a bit of a grey area. The next easiest would be for someone to validate all the information themselves and type it in themselves, which would have the added advantage of double checking WP:V and would be on solid ground. The hardest would be a history merge which I have seen done before but don't know how difficult it is. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mostly correct though. You can't retain an edit history if it's been deleted. It needs to be retained in some form when merged and redirecting provides the least work as it doesn't involve admin intervention. - Mgm|(talk) 09:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I know it shows the history of the page, etc, & serves as reference should the page come back, etc. I do not see that talk page as increadibly valuable. A lot of the content of said page is mine, & I would not miss it. Grye 15:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. this information is useful. although it might need some work. Kingturtle 06:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 recreation of wehatetech. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetcheeks[edit]

Non-notable podcasting group. Homepage gets 323,934 on Alexa. -- (aeropagitica) UK 02:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE, noting that the copyvio issue really takes precedence here but that the bulk of the deleters don't actually rely upon it. -Splashtalk 23:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Barkley, Ph.D.[edit]

A vanity page created by Barkleyr (talk · contribs). Non notable, self-promotion Ragib 02:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I am withdrawing my initial nomination, and have created a non-copyvio version of the biography at Russell Barkley, Ph.D./Temp, with proper references. Thanks. --Ragib 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Speedy Delete: NN/Vanity, as per WP:CSD A7. --Ragib 02:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: After listing here, I found out that the initial article is a copyvio from here. --Ragib 02:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon further investigation, I change my vote to weak delete Keep. However, the copyvio issue stands. --Ragib 02:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC) (changed my vote again following further check --Ragib 22:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the subject is notable, but all the content appears to be a potential copyright violation. — TheKMantalk 02:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the copy-vio tag now denies access to the text :: it is therefore impossible at this time for any serious consideration to be given to the worth of whatever text was there. --SockpuppetSamuelson 11:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the history of the page and hit "Compare selected versions" to see the diff. --Ragib 16:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats actually my view on this process anyhow: the copyvio outweighs the afd. The article would have to be rewritten to avoid the stain of copyvio, and for all we know might indeed assert notability per WP:BIO. Once the copyvio is over, this afd can take place if any article still exists. --Syrthiss 17:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VAIN - an article on Russell Barkley in extremely glowing terms by User:barkleyr - could there possibly be any relationship between the creating user and the subject, one wonders? And would anyone like to guess which "internationally recognized authority on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder" this user has now added to the external links and references section of the article on ADHD? If it gets kept please remember to include a link to sick bag until it gets rewritten with a scythe. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this, and all, vanity bios. Ifnord 17:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Nuke as Ifnord says. Why are people stupid enough to use their name as their username and then write an article about their pathetic existences? Dan 19:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, if it was written in neutral terms by a third party and with references, we might well vote keep, but since I for one can't be bothered to do his janitorial work for him I say nuke what is here and wait for a better one to be created. It is not, as has been said before, as if we need to kep an article's seat warm for it. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. rodii 21:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 23:36, January 3, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity"...no offense, Barkley.
  • Comment As both the author and subject of this biographical sketch, there was no intent to deceive anyone in its submission, as one commentator insinuates above. This is the sketch that appears on my own website and in my books. And it is hardly "stupid" to submit such a sketch by oneself provided the statements are factual and verifiable. Isn't that the transparency you want in such matters? Should one use a disguised name as the comment above suggests? That would be the height of stupidity and also unethical would it not? It may be on WebMD because I wrote it and they asked my permission to use it with reference to articles I assisted them with about ADHD any myself. All statements in the biographical sketch are statements of fact and readily verifiable. Submission of a curriculum vitae can be provided to provide verification, unless you are implying that I have fabricated my vita. Remove the entry if you wish, but entering my name into Google results in more than 80,000 hits. Should not Wikipedia have at least some entry? Kindly tell me, despite all hyperbole, what statements in the sketch are not statements of fact. My education? My professional positions? My 200 pubications? My more than 20 books? My professional awards? My TV and other appearances? Your snide comments aside, make your case with specifics. Russell A. Barkley, Ph.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkleyr (talk • contribs)
  • Prof. Barkley (assuming it is you), after doing a google search, I have no doubt on your notability (I changed my position after initially thinking the article as a hoax). An article on you is definitely possible. However, the article you created was directly copied from WebMD, and there was no clear proof of the copyright permission from WebMD. The page where it was taken from shows a copyright notice from WebMD and that all rights are reserved. It is not possible for wikipedia to use such copyrighted material, without WebMDs permission to release it under GFDL. As for your question of creating the entry, it is common for people to become suspicious when someone creates an entry for them. Wikipedias official guidelines discourage people from writing about themselves. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. Also, I'm quoting from Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself:
You should not write about yourself, since objectivity on the subject is hard — but you can assist by providing references, by challenging unsourced statements, and by assisting other editors. The appropriate place for such communication is the talk page of the article concerned. Although you might want to draw attention to any concerns by leaving a brief note on the talk pages of particular editors, lengthy discussions anywhere else than the article talk page will likely go un-noticed.
Also, Wikipedia:Autobiography states that
Creating or editing an article about yourself, your business, your publications, or any of your own achievements is strongly discouraged. If you do create an article about yourself, it will likely be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation both of significance and of verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
If you or your achievements are verifiable and notable; and are thus are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles).
Similar principles apply to articles about works that you are primarily responsible for — the company you run, the website you started, the book you wrote; any possible conflict of interest. Use common sense.
Note that anything you submit can be edited by others. Several autobiographical articles have been a source of dismay to their original authors after a period of editing by the community, and in at least four instances have been listed for deletion by their original authors. In some cases the article is kept even if the original author requests otherwise. People are generally unable to determine whether they are themselves encyclopedic.
So, you are welcome to correct the articles facts, but getting involved in writing about yourself is not considered a good thing. I have looked into your research and other notable activities, and definitely someone will write about you (I'd love to start writing one). Your edits in ADHD related articles are also very welcome, considering your experience. So, don't let the AfD become a big issue, this is about the original article, not about you as a person. The original article was a copyvio, so a non-copyvio article will definitely be created. Thanks. --Ragib 03:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Thanks, Ragib. I am the Russell Barkley in the bio. that was submitted. Your information is helpful in understanding this decision. I had not read the specific requirements under Autobiography and therefore would have understood this issue better. I appreciate your thoughtful and courteous response and the details on which it is based rather than the earlier sarcasm that seemed to permeate other comments. And I would not want copyright to be violated even though I am the author of the WebMD bio. sketch as well. Let's just withdraw the submission. By the way, self-promotion was not the issue (I am nearly retired now so that is of less consequence to me). Instead, I had read of the misrepresented bio sketch at Wikipedia for Siegenthaler and how it had been altered erroneously about him by others (as a joke, no less). I have my own critics, as you are no doubt aware if you searched the web about me, including Scientologists so the bio I submitted was more as a pre-emptive effort to place correct information before the public. I will continue to update your ADHD entries as time permits in hopes of giving them more accuracy and balance. The initial entry I read was a bit lopsided around supporting nutritional solutions for ADHD, which are not well-supported, and was rather naive about the recent findings concerning neuro-imaging and genetics. Thanks again for your reply. Russ Barkley, Ph.D.
  • keep. all it needs is a fix in the title and a major copyedit. google shows that russell barkley is a controversial figure in the world of ADHD. he's been interviewed by Frontline and he's written books on the subject. i see no reason why an article shouldn't exist about him. Kingturtle 06:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Washington watch 1[edit]

A Yahoo! chatroom. If it's anything like the Politics Lobby room we can be sure that it has absolutely no significance to the world.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden throne, White scorpio[edit]

I can't find anything (other than the linked website) that confirms the existence of this production company. "Golden Throne" & "White Scorpio" combined gives zero google hits. Delete, along with the companion article White scorpio, unless evidence of notability is found. JeremyA 03:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, your Google evidence doesn't mean much given that they're from Serbia and their website is in Serbian. Can someone please translate these terms into Serbian? How many Google hits does it get on Serbian websites? Until we have more evidence, I'd give 'em the benefit of the doubt and say weak keep. GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "production company" started by amateur filmmakers. "Golden throne movies" (their name as listed on the website) gets 10 unique google hits. The film name "Bela Škorpija" gets 1 google hit, and that's on their own site (I tagged it for deletion and included it here). - Bobet 12:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete methinks. Unless they are noteworthy enough in Serbia... is there a Serbian WP? Dan 19:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep go to the http://www.tvmetropolis.com/ and click on the VIDEO BAZA it is video archive for METROPOLIS television station. On the pop up page in the IZVODJAC (eng:preformer) field enter No Comply or Fullsize or Agenda or Doghouse (any of them will do), and you'll get list of the videos for those music bands. Some of them are work of Golden Throne Movies like stated in the article. For the short movies i can't provide any evidence but of those on official site, mostly because they are not Internet distributed and are not available for Internet downloading (they are being spread from person to person, yes just like the chicken flu).Those movies are underground as they get. Just because there is not 50 000 Google hits doesn't mean they are not existent, it just means that for the time being they are not part of Internet community. ABVH 22:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nomination. Oliver Keenan 22:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 — rewrite has achieved a lot, but evidently not persuaded all. -Splashtalk 23:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wood Lock[edit]

Advertising. No claim of notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lank[edit]

Page appears to be a hoax stemming from Lank of the Mother and contains no verifiable information. Lumbergh 03:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax NickelShoe 03:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No references, can't find any other proof of this deity's existance. Hoax. — TheKMantalk 03:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Dan 19:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Hoax. NeoJustin 23:38, January 3, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it appears that Lank of the Mother was speedily deleted as per my suggestion, which indicates to me that this related article is also useless. Lumbergh 09:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 20:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted and protected from re-creation by Zoe. Bobet 12:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 31[edit]

Hoax article. Intro says it's an imaginary day, and then a bunch of material related to November 30 is cut and pasted below. Article has been deleted several times but has again been recreated. At least one of the anon IP users attempting to keep this thing alive is also trying to reinstate previously AFD'd hoax articles relating to films allegedly set for release in 2009 such as Dream Live Code (2009 film). Since someone keeps recreating this article, I decided to AFD it to see if a more permanent solution can be found. 23skidoo 03:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samus.co.uk[edit]

Fan site; Alexa traffic rating in the 1,500,000 range. Tim Pierce 03:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom. Non-notable fan website.[3] — TheKMantalk 04:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think it merits it's own entry; it has about 680 Google hits from other sites. It's possible that it may be appropriate for the external links section in Metroid. Ohnoitsjamie 04:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No incoming wikilinks. No "link:" results. No major media coverage. However, forum has 500 members that have posted more than 15 times. Also, samusforum.co.uk has 300K alexa rank. -- Perfecto 04:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Perfecto and nom, see WP:WEB -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alexa rank and no other claim of notability. JHMM13 (T | C) 14:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dan 19:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 23:38, January 3, 2006 (UTC)
  • The site has had media coverage. It's been featured in a few video game publications, such as EGM. (Currently looking for scans of articles.) RandomExtremity
  • Delete nn. --kingboyk 20:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Ohnoitsjamie's entry, in that it could (and should) have a link on the Metroid page, but as a non-official website does not merit its having a page to itself, particularly because anything to be learned from this page could be learned on the website itself, and also because it doesn't have a history that could logically be documented here, as the website itself is around three years old, at most. Ajbolt89 17:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf's Hook White Brotherhood[edit]

nn group. The only Google hit that is not Wikipedia or its mirrors is the organization's website. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable group. Found six unique hits on Google (on non-Wiki pages/mirrors), and it's organization page has no Alexa data. — TheKMantalk 04:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable per TheKMan. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 04:35Z
  • Delete per nom. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming the basic verity of the text, I submit that this is soemthing people will wish to look up. Subject to 'clean up and verification, I would suggest weak keep. --SockpuppetSamuelson 11:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They have a website allegedly [4] but I've never heard of them and they give of the impression of a hoax or just one or two guys. Keresaspa 14:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and not just because I hate fascists. They really are non-notable. Dan 19:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. NeoJustin 23:39, January 3, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Oliver Keenan 22:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --kingboyk 20:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, nn. Dustimagic 20:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy redirected to Pucallpa. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pucallpa, Peru[edit]

There already is a page on Pucallpa, and I've already went ahead and merged what little content was on that page into this page -- Bletch 03:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI and DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death (comedy)[edit]

  • Delete or Move to Wiktionary, I say. I've heard the term "Died on Stage" a lot. I can't decide whether the article is too big or too small. Richfife 03:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly no more than a dictdef. Transwiki if the Wikitionists want it, otherwise delete. GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: There could be potential for expansion, I think: it's a notable phenomenanonen thingy. If it isn't kept, transwiki to wikipedia. And I'm the creator. In retrospect I should probably have listed it as a stub so someone else could have helped improve it. J•A•K 04:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least Transwiki to Wiktionary. It is, I'm afraid, unsuitable as an encyclopaedic article. Dan 19:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki as above. Oliver Keenan 22:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 01:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accelerated Evolution Forum[edit]

Alexa has no traffic rank for this forum. Delete per that. JHMM13 (T | C) 03:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep, it's an important forum, has been featured many times on major news networks such as CNN, MSNBC. As well as many shows such as: 60 Minutes, Late Night With Conan O' Brien, The Daily Show, The History Channel..ect. As well as many magazines such as Time, Time Germany, YM, Seventeen, National Geographic. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.253.92.226 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you cite some references?  — TheKMantalk 04:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes.
www.cnn.com, www.historychannel.com www.conanobrien.com www.msnb.com www.accelerated-e.com www.60minutes.com www.time.com www.ym.com www.seventeen.com www.nationalgeo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.92.226 (talk • contribs)
  • Please do not make claims you cannot backup. Thanks, JHMM13 (T | C) 04:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: cannot be speedied since NN assertion is disputed. — TheKMantalk 04:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, and no proof of notability. Six unique hits on Google, and no Alexa traffic rank. — TheKMantalk 04:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know anything about our web forum being featured on any major news network - but we are a break off community of Anime Nation's forums (http://www.animenation.net/forums,) one of the most important forums in the online anime community. It created quite a drama when we made our break, and soon after than Anime Nation completely revamped its forums. Anime Nation is documented on Wikipedia, so I see no reason our community shouldn't be as well. -- Vampy Chan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.19.32 (talk • contribs)
Could you post any actual proof that this forum was featured on any news network? See Wikipedia:Notability (websites) for Wikipedia guidelines to website notability. Thanks. — TheKMantalk 04:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've dedicated my life to the war on terror, and this is the thanks I get? Please. All I ask is for a little Christmas spirit, fellas. -- Coop {{subst:unsigned|24.124.118.11}

Yes, we'll admit it. We don't wear capes. We aren't covered 24/7 on the telivision. But, God darnit' I love these people and I fought for my country. This forum ain't no forum, its a fo-you-um, you know what I mean? Just add us. You won't regret it. - Coops — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.118.11 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but here on Wikipedia we cherish our abstract nouns. We don't attack them. Delete with prejudice. Sheesh! Who are these guys, and which planet do they think they're running? GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, following Vampy's logic, we could put an addition to the Animenation page. In fact, I will do this presently. -- Ceraziefish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.21.254 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: exactly. It is a much more appropriate place to put the contents of this article in dispute. --Phanton 04:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into AnimeNation as a new section. Only one year old, almost no google hits and not enough unique content. It is more related to the history of the AnimeNation forums rather than something which can stand as an article by itself. --Phanton 04:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: other than the fact that the AE forum was created by former users and used by banned members of AnimeNation forums, there really isn't much of a connection between the two. — TheKMantalk 05:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable forum. As much as I respect soldiers, the real issue on trial here is the merit of the article (and not its author!) -- Megamix? 05:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I find the story of how this forum split from a large and well known one interesting, and wouldn't like a bunch of people to delete it just because THEY don't think it's worth reading. =) (Also, not having a traffic rank on Alexa means absolutely nothing, and has nothing to do with Wikipedia). Samurai_Drifter 05:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Samurai Drifter[reply]
    • See WP:WEB. -- Megamix? 05:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Actually, Alexa rankings have got quite a lot to do with Wikipedia. If you would look at our guidelines for website notability, you would see point #3 under "General guidelines for websites" which states: "A website's impact can be demonstrated by...(h)aving an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better." Alexa rankings are generally accurate when they are taken outside of specifics. One can't honestly argue that one website is more visited than another simply because it is ranked a few spots ahead of another, but the difference between 10,000 and "No rank" (as your website has) is several million websites. Wikipedia doesn't even have 1,000,000 articles yet, and no more than 2-3% of those are websites. So getting above ~30,000 is an achievement, but still not notable enough for this website. Those are the guidelines to which we adhere for various reasons (for example, check out "Wikipediea is not infinite"). JHMM13 (T | C) 05:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as this is an important part of the history of AnimeNation, which already has a Wikipedia entry. Samurai_Drifter
    • Comment: I'm wary of an inclusion into AnimeNation. While AnimeNation may have been important to AE, I don't see it that way when reversed. Accelerated Evolution has no Alexa data, 6 Google hits, and 93 registered users. — TheKMantalk 05:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Before the board crashed two months ago, it had 300+ members, most of whom left the AnimeNation forums. It led to considerable changes on the AN forums, including the changing of moderators, updated policies regarding linking to other sites, and even deletion of large sections of the AN forums. I am a 2+ year member of AN, and I would consider it the single most important thing that happened on those forums while I have been there. - Samurai_Drifter
      • The AnimeNation article doesn't even mention its forum community, though, so I'm not sure how to proceed with a merge. Since you seem to be AN veterans, would any of you mind writing a short section on the history of AN's forum community in the main AnimeNation article? As long as it doesn't unbalance the entire article... -- Megamix? 06:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I for one wouldn't mind at all; as it's one of the most important forums in the online anime community it definitely deserves a section in the Wikipedia entry. I'll get some other AN members to contribute, and if it succeeds this can be easily merged. Samurai_Drifter
    • Comment: Please do not vote more than once. Is it a keep or a merge? Also, please refer to Wikipedia's guideline's for inclusion or deletion as linked above instead of debating the importance of the website. This is not a debate on the philosophical or sociological importance of AE Forum, it is a "trial" by user consensus to see if it passes our already agreed-upon guidelines. By all accounts, this website doesn't deserve inclusion into any article on Wikipedia. You can argue the guidelines and policies on their respective talk pages for future deletions. Thanks, JHMM13 (T | C) 06:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Please do not vote more than once." Odd, according to the notification at the top of this page I could have sworn that this was not a vote. However, I chose the option "merge" and deleted my first comment. "By all accounts, this website doesn't deserve inclusion into any article on Wikipedia." Obviously not all accounts, as I see at least several Keeps and Merges on this page. Not to mention, an article that is relevant to an established entry deserves at the very least a mention in said article. Samurai_Drifter
      • Comment: I'm sorry, my terminology was a bit off, especially for a user new to this process. I understand that this is technically not a "vote," but administrators need to come along to these AfD candidates later on, and it only confuses things for them when you put up multiple bolded suggestions for the article. I also said "By all accounts..." when I probably should have said, "According to all the guidelines...", but I changed the language because I had said the word "guidelines" about fifteen times already. Like I said, this forum exhibits not even a shred of verifiable notability. I don't see a reason to merge it into the other article until you show exactly where on the Anime forum this issue was such a big deal. You can claim lots of things, but proof has yet to be given. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Votes highlight the user's feelings on an article, but the discussion behind them is what really matters. The rest of JHMM13's comments are valid in my opinion, and I would like to see verifiable evidence of AEs impact on AnimeNation. — TheKMantalk 06:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable TheRingess 06:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete if you want; I'm tired of arguing about this and while it had a large impact on AN, it wasn't one of the more pleasant points of their history and they'd probably just as soon forget about it. Samurai_Drifter
    • Comment -- if this board/forum split of from AN on "bad" terms, they (AN) are, I would suggest, hardly likely to offer supporting evdience which will in effect promote a rival. Keep unless bad faith is shown. --SockpuppetSamuelson 11:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website forum. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 07:14Z
  • Delete as non-notable. Fagstein 07:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being important to the history of AnimeNation doesn't make it important, because AnimeNation is not importan. :P --Tothebarricades 09:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article fails WP:WEB. No evidence given per WP:V to substantiate claims of notability. Zunaid 12:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see why you can't just keep it, although it may only be relevant to three or four hundred people who encounter us. It's not like we're called "George Bush Forum" or something. -Amy —the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.91.210.115 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment: Please see the comments above, especially Wikipedia's guidelines for website notability. At any of those notability pages, you can read about why Wikipedia needs to have restraints based on notability and verifiability, for instance, Wikipedia is not infinite. Incidentally, I invite you to join Wikipedia and learn more about our processes and how the vast amount of information it stores is managed. JHMM13 (T | C) 13:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --Daveb 12:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not Notable... --Nick Catalano (Talk) 17:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable. No merge, no redirect. Ifnord 17:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. --David Johnson [T|C] 18:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable. We need something more than that the regulars of the forum like it and want the egoboo from its inclusion. RGTraynor 19:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Per nom. Dan 19:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete six google hits is not notable! Sethie 19:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because I just plain loathe web forums. --Agamemnon2 19:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's not a valid reason...Samurai_Drifter
  • Delete vanity. Do you actually have to have a "valid" reason listed to want a page deleted?Gateman1997 20:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No, but you should if you're voting on such an issue. I'm sure we all want such votes to be made based on criteria just as thorough and reasonable as that we demand of articles. RGTraynor
  • Delete and merge, not many internet forums have their own articles, merge it to whatever it came from (animenation?) Obli (Talk) 21:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Non-Notable (very few google hits and no Alexa traffic) and vanity. Also, Multiple comments by very new users that fail to provide evidence and fail to sign their comments are a little annoying.Wikipedians have been known to react unfavorably to attempts to alter the course of a nomination in this manner, and may in fact recommend to delete based upon it like me.NeoJustin 23:59, January 3, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Pepsidrinka 05:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, bordering on vanity. Would support a merge if anyone wants to take the time. Turnstep 12:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; no merge. - Liberatore(T) 17:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable at this point in time. --kingboyk 20:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable website. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 07:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Glitches[edit]

The first section of this page is covered in depth at Minus world. The second part is possibly untrue, and is unencyclopedic, regardless. A merge is not warranted, due to the ambiguous article title. Delete Pagrashtak 04:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could be renamed before merging if the name is an issue. - Mgm|(talk) 11:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that there is nothing worth merging and I don't think a redirect would be useful. David Johnson [T|C]
  • Redirect. Why not? Evidently at least one user typed it in. Soo 22:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, I originally found the page by a "What links here" check. There is no reason to believe that someone looking for an article called "The Glitches" is looking for information about Super Mario Bros. — he could be looking for Grand Theft Auto glitches, Windows glitches, a local band named "The Glitches", or any other such topic. I really don't think the redirect is appropriate. --Pagrashtak 00:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Title is completely inappropriate to the article, and the content should be in Minus world anyway. Turnstep 12:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Oliver Keenan 22:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Mallon[edit]

Delete books subject is claimed to have written yield no relevant google results, non-notable Drdisque 04:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable biography. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 04:43Z
  • Speedy delete as nn-bio. Book titles not in Amazon. Webcomic not anywhere either. Popular?? This was probably speedied before, because I have this in my watchlist. (Darn deletionhistory perm!) -- Perfecto 04:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- Rob 08:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A person with a similiar name, seems to be in imdb, but probably isn't related (but if kept, maybe a disambig page should be made). Also I think "is the popular author of books such as" is a clear claim of notability, meaning A7-nn-bio is ruled out. A7 doesn't apply for disputed claims, but only for cases where no claim is made. BTW, the last speedy was for a 16-year old, not this person. --Rob 08:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, "is the popular author of books such as" is indeed a claim of notability, but a totally moot one if the existence of the books cannot be proven. - Mgm|(talk) 11:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a "moot" only for the "AFD", not the CSD:A7, where's its critical. This claim could well just be somebody's prank (the titles sound suspiscious), but there's been a consensus that we aught to give claims of notability their 5-days in the sun. Personally, I would love to see 100%-unsourced articles (like this and many others) deleted just like copyvio, without an AFD, but that's not happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thivierr (talk • contribs)
    • Is it a coincidence the last speedy is also an author of a story with "Liz" on its title? -- Perfecto 14:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're probably right to be suspiscious. I think the big remaining question to be settled is whether this is written by Brian, Liz, or a mutual friend at school. There's is actually a comic called Adventures of Hickey though (printed in the U of C's Gauntlet), but I'm guessing that's not what's be referred to. --Rob 17:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing verified. --Rob 17:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree, no verification. Dan 19:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverified.Gateman1997 20:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable.NeoJustin 00:01, January 4, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, vanity. Oliver Keenan 22:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muppaphone[edit]

Fancruft. r3m0t talk 04:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — TheKMantalk 04:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Phanton 06:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 07:03Z
  • Delete Do I really need to say more? TheRingess 07:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, yes, this is not a simple vote, so giving a reason is traditional. :) Turnstep 12:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- a repeating meme on the show (albeit there are probably SPCA implications) --SockpuppetSamuelson 11:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it can go in 'The Muppets' or their show if it's that important. Dan 19:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Muppet page, but a quick delete would be fine too, as there is not much content. Turnstep 12:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Muppet page. Oliver Keenan 22:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 20:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. This nomination resulted from the application of a speedy deletion tag to the article by 68.75.171.218 (talk · contribs). Given that user's other contributions today, it is possible that it was not a good faith nomination. The unanimous consensus to keep (the nomination being a purely procedural one) will only continue, given past precedent. I'm closing this early so that we can all spend our time elsewhere. Uncle G 06:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wheaton, Illinois[edit]

From speedy. "Notability not established". No vote. r3m0t talk 04:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Speedy Keep. It's a real place, with 55,000+ residents, and a college. — TheKMantalk 05:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep smaller places have articles, and this place is a county seat. -- MisterHand 05:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep most incorporated communities in the US have articles, don't even know why a delete is even considered -Drdisque 06:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is noteable when compared to a lot of other towns/cities/areas listed in wikipedia. Contains a mass of good information on the town. --Phanton 06:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as bad-faith or newbie speedy-delete nomination by anon user whose only non-deletion contribution is this petty vandalism: [5]. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 06:49Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was what the hell? Redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 08:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drifting (motorsports)[edit]

From speedy. "poorly written with no useful information to justify a merge with Drifting (motorsport) which makes the scant encyclopedic information in this article redundant." No vote. Please check Drifting (motorsport) before suggesting a merge. r3m0t talk 05:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Redirect clearly inferior version of same article -Drdisque 06:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Drifting (motorsport). It doesn't appear there is any need to merge content over either, as the other article is quite dense already with good info (most of it a repeat of the article in question here). --Phanton 06:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect per Phanton--CastAStone 10:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect per above. Dan 19:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect, as noted above. – Mipadi 00:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & redirect as above. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a waste of time. I've just edited the article to make it a redirect. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without taking the extra thirty seconds it would have taken to comply with consensus and close the AfD. Why? - brenneman(t)(c) 13:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any further time spent on this would be wasted. A redirect is all that was required. It'll be closed in due course. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 23:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alea evangelii (game)[edit]

Page's only editor has attempted to blank the page and has removed (his own) links from other pages to this one, suggesting he wants it deleted. The page is about a notable historic boardgame which is already described at tafl, to which alea evangelii still redirects. The page as it stands gives unacceptable legitimacy to the editor's original-research reconstruction of the rules which are unknown, but some of the information in it (e.g. the image) is verifiable. No vote. —Blotwell 05:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as it seems to be an extended version of the information in the Tafl games article. It appears if people are trying to merge everything together into Tafl games, but at the expense of more detailed information in articles such as Alea evangelii (game)? For instance, Tafl games does not detail how pieces move in the game, whereas Alea evangelii (game) does contain this information. --Phanton 06:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like this page deleted. - JeremiahClayton
  • Comment: any reason for deletion? --Phanton
  • Keep. Interesting, why would it be deleted? --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- valuable article, which makes clear case for differentiating this game from others, on account of board dimensions --SockpuppetSamuelson 11:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering I listed less references for this article than I did for the article pertaining to the game Irides and that article was deleted.. it stands to reason that this article should be deleted also.. for the same reason. - Jeremiah Clayton
  • Keep. AfD relies on guidelines, not precedent. And I can see no established reason for deletion here. Turnstep 12:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The nominator raised concerns about the verifiability of the information in the article, and none of the preceding comments speak to that, except for an apparent acknowledgement from the article's author that he did not provide references. The article as it currently stands mentions a manuscript, but does not cite any references whatsoever. --DavidConrad 02:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable unless someone can provide information to satisfy WP:V and WP:CITE, per above. This has low Google and groups. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 23:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial blues[edit]

Non-notable band that has been here since April. Google only reveals 119 hits [6], a lot of which is from guess what - Wikipedia mirror sites. Delete. -- Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 05:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may think that, but is there any reliable outside source about this? Does it meet any of the music guidelines. If we were to allow any band, Wikipedia would turn into a band advertising hotspot. - Mgm|(talk) 11:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (CSD A7). Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 06:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dane Frenette[edit]

Not a notable mathematician - 9 hits in Google Scholar -- (aeropagitica) UK 05:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable vanity page of a grad student. Possible speedy candidate. — TheKMantalk 06:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. The author conducts an excellent 'defence' however, which almost persuaded me by itself. However, the consensus is clearly against him, presumably because this particular flash has yet to entrench itself in the internet psyche yet. -Splashtalk 23:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate showdown[edit]

Yet another attempt to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool. Daniel Case 06:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. --Khoikhoi 06:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as usual. Sethie 06:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - has a lot of google hits, appears to be somewhat popular in internet culture. Could be rewritten better?
  • Results 1 - 10 of about 583 for "the ultimate showdown" flash animation
--Phanton 06:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update:
  • Results 1 - 10 of about 14,100 for "the ultimate showdown" flash animation.
  • Results 1 - 10 of about 65,200 for "ultimate showdown" flash.
--AySz88^-^ 19:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Star Wars flash was created some time ago. This one was created two weeks ago. Seems to me they're trying to use WP to establish notability instead of going out and earning it on their own. Daniel Case 07:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Well if it only 2 weeks old then it can't really be all that much of a big thing to need a WP article written up. Agreed.--Phanton 08:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete garbage article pure and simple TheRingess 07:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Daniel Case. Dan 18:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 00:07, January 4, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, especially per the Google hits. Change vote to keep as I came across this in another context, leading me to believe it does have notability. Turnstep 13:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: Not long enough to warrant a dedicated article. If it were longer, and the Flash had been around longer, maybe it would warrante something...but then again, the random hunk of bad animation that is The Demented Cartoon Movie has its own article...why that, and not this? What's the difference?
  • Keep -- I'm the original author of the article and am in no way affiliated with the flash's creators. , I made it as a genuine effort and am in no way associated with the people who made the flash. It has skyrocketed to the top of newgrounds, is being spread around, and has been hailed as one of the best flashes ever. It has probably over 30 references to American culture (if you watch the flash this will be very obvious). I was surprised that nobody had made an article for it already, so thought I'd start one. I obviously did not make it long enough or detailed enough. I _WANTED_ to mark it as a stub when I finished, but had not figured out how yet (I'm new). Just now, I had came back to see if others had added to it, and found this instead. I really do categorize this as in the same category as "all your base" and the star warz gangster rap as well as several other flashes that are so popular as to merit their own page. Are we to say that the Desperate Housewives TV show or the Colbert Report doesn't merit an entry just because it's still on? No. I looked at the deletion policies, and as far as I can tell, this should be marked as a stub and expanded. I'd really like to see it expanded and to see someone take the time to actually mark down all the references that are in it (American culture references). Everything from the back to the future car, to the terminator, to Bill & Ted, to the Power Rangers, and Chuck Norris and Indiana Jones. I'm a chemistry PhD student, and I really don't have time for it - or rather, I don't have time for everything that I want to do. If you guys want to delete it then fine, I obviously can't do anything about it. But I think it's the wrong decision. I'm not sure if how I'm posting my "defense" here is correct or not. I couldn't see a vote box, but I guess editing this page is the right thing to do. And for the record, this is not one of my favorite flashes on newgrounds, it's not even in my top 10. But it's the only one that I thought merited its own article. Cynical Smirk refers to it as "Check out this Flash cartoon with more pop culture references than you can shake a stick at." I think it ought to have a proper article with links to all the pop culture references - including snakes on a plane which I hadn't even heard of and a friend explained it to me - because it's a reference from a movie that's not even out yet! And yet lots of people noticed that and commented on it. At any rate, you get the idea. I believe this deserves its own entry, it's not some random flash in my books. It's ranked as #1 in Newgrounds, and has had over 500,000 views even though it's only been out for 2 weeks. People have even suggested giving it its own award. I feel like I'm facing some sort of stupid culture clash, the "conservative right versus the radical left." Only this time it's a bias just because the link is from newgrounds. Or at least that's what it _looks_ like from my end. I believe the articles' only crime is not being marked as a stub. Which isn't the article's fault. It's mine, and yours. Ashi_Starshade. Note: just because something's new doesn't mean it should not have an article. And I also want to note that I didn't just sign up for wikipedia to make this. I've made perhaps 5 other edits before this (science and even literature related), some from before we had to create logins.
  • Delete Per nom Jwissick(t)(c) 06:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Lemon Demon -- 67.85.2.175;
  • Delete Teh Suck While indeed quite an impressive movie, it is still relatively fresh. I say delete this until it truly reaches a legendary status. Maybe then, it'll deserve an article.
  • Keep pending end of growth (or merge) - I've come across 3 or 4 mentions to this meme already across unrelated areas of the Internet (even one obscure mention on Neopets for goodness sakes, here). I think Google isn't quite keeping up, because it's growing very rapidly (see above: 583 to 14,000+ in four days). So let's just wait until it stops growing; if the growth proves to stop early, delete it at that time. --AySz88^-^ 19:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is also no AfD notice on the page. --AySz88^-^ 20:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't explain myself very well - Keep because it's becoming more notable very quickly and it'd be much more of a hassle to have to delete and then undelete (and possibly have to merge into a stub created by someone else). --AySz88^-^ 20:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish neo-calvinism[edit]

I found a grand total of 2 Google hits for "Spanish neo-calvinism". One of them is the Wikipedia article for Cuba, which no longer links to this article, and the other is a Wikipedia mirror for the Cuba article. Is "Spanish neo-calvinism" really notable? Even so, this article is unverifiable. --Khoikhoi 06:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable, possible hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 06:44Z
  • Delete per above. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete either nonsense or original research. Throw it away. TheRingess 07:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and cleanup, perhaps pending move or merger. Most of the external links are broken, through no fault of the author's: they go to some site with a fascist external link script. Some, however, are valid, and they do seem at first glimpse to verify some of the assertions made in the article, which would appear to concern a Calvinist revival among Latin American Protestants. This is plausible, and if actual seems noteworthy. This would certainly be worthy of mention somewhere, if confirmed by folks whose Spanish is more surefooted than my own. Might be best handled by being merged into a more general article on Protestantism in Latin America. Until such an article exists, I wouldn't just delete this material. Someone who's been down this path before might know of a better place to move or merge this. Smerdis of Tlön 18:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails verifiability.Gateman1997 20:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable and probable original research +/- possible hoax. Ifnord 20:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 00:09, January 4, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no relevant Google hits at all for "J.A. Pèrez calvinism", which is highly suspicious. Turnstep 13:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (A1). howcheng {chat} 07:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Down Fall Of Purpose Driven Music[edit]

If you're going to try to get things like this on Wikipedia, don't start out by saying your article is "possibly one-sided." From the title, I doubt that possibility could be averted by any means, and this really seems like a rant in embryo and not an encyclopedia article. Daniel Case 06:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it isn't an article yet... though the title sounds like an editorial not an article Sethie 06:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Not an article and not on a subject that is worthy of an article. Cedars 06:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is a single sentence promising to be non-NPOV original research essay. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 06:43Z
  • Speedy delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. This looks like the author is going to start an opinionated personal essay, and since those do not qualify as Wikipedia articles, it would probably be best to stop him now before he devotes a lot of time to typing it in. --Metropolitan90 06:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately WP:NOT cannot be used to justify speedy deletion. However A1—very short articles providing little or no context—can be speedy deleted. I have already nominated it. GeorgeStepanek\talk 06:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was nothing worth merging; redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 08:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broadmoor village[edit]

Delete 40 house neighborhoods I don't believe meet wikipedia's criterion for notabilitiy Drdisque 06:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the content is merged, this article needs to redirect to it to retain attribution in the edit history per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 11:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge information relevant and notable to Sherwood Park, Alberta. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. 23skidoo 17:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is pathetic! And I thought some of our school articles had nothing to say. Denni ☯ 02:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Broadmoor, California, which seems way more notable [7]; merge content elsewhere if considered useful. - Liberatore(T) 17:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's no sourced information (nothing worth merging), and this a trivial item. If somebody finds a source, then they should directly put the verifiable information into an appropriate high level article. Also, if we don't delete, but do a merge, I would do a disambig instead of a redirect. It's not clear to me that Broadmoor, California is actually "Broadmoor village". This makes me think Broadmoor, California is the "Township of Broadmoor", which is unit of government immediately below the county (separate from any city). However a place called "Broadmoor village" might be inside of Daly City, California, which is presumably close, but maybe not the same thing as the Township. Plus the Broadmoor, California doesn't say "Village" or "Township", but just "census designated" place, which could mean it's unicorporated. I don't know. So, I say just delete this article, and people can put proper info from proper sources in proper places when they have the time to do things properly. --Rob 19:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge as above.--Marvin147 03:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: Blade of the Ancients[edit]

Tagged for speedy delete, with listed reason: "Unreleased game, no way to verify details. Possible hoax." This is not a speedy delte reason, but it is areason for listing on AfD. Nom made on behalf of tagging user and to get this away frm an improper speedy. Abstain. DES (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete My bad, I speedied it as basically nonsense. Is an unreleased game with no verifiable details really notable enough for an Encyclopedia entry? How can we even verify that the pictures are from the game?TheRingess 06:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Web search brings up one page.... http://www.listentome.net/games72.php Sethie 07:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, possible hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 07:07Z
  • Delete Hoax. The site Sethie mentioned above says about that page: OMG, RARE NES GAMES!!!11 In our neck of the woods "rare"="make-believe." --Pagrashtak 10:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm a big Zelda fan, and I've never heard of this game. Probable hoax. I'll change my vote if better evidence can be supplied. -- MisterHand 14:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. FredOrAlive 18:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per TheRingess. Dan 18:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. NeoJustin 00:10, January 4, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Complete and utter hoax. The photoshopped screenshots on the referenced page are pretty good though - but not good enough to keep up suspension of disbelief. (Just look at "The Wizard" shots and ask yourself "Could Nintendo even consider releasing this crap?") so I guess the page itself is just for Amusement Purposes and not a credible source. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per hoax. Dustimagic 20:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to The Big Lebowski. -Splashtalk 23:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Lebowski[edit]

This material covered sufficiently at The Big Lebowski; this page not required Dyslexic agnostic 07:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. This is this user's 7th edit. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem with that? I know the film, I've looked at the pages, I've been reading the wide ranging advice and comment pages. I got the impression the Wiki community wants people to get involved, so why have you needed to make this comment? I'm not offended, but genuinely wondering what's going on. JGF Wilks 18:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all, but it can potentially be a sign of a sock puppet. See WP:SOCK for more info. I don't think Eliezer intended any accusation, however. --DavidConrad 02:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect with The Big Lebowski. Fagstein 17:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as above. Dan 18:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as above. MNJosh 15:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to The Big Lebowski. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 21:35Z
  • Redirect. Poorly written, anti-drug, anti-Lebowski. "He drives a used car"?? The movie doesn't really cover the origin of The Dude's car.

BabuBhatt 00:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect as above. Essexmutant 13:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect; everyone can then merge content from the history. - Liberatore(T) 17:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no reason for the Jeffrey Lebowski article to be deleted. It's a free-source encyclopedia, and I'm all about having information pertaining to the dude on the internet for all to see. (unsigned by 24.186.80.192 20:30, 8 January 2006)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kadalack Boyz[edit]

Non-notable band vanity. This band came "onto the hip hop scene as of late 2005". -- Longhair 07:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirely López[edit]

I came across this article about 5 months ago and did some minor cleanup. Now I think that it is probably not notable enough for an Encyclopedia article. Cannot find out much about the subject after the events described in the article. DeleteTheRingess 07:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep unless de-verified, or otherwsie proven erroneous :: NPOV account of newsworthy incident, and a name for which seaches may be made for information. Not every encyclopaedia entry needs to be interesting, but this is a bout a person, not a fancruft, a hip-hop idiom or an infants' school. --SockpuppetSamuelson 12:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SockpuppetSamuelson (i.e. unless evidence to the contrary appears). It's quite a remarkable story. The explanation for the lack of net-based info is probably, how do I put this, as it's a news story from Guatemala. Dan 18:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of proportions[edit]

bad dicdef, not good enough to move to wictionary Hirudo 07:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Zap it. Boxclocke - "!" 07:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Segv11 (talk/contribs) 08:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the OED would burst into flames if you tried to write that on its pages. Dan 18:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 00:11, January 4, 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was moved to RfD - brenneman(t)(c) 07:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LoGic[edit]

This is an unnecessary redirect page Phoenix Hacker 08:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment then it goes on WP:RFD not here. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 08:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects take up neglible space, no reason to delete them. Ifnord 20:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It probably uses more resources to hold this AfD than it does to just leave the redirect alone. Soo 22:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to granularity per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives). - Mgm|(talk) 11:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Granular[edit]

bare dictdef Segv11 (talk/contribs) 08:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (without prejudice). No-one now wants an administrator to delete anything. Uncle G 16:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VRPP[edit]

I'm not entirely sure what this is, but even though Google gives it a bunch of hits, this article even talks about the obsolescence of whatever it is. If our policy on things like this is something I'm not aware, please take off this AfD. But until then, Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 08:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It's reference to a redundant internet RFC document. Could probably be merged someplace rather than deserving of an entire article. No vote. -- Longhair 08:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed it into a redirect for Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol. GeorgeStepanek\talk 10:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Righto, then I retract this AfD. Admins, please take this off. JHMM13 (T | C) 12:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public Agent[edit]

Non-notable website. -- Longhair 08:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page content was subsequently altered by the original poster. Now it's about a term from a novel. Shawnc 10:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Those suggesting that the problems cited with this list can be fixed should now leap into action and fix them. -Splashtalk 00:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional war heroes[edit]

Too ambigious, scope is too large for one article. Scottie theNerd 08:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As some further food for thought, we should consider the debate about the war hero article. If we can't decide and agree on real life heroes, I don't think a list of fictional heroes would be any easier. --Scottie theNerd 15:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or as alternative, shorten the scope of the article. Kusonaga 11:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would tend to shorten the scope, but am at a loss on how to do it in this case. - Mgm|(talk) 11:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with that. I can't think of how you could possibly reduce the scope of a general list of heroes. If we divide it, we'd just end up with a list of characters by game, movie, book, or whatever. I don't think a centralised list would work. At best, it could be a category, but that's still very ambigious and not helpful at all. --Scottie theNerd 13:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One could simply reduce the scope to 'fictional war heroes in existing wars', so that we exclude fictional wars. Kusonaga 14:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's an "existing" war? --Scottie theNerd 15:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff like World War One, World War Two, Korean War, Gulf War, Vietnam War Kusonaga 15:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thought so, but then that would be a list/category by itself. Furthermore, there aren't many notable fictional heroes in real life wars, as fiction either doesn't present characters as war heroes, or takes place in alternate timelines. I think your proposed scope would be an ideal size, but I don't think the content would be too useful. --Scottie theNerd 15:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could name quite a few war heroes (in the comics at least), but I agree that is best used as a category, rather than an article. Kusonaga 16:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is far too nebulous a subject for a page - fictional people in real historical wars? Fictional people in fictional wars - fantasy wars? If it has to exist at all as a research aid, better as a series of categories than a single page. -- (aeropagitica) UK 15:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Categorisation is the key. Dan 18:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Categories require that every entry in a list is worthy of its own page, which is seldom, if ever, the case. Thus, Wikipedia has lists. Turnstep 13:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Besides the previous comments, there's a large element of POV involved. The term "war hero" requires that a wide segment of the public acknowledge the subject as such, and that's not often verifiable fictionally. Was Mace Windu or General Grievous acknowledged by the Republic's populace as being war heroes? No way of knowing, nor is there any way of knowing for much of that list. RGTraynor 19:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, although those characters are never referred to as war heroes in Star Wars. On the other hand, Anakin Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi were widely regarded as war heroes in the Republic. The person who made up that list seems to have thrown in all the Star Wars and LOTR characters he could think of. --Scottie theNerd 05:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.NeoJustin 00:03, January 4, 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm not convinced that "large scope" is a valid reason for deletion. I'm also not swayed by the POV argument, as these are *fictional* people, so it only requires that the author create the person as a war hero. I'd support a better worded criteria on the page. If the page grows out of control, repost it to AfD, but as it is, I can see no reason to delete.Turnstep 13:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even without the criteria, a list of fictional heroes wouldn't be particularly useful, at least not as useful as a category. --Scottie theNerd 13:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly does require that the author create the person as a war hero; I just question that -- using that list as a guide -- the authors actually did so. RGTraynor 16:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should also point out that it isn't uncommon for authors to understate a character's heroism or completely omit any direct mention of heroism. For example, in the Tomorrow series, the character Ellie Linton is responsible for many deeds of daring and bravery, but she is never hailed as a hero by her friends or any other character. There's also the ambiguity of what defines a "hero" (see: war hero), and I don't often see probable heroes being cited as such. There's also the case of authors portraying non-heroes as being heroic (George Orwell's Animal Farm portrays Napoleon has being a war hero, even though he never actually did anything heroic). Ultimately, when it comes to stating someone as a hero, it all comes down to their actions, and that tends to be difficult to interpret. --Scottie theNerd 16:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm just saying we shorten the scope to fictional characters in real-life wars. Kusonaga 13:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be a different article/category by itself though? --Scottie theNerd 13:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP!!! these lists are useful for artists, writers and students. Kingturtle 20:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the list is POV, unmaintainable, ambiguous, incomplete, too short, too long, unencyclopaedic, unbalanced, etc. etc. But (a) it is work in progress and (b) it is useful. Please let our decision be based on the assumption that people who use Wikipedia can decide for themselves whether they agree with the characters listed here or not. Keep. (more) <KF> 23:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is exactly what we are doing. Delete per all above. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WHAT is? Giving users a chance to decide for themselves if they find an article useful or not? How are we doing this? By deleting it "per above" before they get a chance to have a look at it? I may have completely misunderstood your reason for voting delete; in that case, please enlighten me. I just can't make head or tail of "Which is exactly what we are doing". Thanks in advance, <KF> 21:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let me explain myself. I did not just put down all the LOTR and Star Wars characters I could think off. If I did do that, I would have put down Admiral Piett. The LOTR characters (Aragon, Legolas, Gimili) were instrumental in the War of the Ring. The Star Wars characters: Luke destroyed the Death Star, Han helped capture the shield generator on Endor, Lando destroyed the second Death Star. General Grievous was considered a hero in the Confederacy. Personally, I think a war hero should be someone instrumental in battle and someone who helps boost morale.- JustPhil 18:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If we're going to keep and maintain this article, it would be vital that entries should be briefly explained. Aside from that, how exactly where Legolas and Gimli vital to the War of the Ring? --Scottie theNerd 22:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: They killed a lot of Orcs during Helm's Deep and Pelennor Fields.- JustPhil 12:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: They killed approximate 30 orcs each, probably the highest kill count at the Hornburg. There is no evidence of them scoring any kills at the Pelennor, though it can only be assumed. However, killing a lot of Orcs does not necessarily make someone a hero, and they were hardly significant in the whole War of the Ring. --Scottie theNerd 13:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond that, the definition of a "war hero" doesn't encompass someone who does heroic or great deeds. It's about someone who is publically acclaimed for having done heroic or great deeds ... whether or not that someone actually did them. You are assuming, without verifiable attribution, that all of these characters fit the bill. RGTraynor 15:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MapData Sciences Pty Ltd[edit]

non notable company's self-promotional advert. Ragib 08:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Kingturtles application to precedent does indeed need to take account of verifiability, because we should be judging this article on its own as well as in light of the running debate. -Splashtalk 00:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genius Home Collegiate School[edit]

Advert for Non notable school. (It started in 2005!!!!) Ragib 09:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I'm from Bangladesh and among thousands of schools in Bangladesh, this one is nothing special. The funny thing is, it was established in 2005!!!! There is not a single thing that makes it notable. --Ragib 09:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable school. Google finds one site which is a job advert Kcordina 09:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletions. -- Rob 09:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if third-party proof of existence can be found. Looks like an important component of education in Mirpur-10 Senpara Parbota, Dhaka. Also helps to redress systemic bias, we have thousands of articles on schools of equal significance in the United States. See also WP:SCH Kappa 09:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to make it clear, is your vote actually a conditional Delete, assuming that third-party evidence hasn't been found since you posted? --Last Malthusian 23:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Conditional abstain, since some people think the verification process should be given more time. It should be deleted if not verified within a reasonable amount of time, but I agree 5 days is quite short. Kappa 01:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it takes 6 days for someone to get verification, then it's probably not going to be repeatable, as verification must be. --Last Malthusian 10:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If someone find a book that it's in, it will be repeatably verifiable. Kappa 10:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If there's enough verifiable information, then this school should be kept. However, at the moment, there's a real problem that the sole source is just a free web host of the school, and there's no independent source cited yet. I'm awfully suspiscious of a free web host for a school. I'm also suspiscious of the reason for providing a English site without an obvious non-English *main* version (presumably Bengali), and then having an application form not in English (Bengali?). I would assume you normally have a web site that's mainly in the local language (Bengali?), and then secondarly may have some parts in English. This looks fishy (but I have no real evidence anything is wrong). --Rob 10:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is the issue that, particularly in the upper/educated classes in countries like Bangladesh, India, etc., English is the predominant language in education. Most everyone will speak a local language, but why bother when English is the language of the educated classes and the school likely isn't catering to the common people? -Rebelguys2 14:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good points, which I previously considered. However, the application for the school is non-English, so if they're catering to English, they would logically give an English application form (at least as one option in an otherwise-English web site). It's the combination of the almost purely-English website with a purelly non-English application form, that seems pecular. Normally you are a) 100% in one language or b) you provide at least some text in both languages. This company uses two languages, but never both for the same thing. Plus, if they're catering to the upper classes, I'm sure they would be available to afford $5/month for web hosting, and not rely on a free web host. --Rob 17:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I'm not arguing against your points, though here in Texas, for example, I would not be surprised at all to find a place with everything in English and solely an application form in Spanish. It's a different example, of course, but I don't know if either of us have enough knowledge to argue either way. I really don't have any first-hand experience with how languages work over there, though; all I know is that it is nothing like the foreign language education and usage that I've seen in the U.S. -Rebelguys2 18:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added: So far, this job ad (one of two) is the only mention of the school outside the free host, Wikipedia, and Wiki mirrors. Of course, anybody could put it in there, so this is far from adequate. --Rob 10:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I beleive this school is not verifiable. I'm pretty confident it's probably a legit school, as I doubt anybody would make a hoax with as much effort. But without any verifiable information about the school, nothing about the school can be written about. Hopefully, over time, the school will get some coverage in media (at least locally) but until then, it has to go. --Rob 10:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lack of reliable sources. - Mgm|(talk) 11:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mostly unverifiable information about what appears to be a primary school. -Rebelguys2 14:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a staunch inclusionist I hate myself for this.....but Merge with Dhaka as a primary school. Highest age children are 13. Jcuk 16:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dhaka (which I assume is what you meant) is a city of over 12,000,000 people. Even if this information was verifiable, why would you wish to merge such as a small entity to such a large entity? Also, how many schools do you think could even fit in one article? --Rob 17:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this requires merging, you'd have to include 3,000+ older and more notable schools to Dhaka. Are you really serious? --Ragib 17:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deadly. High Schools are kept, and Primary Schools are merged with the city/town/village or other community they serve. Jcuk 22:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I just checked New York City and didn't see all elementary schools listed there. You are missing my point, this school is in no way notable enough to be included in the Dhaka city article. There are other good schools that deserve this, but not a 6 month old non notable school. Thanks. --Ragib 00:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • On the contrary I follow your point entirely, however, there are three criteria at WP:SCH by which a school may have its own article. If it does not meet any of those criteria (one of which being verifiability apart from the schools own website) then the guideline states "If it meets none of these criteria, it should be merged into the appropriate district (or other higher-level article such as city or education in that city or region, if private), preserving all relevant content, and be redirected." The school is only mentioned in its own website and one other site (at the moment) so is not "verifiable" in the Wikipedia sense, although it does seem to exist. My vote and my succeeding comments merely reflect this guideline, as they would for any of the elementary schools in New York, Moscow or come to that Albrighton. Jcuk 00:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok, just tell me why perhaps the 10,000th school (in terms of notability) should get a mention before 9,999 other schools, just because the school's founders were crafty enough to create an entry here? The school's only claim to fame is the article, and the discussion in this page, other than that, a very small number of people in Bangladesh know or care about the school (try finding any reference to it anywhere). Just because someone add's their own 5 month old school here doesn't mean the city article needs to be stuffed with free adverts. I'd be happy to add notable schools or colleges to Dhaka, but again, there is no reason an obscure school need to be forcefully merged into a city of 12 million people. This school article, even if it can ever be verified, can be linked or merged with a list of schools in Dhaka (which would contain thousands of schools and would be totally unmaintainable) but your proposal of merging it with the main city article is not viable or fair at all to the other, 1000 times notable schools. --Ragib 00:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. It is not MY proposal, it is the guideline which has been discussed and agreed upon by the Wikipedia community. I repeat, my comments and vote are based on that and that alone.á
  • 2. Wikipedia is not fair. It is not the fault of the author of this article that the 10,000 other more notable schools you talk of have not had an article written about them. Jcuk 01:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not tagged with "verify" until 3-Jan-06, after AFD nom. Wait untill verification process fails before calling something not-verifiable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the tag does is place the article in Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification which is overloaded with many hundreds of articles, most of which will never be attended to. This article has already had more then it's share attention compared to those other articles. I think the precedent with schools, is pretty simple: verifiable real schools are kept (though sometimes merged), and the non-verifiable ones are deleted. That seems pretty reasonable. If we kept this article now, and it still wasn't verified weeks later, would you want yet another AFD, all over again? When there are so many schools with ample verifiable info, why write about one with no such info? --Rob 18:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • How has this article recieved more than it's share of attention? I am working on verifiying it right now, and was not aware of it untill approximately 1/2 an hour ago. I would support an AFD of this article if it was not verified *AFTER* appropriate steps, but not before. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I took steps to try and verify it *before* voting. If it was sufficiently verified, I would vote keep. If I needed more time, I would wait to vote. I don't expect you to vote delete, without attempting to verify first. But, there's really no basis for voting keep. No article should get a single keep vote, until after it's been verified (note: that even applies to municipality articles). --Rob 18:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or barring that merge with city and/or district. School is currently unverified which fails Wikipedia:Verifiability which supercedes the WP:SCH proposal. Also currently fails WP:SCH proposal. Gateman1997 18:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the unlikely event this school is verified, I think anybody wishing a merger has to come up with a merge target (e.g. name it, link to it, and justify it). I've gone along with a number of mergers, for the sake of compromise, but in this case, no serious merge target has been named. I suspect most people here don't even know if there are the equivelent of US-style school districts in the country. WP:SCH is good basis for compromise, but it was developed mainly by Americans, for American schools, and when it comes to merges, often (not always) falls apart outside that. --Rob 18:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seeing as this appears to be a private school I would suggest a merge with the city it is in. A once or two sentence blurb would do in the education section of said city.Gateman1997 18:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But the city has twelve million people in it (millions more than NYC). As said above, there are probably 3000+ schools. A huge number are probably private. Just naming each private school would be problematic. Plus, while Dhaka isn't a large article now, it can be expected to become very large, to reflect the size and signficance of a major national capital. --Rob 18:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then create a schools subpage for Dhaka if and when the list gets too long. However in this case it is probably moot since the school fails any measure of verifiability and should be summarily deleted unless people start bucking policy.Gateman1997 18:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Frankly, merger with Dhaka or any other article is not possible!! Dhaka is a mega city, with more than 10 million people, and *thousands* (5000+) of more notable schools. Let me explain something: In Bangladesh, private schools and kindergartens are not strictly regulated, and all it takes to open a private school is a house with a few rooms in it. In most cases, these schools have about 40-50 students. Among several thousands of schools in Dhaka, this is again in no way notable (look at the opening date and the lack of references). There ARE good, notable schools in Dhaka, and I'd often try very hard to improve those articles, but in no way you can add this to the Dhaka article. To put things into perspective, it's like adding a recently opened news stand as a major commercial company of New York city. That isn't feasible, and neither is this school's entry. --Ragib 18:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • In cases like that we can examine case by case. If a school is run by nothing but a mother in her house then it probably violates WP:VANITY and/or WP:NOT. Also I doubt any such schools are verifiable. The size of the city however should have no bearing on whether we merge acceptable merge candidates (per WP:SCH) or not as we can work around such issues by creating a city school list or city schools page.Gateman1997 19:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The larger the merge target the harder it is to make a proper article. Making proper article for a large school district or "Schools in X"-type article is not trivial. If only a small number of verifiable schools have articles in Dhaka the time/effort of making the larger/composite (merge target) article would be many times the effort of mainting the individual school articles (as such an article would have to do more than just list a few schools). It's extremely difficult researching the school system of a non-English country, and it's to easy for editors to make gross oversimplifying assumptions about a large foreign school system. But it's often quite easy finding adquate info for a single school (just not in this particular, frustrating case). --Rob 21:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The debate about whether all schools are notable may make some people vote according to which 'side' they're on, but that debate is irrelevant here - there's no reliable source, and therefore violates WP:V. The supposed website is a blank page, as far as I can see (I tried with both Firefox and IE). I suppose it's better than a 404, but that gives us zero verfiable information. --Last Malthusian 23:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I suppose you can glean some information from the source. But bugger-all necessary for an encyclopaedia article. A subject's own website is not a reliable source for anything. If this is the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia I could go and create as many schools as I felt like right now. --23:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if third-party proof of existence can be found. Bahn Mi 23:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to make it clear, is your vote actually a conditional Delete, assuming that third-party evidence hasn't been found since you posted? --Last Malthusian 23:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, browsing their school website it appears this "school" is little more then a glorified daycare with a flashy name. I can find no evidence they cater to anyone beyond preschoolers... and we've got a precedent of deletion for all preschools.Gateman1997 02:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply: They do claim to do more then preschool. On their application deadline page they mention class I-VIII, which I presume means grades 1-8 (primary+middle school). I interpret "Play" and "Prepatory" to be "Pre-Kindergarten" and "Kindergarten". Also, in their job add they seek "Full time teaching for Play Group to Eighth grade". Also, I don't think many preschools require their teachers have an M.A. (I assume that's a masters of arts). This is all unverified of course, which is why I support deletion still. --Rob 05:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • From translation of the admissions leaflet, the school does not have any students in classes 5 6 to 8, though they claim to have plans to open those sections. Also, I took a look at their school building, which is actually a residential house with a few floors given to the school. I don't see any evidence of their number of students being beyond the few kids shown in the website (Why are the same kids shown in every photo? This makes me doubt whether they have more than 30 - 50 or so. Also, the admission leaflet says that they opened the school in 2005 with the name "Genius Home", and renamed it to the current name recently. Other than that, I can't find any other information from the translation of the admission leaflet. Thanks. --Ragib 06:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So in short they are a glorified preschool right now. This isn't worthy of an article by any measure right now. It's a large home school, nothing more.Gateman1997 06:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • From their website (which may or may not count for you) they cater for children up to the age of 13. Jcuk 06:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually according to their website (which is inadmissiable per WP:Verifiable they WANT to cater to 13 year olds. Right now they cater to the equivalent of 4th grade. But then none of this is verifiable which violates WP:Verifiable.Gateman1997 06:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • According to their website (look under "Features") they clearly *claim* to *currently* teach up to grade eight. They even state when class starts and stops for grades up to eight. There's multiple places where they mention grades up to eight in their web site. They also state they have 10 classrooms, which is consistent with teaching up to grade eight (such a small school probably wouldn't have more than one room per grade). It's only the non-English application leaflet, which says they stop at grade four. Anyway, it's all unverfiable, and that's really all that counts. Personally, I suspect the person who wrote the web site, and the person who wrote the leaflet, do not speak the same language (literally). There is no way you can reconcile those two versions of reality. --Rob 06:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • True enough. Infact if someone were to be WP:BOLD they could delete all but the basic info and the link because none of it meets current policy and none of it can. This school should be easily deleted unless voters get blinded by the word school in the title. This school is TOTALLY unverifiable and cannot be verified using currently available data.Gateman1997 06:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Seconded. Twice. If this is kept I, for one, fully intend on replacing the current article with "Genius home collegiate school is a website which claims to be for a school", that being the only fact that is even remotely verifiable. Encyclopaedias do not reprint subjects' claims about how great they are, unless reputable third parties pay special attention to those claims (e.g. The Beatles claiming to be bigger than Jesus is a notable fact: me claiming to be shorter than Jesus is not), so those should all be removed. In fact, an editor would be fully justified under WP:V in replacing the article with "The 'Genius home collegiate school' does not exist". At least then we could remove the factual accuracy tags. Everything is, after all, non-existent until proven otherwise - it is impossible under the laws of this universe to prove something doesn't exist, so the alternative is unsustainable. --Last Malthusian 13:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • One small but relevant comment, the article was originally created by Altafuzzaman (talk · contribs), who according to this is one of the sponsors (read owners) of the school. --Ragib 06:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC) (Also, a look at the meta tags reveal that he is also the webmaster of the school's site). --Ragib 07:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Wow, we might be dealing with a hoax in this case.Gateman1997 08:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite an interesting use of web resources (Geocities and Wikipedia). This is a difficult decision to make, because on the one hand it appears that this article was originally created as a means of advertising (read: spam), in which case it should be deleted. Then, on the other hand, it has been transformed by our fellow editors into an honest and straight forward article which informs the potential reader that this genius school is not accredited, nor does it appear to be licensed by their government. There is some value to that, so keep as rewritten. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would agree with you *if* we had verifiable independent information that the school wasn't accredited or licensed. The reason for wanting accrediation isn't the accrediation per se, it's the inherent verifiability that goes with accreditation (or government licensing). Currently, nothing in the article, is known to be true. The simple statement of existence, can not be verified. Wikipedia does have some legitimate article on verifiably non-accredited schools, but this is not one of them. In fact, I fear, the school may legitmately complain our article (that I rewrote) unfairly depicts them, and we couldn't defend ourselves, as we can't claim to know what we're writing about. --Rob 07:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can't this be speedied under "patent nonsense"? Seeing as it doesn't exist at all in the eyes of Wikipedia any more then "My Fat Butt School" exists?Gateman1997 08:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is a bit of a stretch, IMHO. The school probably exists, but the verifiability concern is valid. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "My Fat Butt School" is speedied because it is nonsense, not because it doesn't exist in the eyes of wikipedia. Kappa 08:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh I agree. But what evidence do we have this school is more real then "My Fat Butt School"?Gateman1997 09:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • We have a little more, but the amount of evidence is not relevant for the question of speedy deletion. Kappa 09:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote in light of recent comments. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, we've established that what we have here is a website that claims to be for a school, and nothing else. Until someone verifies by encyclopaedic standards that it's actually a physical school (which I don't think is going to happen in 5 days or 5 years), this article should be considered under the guidelines for websites. Which, surprise surprise, it fails, with no media attention, no forum and no Alexa rank (being a Geocity). --Last Malthusian 10:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I don't follow that logic. This article is about a school, not a website. Not that it meets verifiability either way, but it clearly doesn't fall under WP:WEB. Turnstep 14:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no reliable evidence to suggest that this school exists, so I don't see how we can consider it as such if we're writing an encyclopaedia. --Last Malthusian 15:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's often no reliable evidence an nn-bio is about a real person, should we exempt them from rules on non-notable real persons? --Rob 17:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rob I think you're both saying the same thing. However I think you're both seeing one or another rule as being more important then another. WP:BIO is subserviant to WP:V. Something has to be verified as being "real" before it can be considered non-notable.Gateman1997 18:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think there are huge numbers of bio articles of people who have been speedy deleted under A7, even though nobody can tell if they're real or not (but claim to be real). Yet A7 does exclude fictional characters. And non-verifiability is not (yet) a speedy criterion. Also, there's no dispute as to which rule is more important. We all agree WP:V is more important. I'm just arguing that when applying category-specific rules (music,bio,schools,websites) you apply *those* criteria based on the claimed category. If the claim is not verifiable, then you delete. You don't (shouldn't) ever switch categories in mid-AFD, as doing so constitutes the creation of entirely new unrelated article. --Rob 18:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • My main point is that people are wrongly applying WP:SCH to the article. There's a large debate above this post over whether it should be merged into Dhaka, which seems to imply that people are assuming that WP:V is irrelevant where a subject has a separate set of guidelines, which it isn't. Admittedly WP:WEB isn't relevant, since it was written for something else. I was grasping for a way to draw attention to the fact that there is no way anything could be written anywhere about this 'school' without violating our standards of verifiability. --Last Malthusian 20:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain as the lack of verifiability on the one hand is balanced by the fact the author seems genuine (no other hoax edits) and that the school is in a non-US country, which tends to make verification difficult due to poor media coverage. Turnstep 14:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as somebody seems to have taken the time to delete my last contribution, I'll rewrite it here. I accept and understand that hoax articles get into Wikipedia sometimes. I accept they must be deleted. What I find hard to believe is that somebody has gone to the trouble of writing a hoax article about a school that doesn't exist, and THEN gone to the trouble to advertise for teachers job ad at said non existant school, to back up the hoax on Wikipedia. It just isn't going to happen. Jcuk 21:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • More elaborate hoaxes, with an "official" site, and planted third-party links have been done. But, I doubt this is a hoax. However,it's possible the owners of the school are wantonly exaggerating/misleading on their web site to make money, and we have no idea of they offer the service they claim to. But, I can't say that in the article, as I don't know it to be the case (it would be libel if I said it). We just don't know, and sometimes we have to admit we can't do what we wish we could. I wish we could write a good article, but we can't. --Rob 04:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please to help redress systemic bias it is a real school Yuckfoo 21:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ragib. Vegaswikian 08:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also Delete per Ragib. --kingboyk 20:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. wikipedia has other non-notable school articles that have survived VfD. there is a precident to keep these. Kingturtle 06:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is ample precedent to keep *verifiable* real schools (regardless of so-called "non-notability"). However, there remains no acceptable verification for the information in this article. We have consistently deleted unverifiable schools (as is required by WP:V), and we should continue to do so. --Rob 06:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrelcide[edit]

neologism Segv11 (talk/contribs) 09:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Move to Wiktionary Neologism/dicdef. Move if usage found to be widespread (google finds about 30 or so web pages - all describing the word as per the article). Kcordina 09:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. --Tothebarricades 09:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as non-notable recent neologism. Only reference is the Jargon file, which claims the term is in common use on the newsgroup comp.risks. Google Groups shows 5 hits (between 1995 and 2000) and seems to indicate 5 total "squirrelcides" ever occured. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 21:57Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to Electroclash. I'm only going to apply the tag, since I'm not qualified to filter the, uh, wood from the trees. Would someone please step up and the do the deed? -Splashtalk 00:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electroclash kids[edit]

POV, nonsensical, unencyclopedaic, non-notable, etc. etc. --Tothebarricades 09:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purchase Mafia[edit]

notable?!? Segv11 (talk/contribs) 09:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- Rob 11:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete for non-notability. They are real and they do garner attention in imdb.com and other places but I can't see that they are of sufficient notability to merit inclusion. Eddie.willers 13:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Excellent sources here and phenomenon should be explained. -- JJay 21:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete just because a couple of the "members" are notable, doesn't mean that this is a classification that is notable --rogerd 04:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alter mind[edit]

Very minor Jedi power. About ten-fifteen seconds of screentime in the movies, occasional mentions in the books. Marked as cleanup for 3-4 months, and nobody has touched it. Only inbound link is a very minor Jedi, who is only mentioned briefly in the novels. Article is written in second person, conversational tone. I personally believe that this is an unencyclopedic article, about a very minor aspect of the fictional Star Wars universe. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 09:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there is a precedent for keeping or merging minor Jedi powers, and an appropriate merge target can be found, I will support a merge as a secondary option. - Saberwyn
  • Merge to Jedi? - Mgm|(talk) 12:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where would it fit? We'd have to write up a section on Jedi powers, which will spin out of control once the SW:RPG and Jedi Knight game series players get a hold of it. Does it really need to be in an encyclopedia anyway? -- Saberwyn
  • Delete not signficant enough for own article, and not enough quality content to warrant merging. Also, I fear little unattended articles like this, will inevitably attrack vandalism, as an RC patroller can't read a change, and tell if it's nonsense or "real" (unless they're an ultra fan). --Rob 12:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --Daveb 12:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide_Police[edit]

This page contains only advertising (spam) Niemijao 12:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tillingdown hill[edit]

Road has no importance. Esprit15d 12:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Even with all the obviously discounted editors, I still see consensus to delete. Even allowing for past concerns over "war on blogs", there are editors who are not linked to that (to my knowledge) who are still quite clear on this article. -Splashtalk 00:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podnography[edit]

non-notable; 50k-or-so Google hits, pretty much all of which are Wikipedia mirrors or useless blog posts. Hosterweis 12:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable vanity trash - Wikipedia needs about 100% less of this. 71.136.194.138 12:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This vote was made by CptChipJew Cptchipjew 08:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and shove your iPods - Femmina 13:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. get rid of this shitty "article" it's nonsense. pur waste of time. waste of bytes. waste of everything!!!!11one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.12.74.4 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete podcruft and vansipamcruftisement at that. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Guy. PJM 17:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per 81.12.74.4. Hey! If that's the author, can't we speedy delete? Dan 18:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. *drew 22:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename or merge. The name of the article is a neologism, but the article is OK otherwise, establishes notability of the phenomenon via media attention (WSJ, NYT, SFC). Seems as notable as the other podcasting-related articles such as Godcasting. The article claims major newspapers including the SF Chronicle have used the term "podnography". —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 22:13Z
    • I can't help but mention the fact that I can't seem to find an article called Godcasting anywhere on Wikipedia. This may be, in fact, the only page that mentions it at all. Actually, I found eight articles across all Wikipedia namespaces that mention the word "Godcasting". Hosterweis 06:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Bodcast, per my recent suggestion on the page. Daniel Case 03:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 06:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gets 55,000 Google hits, which makes it verifiable and notable, if personally repugnant. Turnstep 15:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, a Google search for "podnography -wikipedia" still yields 49,000 hits.
      • "podnography -wikipedia -blog" yields 811. Hosterweis 14:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So anything that appears on a blog totally discounts "notability" and "verifiability"? Turnstep 23:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nearly all the blogs mentioning the word 'podnography' are non-notable, personal blogs that no one really cares about. So, yes. -- Hosterweis 04:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can't agree with that. Blogs indicate that people are talking about it, and this make it notable. Even discarding the blogs, 811 is still a significant number and at least satisfies the criteria for not being a neologism ("realistic evidence of existence"). Turnstep 17:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those results are inflated by several pages mentioning it over and over, see http://www.google.com/search?q=podnography+-wikipedia&hl=en&lr=&start=450&sa=N . This is the case for most neologisms. Tapir 20:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utter rubbish. Incognito 02:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Get this utter crap out of wikipedia. Should just ban blog* articles and pod* articles. --Timecop 04:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not impressed. --Depakote 11:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pap. Proto t c 13:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - People writing this kind of articles should be shot. Tapir User had 8 edits before this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes
  • Delete - pointless, cruft
  • Delete Please make it end. Jmax- 19:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Jmax User had 3 edits before this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes[reply]
  • Comment. Please give a valid reason when voting, whether Keep or Delete. I'm okay with either resolution, but the closing admin deserves more than some of the "reason" (or lack thereof) above. Turnstep 19:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Guy. --kingboyk 20:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Forallah 02:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Forallah User's only edits are to this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes and his/her talk page[reply]
  • Keep There are links in the article that show it being used in the lexicon (so I think that makes it notable). It makes the most sense to merge this with porncasting... in some sort of vocab subsection. neonlovechicken
    • Wikipedia guidelines say to avoid neologisms, and "podnography" is nothing short of one. Hosterweis 08:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you sure about that? The guidelines say: Wikipedia does not accept articles on fan-made neologisms unless they have realistic evidence of existence via verifiable usage data (See Corpus linguistics) or, at the least, search engine hits. I'd say this definitely satisfies the search engine hit requirement, even if you take out the mirrors and the blogs (see above). Turnstep 17:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete podcruft. Eusebeus 18:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. the term exists. the history exists. Kingturtle 06:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blogcruft. --King of All the Franks 07:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems pointless WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mackenzie Moreau[edit]

The reasons for deleting this article are the same as those for deleting the page on the National Youth Council of Canada, Listed for deletion on Dec. 30 2005. Nothing notable about this person. Atrian 12:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool wall[edit]

Almost entirely a list copied from [8] about a minor feature of Top Gear. All the factual information is held in the Top Gear article. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 13:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I cannot imagine anyone - even Jeremy Clarkson - wanting to look this up. The Top Gear article is sufficient. --Spondoolicks 13:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree that the Top Gear article plus external links are sufficient. Sliggy 14:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Top Gear page, if this article contains any information that the latter doesn't. -- (aeropagitica) UK 15:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Dan 18:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 02:39Z
  • Delete per Spondoolicks --kingboyk 20:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. It's not clear from the debate that it should be deleted, and so ordinary editorial methods will have to be deployed instead. -Splashtalk 00:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taint[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article has a fair bit of history, starting as a disambig page of sorts[9], moving to a better disamig page[10] which actaully seem to just be dictionary definitions and then on to just nonsense about the sexual slang word.

Myself and Uncle G have been "Wikipedia is not a dictionary"ing on this article, and i've replace the content with a soft redirect to Wikipedia — {{wi}} — on a number of occasions.

Recently Cenestrad wrote a better article, but one I still feel to be a dictionary definition (see discussion at Talk:Taint#What to do?) and ignores the other — normal — meanings of taint which would require adding even more dict defs. So, I'd like to get a wider discussion/decision on this article, and if it should be properly deleted. Thanks/wangi 13:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's a neologism that doesn't offer more than its definition, IMO. PJM 13:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Disambig page, per this revision. "tainted" data in Perl certainly deserves a mention on such a page (a known concept in Perl programming), and such a page should also mention the slang term (perhaps also including a link to Wiktionary). └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 14:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: However consider the manual for style of dismbig pages: MoS:DP. Taint might well be a known concept in Perl (and I'm a Perl programmer and know it is) but we cannot have a disambig entry pointing to page that doesn't even mention the term (taint is not mentioned in the Perl article) - it would just be another dictionary definition. Thanks/wangi 14:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dictdef, a disambig page would be acceptable I guess but it would need to be protected as the dicdef has been reverted numerous times already. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no point having a disambig page because all the subjects being disambiguated are dicdefs. perl "taint" is just a specialised use of the normal meaning of the word. 'Tain't worth an article. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see what you're saying, but I feel that a user who enters "taint" into Wikipedia ought to get *something*... └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 15:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree with UkPaolo on that one. Aren't their certain substances in plastics which are 'taints'? Nonetheless this trash needs to be thrown out. Dan 18:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • clean and keep: there should be SOME mention of the meaning of the word as it has cutural meaning, but it should include other meanings as well. The term shouldnt be thrown out simply because its meaning is vulgar, but should instead be presented with definitions and links and historical reference (I beleive that HBO's Mr.Show was the first to popularize this term) that ARE NOT vulgar. Just because the term itself is childish and obscene, does not mean it has no signifigance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.73 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment: I don't think anyone is concerned re vulgarity. Thanks/wangi 20:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to perineum, per UkPaolo's logic that a wikipedia search of taint should lead to somewhere. If it led to a blank page, we will just have to do this all over again.Youngamerican 20:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: So a new-fangled definition would over-rule the traditional meaning of the word? Thanks/wangi 20:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment I suppose so. A more-common usage of the word as opposed to the antiquated usage is moreso how I see it. Is taint still more commonly used to refer to spoilage in the vernacular of Scotland? It seems in America, anyhow, that you here it more often refering to the perineum. Youngamerican 21:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, in the UK I think you'd get a lot of blank looks if you were using taint in the sexual slang way - to me anyway it's an Americanism. Thanks/wangi 22:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Both good points... the other problem with deleting this article is that it will just lead to a recreation in the future... but I agree with Wangi that a redirect to just the new definition is not appropriate, since there are more fundamental definitions of the word. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • So what, we should have a dab to two dictdefs rather than a dictdef or a dictdef for a neologism? How's that again? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I agree it's a dicdef, but I don't think a neologism is fair... per Cenestrad googling will reveal it is more established than that. What would be a gain is to have something appropriate rather than nothing, should a user look for an article on Taint. In my opinion a dab page similar to [11] would be a start. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 22:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Should a reader look up "taint", and there is no article, xe will see this, which will point xem at Wiktionary and this. Should a reader look up "taint", and there is a soft redirect, xe will see this, which will again point xem at Wiktionary and this. Uncle G 00:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to me people are voting to delete this more on the basis of how they feel about the term than the valdity of the article. If you think the term is a neologism google it. You will find that it is an established term with the very meaning I put in the article. If you think the term is trash because it's lewd, I agree and I put that in the article. I don't agree that thinking a term is childish is reason to delete it. --Cenestrad 21:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all. The traditional usage is a dictdef, the neologism is a dictdef of a neologism. A disambiguation page would be between one dictdef and another. Quite an easy call, IMO! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please google this term if you think it is a neologism. I am sure you will find ample sources to insure you that it is an established and widley used term (if only in the U.S.). If you care to look you will find web sites dealing with Taint centered sexual fetishes, Taint humor (if it's funny is a matter of opinion) and a Taint magazine.I had suggested that a disambiguation page that would link to wikitonary for the older useage and a catergory on sexual slang for the newer (non-neologism) term. This would allow a place for articles such as Taint or choad. I think that this would benifit wikipedia by eleminating the temptation to post a joke article some seem to feel when they see the page is nonexisten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cenestrad (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - this is a well-known slang term and anyone searching Wikipedia should at least be informed about it. --Liface 22:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment God I must be getting old.... the only meaning I know for taint is spoil, as in, you cant eat that food now, its tainted. This new meaning certainly makes the song "Tainted Love" an interesting listen.... 80.177.152.156 22:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Perineum -Dr Haggis - Talk 22:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This is a very common term and should be expanded upon. As far as it being just a definition the page for the word "an" is nothing but numerous definitions, and at times that is enough. I cant think of much history that could be associated with this, simply letting the reader know its origins(if possible) and different meanings sometimes will have to suffice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickelbarrel (talk • contribs)
  • Keep but turn into a disambiguation page. The traditional meaning and the modern meaning should be listed, as well as the other meanings and references listed. I agree that one should be able to look up "taint" and get something. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disambiguation articles are not dictionary articles. They don't list meanings, and they don't magically invalidate the Wikipedia is not a dictionary official policy. Wikipedia:Disambiguation is explicit on this. Uncle G 14:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe this has the ultimate potential to be more than a dictionary article. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 14:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Howso? Youngamerican 15:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I must clarify that I meant that it ultimately has the potential instead of has the ultimate potential. I contend that it wouldn't fall entirely under the concept of a normal disambig page, but the information shown on the old disambiguation page presented earlier, could stand and be expanded on. In regards to the sexual/modern dicdef, it could ultimately be expanded to resemble other similar articles. Also, a link to Tainted Love couldn't hurt, either. Mind you, I feel quite silly arguing about taint. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 17:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a disambiguation page. I can't quite accept it as a redirect, since that would hide a transwiki dictionary link. Thus, disambig - one to the traditional word, one as a link to the new one via perineum. Turnstep 17:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with redirecting this term to perineum is that it retains the meaning of the word but not the context. It is true that the perineum and the Taint are the same part of the body anatomically speaking but Taint is a vulgar term as opposed to a medical term and that needs to be noted. Also this eliminates the potential for the articles growth in regards to cultural references. As I mentioned above the term Taint is employed in American pop culture having been referenced by several television shows and comedians. Also it is the center of some individual’s sexual fetishes. All of this could add to a valid article which would be much more than a dictionary definition and go well beyond what a person would expect to find in an article on the perineum.--Cenestrad 17:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to apologize for forgetting to sign a comment I added earlier. Dwilke seems to think that this is a major issue and posted four edits concerning one unsigned comment. The apex for me was his elation of "It appears to be Censtrad!" Way to go Colombo but next time just ask me and I'll tell you if I was the author of a comment. This is the second time you have accused me of sockpuppeting and I am more than a little irritated. If I were to use such a trick don't you suppose I would log out first? I would also like to note that the comment in question was made as a post script to my vote on this subject earlier and did not contain a vote of its own. From now on I'll be more careful to sign my comments.--Cenestrad 18:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't think Dan was accusing you of sock-puppeting. He was only marking your comment as having been made by you. Please assume good faith. He has made no accusations of sock-puppetry that I have seen. As to needing four edits: that might imply he needs help with the "show preview" button, but it doesn't accuse you of sock-puppetry. [[Sam Korn]] 22:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Had he only mentioned an unsigned article possibly being mine once I would have assumed good faith. However on an unsigned comment previously posted Dan had added “I wonder if this is the author?” (It was not.) I have no problem assuming good faith and being civil but a veiled accusation of sock puppeting could tip the balance in this debate and that I do have a problem with that.--Cenestrad 23:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I apologise if I insulted you. I was only slightly angry since I had to spend an inordinate amount of time, and edits trying to work out who had written that (and another unsigned edit). Sockpuppetry did not at all enter my head, in fact I was commenting that I wasn't expecting it to be a registered user who forgot to sign a post as per [[WP:~~~~]]. Also, I had no idea at the time that the person who had previously commented, unsigned whilst not even signed in, was not the author. Nor did I know it was you. Finally, "tip the balance"! Ridiculous. I would never consider doing something so, well, petty. I do not consider this article so important (nor would I ever give the author the pleasure), as to risk my own name using illicit means to get it deleted. In fact it seems that that is where it is destined anyway according to the consensus of the community. Dan 15:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would ask that you not insult my intelligence by claiming that you were not trying to make it seem as if I were the hand inside a sock puppet but I doubt you would believe I have any intelligence to insult. So please don’t insult the intelligence of other wikipedia users. --Cenestrad 16:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can see that this is probably pointless, since whatever I say will not make you believe me (or should that be admit to believing me), but I still wish to make it clear that I never set out to claim that you were involved in sockpuppetry, nor did that thought even cross my mind. Is that clear enough for you! It is now I who should be the most insulted. You have insulted my honour. If I had a glove I'd come over there and demand satifaction. I shall not reply to any more of this rubbish, but an Admin might. Good Day! Dan 18:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You don't own any gloves? Give me your address and I'll send you a pair my Mom made me. However coming over here and demanding satisfaction may not be necessary as I am glad to retract my statements since you have made it clear that you are no longer accusing me of sock puppetry. Good Day!:)--Cenestrad 19:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Nothing but slang meaning. not encyclopedic Mukadderat 00:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • replace with {{wi}} and protect: all meanings are dictionary definitions, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This Wiktionary defintition includes all meanings. Thanks/wangi 09:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which will turn Wikipedia into a ghost dictionary. Please don't. Deleting this will leave a empty page table which will point users to other projects just as easily. - Mgm|(talk) 09:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • commentMy only problem with the wikipedia is not a dictionary argument is that it seems we are singling out this word before it even has a chance to expand. As I pointed out earlier the word "an" contains nothing BUT several definitions on its wikipedia page, whereas this site offers some historical backing as to the words origins, as well as a few links to other sites, and certainly has great POTENTIAL to grow. It seems as though the word has been continually deleted almost out of habit. If wikipedia is going to be hell bent on removing all articles that are JUST definitions it would seem a better policy to start with "an" and move down the list of other words/terms that have been there for a while and haven’t grown. Deleting this page will just result in some kid putting up a comedic response so why not instead start with a better suited article and instead allow it to grow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickelbarrel (talk • contribs)
    • Wrong in quite a number of ways:
      1. AN does not comprise "nothing but definitions". It comprises a list of hyperlinks to articles which would, by themselves, either be at AN/aN/an or have a redirect from there.
      2. "Historical backing as to the word's origins" belongs in the dictionary. Etymology is exactly what the dictionary is for. There are even etymology sections in the dictionary article already. Expanding an encyclopaedia article with such things is contrary to the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy and a dilution of effort, to boot.
      3. You are thinking of this article as an article about a word. ("It seems as though the word ...") Dictionary articles are about words. Encyclopaedia articles are about concepts/people/places/things/events. An encyclopaedia article by this title would be about taints, not about the word "taint". We already have taint for that.
      4. This article has not been "continally deleted". It hasn't ever been deleted at all. It has been replaced with a soft redirect encouraging editors to write an encyclopaedia article about taints if there is one, but to use the dictionary otherwise. The article as it currently stands is not an encyclopaedia article about taints, and is simply a bad duplicate of the dictionary article about the word "taint" that is in Wiktionary. A soft redirect is better than that.
      5. AN is a disambiguation article. It shouldn't grow into a dictionary article. That it hasn't is, therefore, a good thing.
    • Finally: why not instead start with a better suited article? — Because it has yet to be demonstrated that there is an encyclopaedia article about taints to be had. At most, therefore, this is a disambiguation article between perineum, corruption, and spoilage. Uncle G 14:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment okay finr replace the word "an" with "police academy" or any of the thousands of other words that are basically definitions and use the same argument — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickelbarrel (talk • contribs) 2006-01-06 02:14:26
        • Still wrong. police academy is an article about police academies, and indeed, even in its current stub state, is not "nothing but a definition". Uncle G 04:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It should be noted that the definition on wikitonary for the slang meaning of Taint has been removed several times and was not posted at the time I wrote this article. It was restored by Uncle G on January 3.--Cenestrad 15:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. It was the Webster 1913 meanings related to the use of a lance that were removed and then restored by me. Uncle G 04:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • wow uncle g. as a newbie to using wikipedia I cant believe how interested Ive gotten in "the great taint debate" of 2006. I was worried that perhaps Id lost my mind and might end up outside of wikipedias headquarters holding a SAVE THE TAINT sign. Its nice to see others on the opposing side are as fanatical in their beliefs(I wonder what will become of us when the agument is finally decided).
          Let me ask this then if as is okay because it contains ONLY hyperlinks to articles that stand on their own, why not offer hyperlinks to other articles in THIS entry to choad and or perinium. My point on the article continually being deleted is that while of cours THIS article hasnt been deleted(otherwise we wouldnt be having this discussion) the word HAS had several entries over the last few months (my favorite being the one where it is stated "men have taints so they dont shit on their balls") This entry seems at least a ligitamit place to start as it does INCLUDE a hyperlink that can stand on its own.
          otherwise Uncle g , you have made very valid points, perhaps you may yet sway my vote and we will be seen and perhaps one day we will be seen arms locked chanting "WIKIPEDIA HAS NO TAINT" in triumphant victory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickelbarrel (talk • contribs) 2006-01-05 16:34:47
  • comment if it is decided to be kept and cleaned up here are some bits of info that might help in establishing it. There is a some what well known band with the name of taint. Mr. Show increased its populariuty by reintroducing the term into its sketches and even incorporateing TAINT the magazine. Taint piercing is considered very popular in some goth and/or metal band circles. Beth O keeps her taint completely shaven as per Howard Sterns wished according to him in several of his radio programs. I hope this will fullfill the requirements of making the article about specific taints as per uncle g's requests. I am not profiecent enough yet to create or add to an existing article but I though it may be some help for those that are — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickelbarrel (talk • contribs) 2006-01-05 22:47:01
    • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't make articles about things that might be uncyclopedic in the future. --Syrthiss 14:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I thought that a keep and clean up vote was meant to essentially do just that?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickelbarrel (talk • contribs) 2006-01-06 16:46:38
  • Delete neologism. Create dab page for the possible meanings if we need to. --Syrthiss 14:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The idea of a delete here kind of stinks, while a dab would be nuts, so I guess it should be somewhere in between, like a redirect (sorry guys, I couldn't resist). Youngamerican 16:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment to find fault with your entry one would either have to be not neccisaryly a dick..or an asshole... but something in between the two — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickelbarrel (talk • contribs) 2006-01-06 16:53:02 (please Pickelbarrel, four tildes - ~~~~, it's not hard! wangi 17:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
      • No offense Wangi, but I have no idea what in the hell you are talking about — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickelbarrel (talk • contribs)
        • I have left a number of messages on your user talk page to explain: User talk:Pickelbarrel. On Wikipedia talk pages, and more importantly these AfD entries you should always sign your comments. This is done by typing ~~~~ at the end of your comment - Wikipedia will then expand that to your username and date when you hit "save page". If you don't do this some poor sod (which has been me recently) needs to pick through this discussions history to try and work out who said what. Thanks/wangi 17:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • [[[cooment]]]I want to offer a very sincere thanks to this link, even though I am not finished with all the points I am much wiser for having started reading it. I really didnt even know that I had talking point page until you just wrote this. I will do my best to look up the guidelines to try to keep from causing extra work for anyone. I had been simply wondering how everyone got their names printed in special print and mine was always labled unsigned even after I signed picklebarrel at the bottom. I would ask that you try to show a bit of patience however if I make a mistake in the future however, while the adding tildes is certainly not difficult it WAS a completely forien concept to me. To appologize for my earlier mistakes I will paraphrase the thoughts of Financial genius Timothy Dexter on the matter(after he recieved horrible reviews of the first edition of his book for not having put in any puntion of anykind in it) "As the nowing ones complain (of my earlier work for not having correct puntion) I put in A Nuf here and they may peper and solt as they plese" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Pickelbarrel ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Pickelbarrel ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Pickelbarrel ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Pickelbarrel 20:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)picklebarrelPickelbarrel 20:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At this point I would like to request that any votes cast claiming the term is a neologism should be discarded. That argument has been made and rebutted and anyone still calling the term a neologism has not done one bit of research. They are simply labeling the term a neologism because they are not familiar with it. It seems fairly obvious that the point of an encyclopedia is to help familiarize a person with new terms and concepts as an encyclopedia containing only things you already know would be pointless. Secondly I would like to suggest that people have a look at the asshole article. This term is a reference to the anus but asshole deserves a separate article because it is different in context. If I called a person an anus I most likely would only get quizzical looks. On the other hand if I dubbed them an “Asshole” they would surely demand satisfaction. The same is true for perineum and Taint.--Cenestrad 19:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now now Cenestrad, I pitty the admin that has to wade through the discussion and try and sort out what the consensus is, but that's their job. After all, you're pushing your point of view here - don't see you asking for all votes asking to keep the dictionary def be ignored (Wikipedia is not a dictionary - a policy) ;) Have a good weekend/wangi 21:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The concept denoted by the slang sense of "taint" is exactly the same concept denoted by "perineum". There's no need to have two separate encyclopaedia articles for the same concept. The fact that "taint" can denote other concepts (specifically corruption and spoilage) is why this should be a disambiguation article amongst those three concepts. Uncle G 04:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you would be just a comfortable with your doctor using the term Taint as perineum? It's not just concept that is important but context.--Cenestrad 05:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Only for a dictionary, not for an encyclopaedia. What I would be comfortable with is irrelevant. There is just the single concept here, just as there is with petrol/gasoline, squash/marrow (vegetable), chav/charva, and so forth. Usage notes for a word, such as whether it is preferable to its synonyms in certain contexts, belong in the dictionary. Uncle G 08:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Your Taint just Got Bigger" - I have expanded the taint article adding many facts and links. I think it now more than surpasses a dictonary def. I have also contacted the Kinsey Institute of I.U. and expect to recive more taint related material, mostly in relation to taint related fetish.--Cenestrad 16:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like the expansion of the article. Still think we need to disambig between this, the "old fashioned" usage, the term "tainted data" in programming, and maybe a link to Tainted Love, too. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • People don't type in "taint" when they're looking for tainted love, so it wouldn't make a dab page... Thanks/wangi 19:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • like the added material, hopefully it will continue to grow. I was talking with my grandmother( a ninety-plus year old political activist who encouraged me to get my nose pierced) about the irony of this article and its discussion page being longer than the actual article, and she told me about a phrase I had never heard "The smell of his taint". Apparently her parents used to use it to refer to scotsmen and black people(apparently her parents were very racist even though my grand mother is NOT at all). They would talk about the smell of a certain scotsmans taint(they were both full blooded irish) being lifted after he carried their daughter Ima home from an accident which probably saved Ima's life. My grandmother didnt know weather this is an irish term, a local term or one just my great grand parent used, but I thought someone here might. I also thought it would be interesting to know if this was in fact a play on the two different meanings of the words, as this might offer some info into the amount of time the latter difintion has been around.Pickelbarrel 21:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if taint really can be expanded as a body part slang term, should a dab be made here and a new article called taint (slang) be created? Im still thinking redirect and expanding the perineum article. Main concern with doing something other than a redirect would set a precendent for the creation and survival of article like fleshy fun bridge or chin rest. Youngamerican 03:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think so. The term Taint is well known and widely used giving it cultural relevance. The term Perineum should be concerned with gross anatomy not sexual fetish, comedy routines or homosexual slang. The terms like fleshy fun bridge or chin rest could not be expanded upon beyond a dict. def. I would suggest you look at the article for both choad and asshole.--Cenestrad 03:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. That's Wiktionary's job, and it is doing it. Uncle G 04:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why does the catagory slang exist? I don't think you can reasonably argue that what I wrote is a dict. def or that it belongs on the perineum page. Again I suggest that you take a look at asshole and it's AFD page and the reason it was kept. Also look at choad and pussy. Again these are anatomical terms that but the context of these articles don't belong on the coresponding anatomical page.--Cenestrad 05:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Choad has yet to come to AFD. Chode (AfD discussion) came to AFD and was deleted. Category:Slang is mis-used by editors who want to create a dictionary in the encyclopaedia. It is supposed to be for articles about slang, such as London slang, Medical slang, Sexual slang, and so forth, but editors who want to create a dictionary in the wrong project do from time to time mis-use it as if it were the same as wikt:Category:English slang (which is a category in the dictionary, note, into which many of the articles in wikt:Category:Slang should eventually be migrated) and were a category for dictionary articles on slang words. Uncle G 08:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to Perineum. otherwise keep. i hate this stupid slang term. but alas. Kingturtle 06:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, If my push for redirect fails, I would favor a all-out keep over a dab or a delete. Youngamerican 03:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is now an encyclopedia article about a slang term, not just a definition of one. Possibly move to taint (term) and disambiguate. Kappa 17:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much of the article, such as the parts about shaving and piercing, is about perinaea. Uncle G 04:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [[[question]]] for all those that have been wikipedia is not a dictionaring this term, I would like to ask them to go to the satanic entry and tell me if that is not JUST A DEFINTION, I am still learning about wikipedia. The article does NOT have a snub listing next to it, and I cant tell why it is allowed to stay. I put the question on the discussion page but have not gotten a response. I have been going over the rules since wangi sent them to me, but have yet to find a reason why this has seemingly slipped through the cracks. I dont want to put it up for deletion though if it IS legitimate.Pickelbarrel 18:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Chaos[edit]

Article is about a blog with no claim of notability or pretty much any other content. (The url is dailychaos.textamerica.com which isn't listed on the article). Alexa rank for the main site is pretty high, but under 1% of those hits go to this blog according to alexa. - Bobet 13:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Bloon[edit]

Another blog with no claim of notability. Alexa rank is 3,690,655. - Bobet 13:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE dbenbenn | talk 23:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Whitfield[edit]

Delete. This, like "Major Man", is not a notable character on the Powerpuff Girls series. Probably no one will ever bother researching his name, and I've never even heard of him. Marcus2 13:42, 3 January 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fancruft. Merge if you must, but this ios only a one-line stub. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with passion. Oh the stubby limbs! Also Fancruft. Dan 18:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. See no reason to delete as SW has been in a few episodes. -- JJay 21:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few episodes? That still does not warrant him to have his own article. He doesn't have his own article in Encarta Enclyclopedia. Heck, the Powerpuff Girls don't even have their own article either in that encyclopedia. Marcus2 12:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you suggesting we delete every article that does not have a counterpart in Encarta? That would be a sad day I hope I never see. -- JJay 18:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nope. I'm not suggesting that at all. Marcus2 21:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then why mention encarta? -- JJay 22:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we don't need another one line bio. Atrian 03:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete minor character. Chick Bowen 00:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitality[edit]

The subject of this article is unencyclopedic. Ryan Delaney talk 13:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. --Ryan Delaney talk 13:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless completely rewritten. bogdan 13:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as not a traditional (or it seems, desirable) encyclopedia topic. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Xenia (Greek), the current article has nothing worth saving, so I wouldn't object to a delete. But, maybe the redirect would be slightly better: Xenia means hospitality, and a user might go to Hospitality looking for it. -- Rmrfstar 14:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparent original research. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in current form. Is there an article on the Hospitality Industry though? Dan 18:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose Deletion: As it is, the article is a mere collection of Bible passages, but this could be a starting point for a better article; I'd never give up hope. Hospitality is an important subject for en encyclopedia; after all, it is an important cultural value, less so today and in the West perhaps, but much more in Oriental countries (and in Greece, obviously). If I'm not mistaken, the reason why the Taliban did not want to hand over Osama bin Laden to the U.S. before the Afghanistan War was precisely because he was their guest... Furthermore, I plan to expand Louis Massignon's view of hospitality.--Robin.rueth 21:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like Christian advertising. Might be worth a mention as part of a larger article. Needs more historical references than just the bible. Atrian 03:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Wikipedia needs an article on the various concepts of hospitality, even if this article does not even begin to cover it adequately. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect' to Xenia (Greek) per Rmrfstar. Chick Bowen 00:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Yes this needs a cleanup but not deletion. It should not be redirected to Xenia (Greek) since that article links here, there must be a reason for that. Linking to Xenia (Greek) will confuse most readers since that article will make no sense at all to them. Vegaswikian 08:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Make this a disambig page. Create two other articles Hospitality industry (to mirror Food industry a and other industries) and Hospitality (culture) that discusses Middle Eastern(Arab) rules of hospitality, Greek hospitality (Xenia is Greek hospitality, but not neccessarily norms that arabs follow), and any other hospitality norms that differ in various world cultures. Rationale is that hospitality as an industry is an unassailable fact (hotels, restaurants, etc.) and that hospitality as a cultural norm is established sociological phenomenon that people study and write papers about reference 1 reference 2 MPS 17:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. this has potential. it is useful. Kingturtle 06:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deleBRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPte DS 00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neurotic Burp Syndrome[edit]

Googling this 'syndrome' produced no hits whatsoever, except a Wikipedia mirror site. I don't think that NBS is a real syndrome at all. Smallbone10 13:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reid Sacco[edit]

Non notable. 165 google hits, many dealing with how he placed in swim races. I feel bad listing it, but it just seems to me that it doesn't meet notability criteria. --jfg284 you were saying? 14:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic and cladistic analyses of ancient and modern day Egyptians[edit]

Orphaned AfD (tag byt no article). This article has a strong smell of original research about it, but beyond that I can't say a lot since I'm just the janitor... May be a bad faith nomination on the part of User:Aleverde who is actively trying to save the article on the anonymous bigot "Ali Sina". - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No references, looks like original speculation, or a psuedo-scientific story. Dominick (TALK) 14:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless referenced. I have tried and failed to get some cross-check via Google. Charles Matthews 15:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It gives the impression of having been made up by the author (unless references can be found). Rhion 20:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable and/or original research. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 22:32Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 00:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Bishop[edit]

Googles as a striker for UK non-league York City soccer club. Article unreferenced. Subject may be notable and worth an article, but from the contributor's username it's possible this version qualifies as vanity. RobertG ♬ talk 14:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I doubt he's notable. I don't think we're in the habit of creating articles for every football player in the world are we? It's certainly not wikified! Dan 17:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think any professional footballer is notable enough. Needs tidying, though ArtVandelay13 18:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but expand. Professional footballer in the conference is notable enough to me, especially considering he was York's top scorer last season. Englishrose 19:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep arent professional sportsmen auto keeps? 80.177.152.156 22:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable(?) football player. I've cleaned it up. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 22:38Z
  • Delete what? Every Conference player is notable? Hell no!  Grue  09:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment,what about a former Blackburn Rovers player? What about being York's top scorer? Englishrose 12:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. he's a top dog. Kingturtle 06:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, apparently. r3m0t talk 02:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Crowley[edit]

From speedy. Supposedly makes no claims to notability. These days, people seem to want these claims to be as clear as a high school student essay. ;) No vote. r3m0t talk 02:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Till Noon[edit]

Non-notable program for college radio station at SUNY Plattsburgh. Importance not asserted. Hurricane111 15:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. After removing those participating with a clear agenda, the consensus to delete is pretty clear. -Splashtalk 00:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Veritas Society[edit]

Non-notable website, Alexa rating of 2,700,000, possible vanity. Delete. Kuzaar 15:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 16:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pn. I did laugh in a most puerile fashion when I read "stimulate their members" though! Ha. :D Dan 17:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 02:37Z
  • Keep. Seriously, what's non-notable? Go through the Category:Organizations page and tell me what makes those notable and not the Veritas Society, with over 3000 members. The Veritas Society's "Alexa rating" is higher than The Cricket Society, the Kwan Um School of Zen, and the Soto Zen Buddhist Association. It's also 65 times the size of the Lebanese Club at MIT, and clearly draws more traffic and with a higher pagerank than Nerds With Attitude. It more than fills the established standards for notable organizations. If the first page is written badly, just fix it and keep it when there's an actual organization to be described. MattKolter 05:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can see, all of these organizations were formally founded outside of the internet, which to my knowledge the "Veritas Society" cannot claim. This is why the Alexa rating, inconsequential for a number of those societies you listed, is an important factor in deciding how notable this article's subject is. -Kuzaar 14:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, the Google Test returns less than 100 unique hits, as compared to 12,800 for The Cricket Society or 35,000 for the Kwan Um School of Zen. Being that the article's subject originated apparently on a forum, it's a safe bet to assume that our subject here is non-notable. -Kuzaar 14:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Chick Bowen 00:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I fail to see how an society that has affected 3000 members and even more visitors can't be considered notable. Orthas
  • Keep I agree with the above statement. Kiz
  • Keep As do I. Wil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.48.237 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep I just hope people don't vote delete purely because they don't like the site... Talyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.10.89 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Looks notable to me... Creature — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreatureOfLegend (talk • contribs)
    • Comment. We aren't considering deletion because we don't like the site. Maybe because we've never heard of it or maybe never seen it. It just doesn't appear notable enough to deserve a WP article. If you people above can provide evidence to the effect that it meets WP:WEB then maybe you might have more chance. Dan 18:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alexa rating of 2,700,000 just doesn't cut it. --kingboyk 20:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with orthas awell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noj (talk • contribs)
  • Comment From what I can tell, an unsigned contribution by 144.136.59.238 (probably a sockpuppet) was deleted from this point. The edit history is a bit confusing so I've given up. --kingboyk 10:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Comment Kingboyk - It was deleted by the author, due to a change of opinion.
  • Comment I'd like to call into question all of these people who've registered just to vote on this AFD, either as sockpuppets or an attempt to rig the vote via their forum. Namely, Orthas and everyone who voted keep after them. Also, as an aside, it's an alexa RANKING. Lower is better. A rating of 2,700,000 denotes an extremely low volume of traffic. Therefore, this webpage doesn't meet ANY of the criteria for notability. Kuzaar 14:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. notable. Kingturtle 06:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. Might I add at this point that I count 7 legitimate votes to delete and 2 legitimate votes to keep. VegaDark 23:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CoStar_Group[edit]

Advertisement Delete kernoz 15:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and wish there was a way to Speedy adverts. Kuzaar 15:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pn. That would be a very good idea, Kuzaar. Dan 17:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't think it's necessary to be able to speedy ads - (1) they are often copyright violations and can be speedied as such, (2) some articles are harder to identify for certain, and (3) often they are better targets for cleanup than deletion. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable corporation, advertising. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 02:36Z
  • Keep and tag for clean-up. I work in the real estate industry and it is a very well known company. The article is poorly written, and needs help, though. TMS63112 18:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. there are 74,000 google hits for "CoStar Group". there is absolutely no reason to delete this article. if it is deleted, it will prove an absurdity. Kingturtle 06:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swimmer's Ear Magazine[edit]

Google shows me a total of 23 hits, a large percentage of which are on personal blogs. Delete as non-notable publication. JHMM13 (T | C) 15:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete doesn't meet notability criteria. What a shame that in the future, all knowledge of this publication might be lost to the world! Dan 17:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - so much work for a non-notable publication ! JoJan 18:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not even as notable as the average fanzine. --kingboyk 20:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --rogerd 04:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tarran[edit]

Completely idiosyncratic non-topic Delete kernoz 15:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepwalker band[edit]

Non-notable band, as defined in WP:MUSIC Dave3421 15:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, according to their site, they just released their first album, which sold over 100 copies based on the newest info available. Doesn't qualify per WP:MUSIC. - Bobet 16:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dan 17:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If a band can't make it in the real world, they can't make it here doktorb | words 19:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable musical group. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 22:39Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claxton, Prank Caller[edit]

Claims notability but I can't find any trace of them. No mentions of the supposed group beyond wikipedia after googling for Claxton+prank and Claxton+crank The name was added to the list of prank call comedians by the same person who created this article. - Bobet 16:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Road Tower Christmas[edit]

A stub about a TV mast in Christmas, Florida. Non-notable. --Thorri 16:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete all four articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crawford J. Bennett, Evreísmo, Hebreísmo, Clay theory[edit]

These pages create a group that only reference each other. "Crawford J. Bennett" gets 7 google hits, none of them mentioning the other supposed theories. - Bobet 16:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venture50[edit]

Advertisement for website with low Alexa rank. Delete. Kusma (討論) 17:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete blatant advertisement (and completely unoriginal idea but that's beside the point) --Spondoolicks 17:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete you can tell from the first line that it's going to be and advert. Dan 17:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website and blatant advertising. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 20:06Z
  • Delete advert --rogerd 04:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chiisume[edit]

Fake fictional being. Pokemoncruftcruft. Delete. Kusma (討論) 17:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete pn. Dan 17:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. If these were created officially as an April Fool's joke (rather than by fans), they might warrant a mention in a list of Pokemon characters. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 20:06Z
  • Delete NN --rogerd 04:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, leaning to merge/redirect. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lindsay Lohan Remixes[edit]

An article on one of Lohan's songs is good enough. An individual article documenting the remixes of her songs is completely pointless. Remove it. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge/redirect to Lindsay Lohan and don't waste our time with another needless AFD. --Rob 19:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another needless AfD? Laughable. If this one is needless, then every single other AfD is needless. If I believe that there is an article that is not required on Wikipedia, I will nominate it for deletion. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You didn't appreciate why I said it was needless. I didn't vote a simple keep, I voted merge/redirect. You can place a redirect without an AFD. If this was List of Jo Blough Remixes, an AFD would be warranted. You could put in a redirect by youself, in under a minute. Instead, you'll waste 5-days, and several peoples time. Also, next time you do an AFD, be sure to put the text "AFD" in the edit summary, so watchers of the article are aware of what you've done. Also, as deletion is not "minor" please don't mark the addition of the AFD tag as a "minor edit", as you did. --Rob 20:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would rather list it here then start a possible edit war with several other users. A poll is better-suited than an argument. By the way, I will click the "minor edit" if I want to. Please don't start a silly argument with me here. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're welcome to use minor edit when you want, and not put in an edit description if you don't want. However, you'll find that others will assume all your edits to be major, and in need of review if you follow such a practice. --Rob 20:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- Rob 20:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge is certainly reasonable. This is not, and doesn't look like it even could be, an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure I agree that the Afd is pointless tho. It gives us the chance to come to the conclusion that this list should not be an entire article by itself. I've no prejudice against some of the content being merged elsewhere, as appropriate. Friday (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. BTW, depending how the Afd goes, it might make it harder to merge. There seems to be a growing feeling that a prior Afd prevents merging after it's over. I don't agree with this even a little bit, but many other editors apparently think that way. Also, I'm not sure this is useful as a redirect, so even if merging is the main goal, the deletion question probably still needs to be resolved. Friday (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge/redirect I agree with Friday. WhiteNight T | @ | C 20:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I though generally merge+delete (combined) is not an option, due to GFDL, which requies retention of edit history of old article, if its content are used in another article, in order to ensure attribution requirements are met. --Rob 20:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be, I'm far from an expert on licensing issues. At any rate, there's no actual content here, so maybe it's not an issue in this case? If the names of notable remixes get used elsewhere, who's to say that it came from this article and not from a CD jacket or somewhere else? Friday (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, there isn't much content. So delete/redirect (no merge) would be legit. --Rob 21:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Extraordinary Machine nailed my opinion: Unless a remix is demonstrably known as well as (or better than) the original, its worthiness of any mention at all is dubious at best. I say, lose it completely. RadioKirk (talk to me) 23:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on the Mariah Carey precedent. -- Mikeblas 17:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. I don't believe this belongs in the main article. I would also remind Mr. Kirk that vote tallies are frowned upon. -- JJay 21:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see... RadioKirk talk to me 21:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...because like in this case they are prone to error, POV based and designed to influence voting trends. They often lead to bold predictions or statements of fact not grounded in reality. They can mislead or intimidate. In short, they are disruptive and do not facilitate reaching consensus. -- JJay 21:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be honest, I find that something of an overreaction. There was no running tally; rather, I intentionally waited until there was a significant period of inactivity before noting the tally. If you wish to see that as "disruptive", well, that's your prerogative; I happen to disagree. RadioKirk talk to me 22:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was this unexplained edit, which was diruptive. The closing admin can count, and won't need your tally assistance. --Rob 22:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. RadioKirk talk to me 22:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

After nearly two days of nonactivity, the vote (including multiple options) stands at 6 for deletion, 3 for merging, 2 for redirection. RadioKirk talk to me 17:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge/redirect to Lindsay Lohan. I agree. having this separate list is confusing. Atrian 03:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Information is verifiable, and would only crowd the main Lindsay Lohan. This is exactly the sort of thing that usually warrants a page of its own when the main page gets too big. Lists of things in particular are good candidates from splitting off from other pages. Turnstep 17:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't feel that a list of this type is an indiscriminate collection of information? It sure doesn't look like an encyclopedia article to me. Friday (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all, this is not a random collection of data, this is a tightly focused list. It certainly does not fall into any of the eight examples on the aforementioned page. Turnstep 18:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 note that copyvio takes precedence over consensus, thus WP:CP overrides AfD, and this article should have been blanked as usual and sent there. -Splashtalk 00:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pinsky[edit]

This was tagged afor speedy deletion. Now, although this is obviously a vanity article (see name of article's creator), it should be noted that Wikipedia:Deletion_of_vanity_articles states "Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion.". The article states "He received an Art for Architecture award from the RSA and his exhibition Pontis was shortlisted for the prestigious Gulbenkian Museums Award.", which sounds a plausible basis for notability. As for me, I have no interest in art or artists so I'm leaving this matter for others to judge. A bit iffy 17:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear particularly notable. Article written by User:Mpinsky. If kept, requires major cleanup. You can call me Al 17:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - sounds like a major artist but people shouldn't be writing about themselves. All this user's contributions have been self-promoting - hardly NPOV. Only keep if someone else does a balanced rewrite. Pdean 17:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment This page is a copyvio from michaelpinsky.com, so if not speedied, then needs tagging for copyvio anyway. (I'm not sure what takes precedence) MNewnham 19:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also appears to be a notable but vanity to me. Cleanup (obviously, since copyvio). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 19:58Z
  • Delete. nn vanity. I don't know if it's a copyvio if it's written by the same person, though. --Deathphoenix 20:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Carlson[edit]

Probably not yet notable. I can't find anything about her movie Making-of anywhere apart from her personal website and this seems to be her only possible claim to fame at the moment. I'd say delete and recreate when she has achieved notability. Spondoolicks 17:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Operant conditioning. -Splashtalk 01:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avoidance learning[edit]

Afd on Avoidance learning


I believe this is covered in :Operant conditioning I'd say it is just listed somewhere on the operant conditioning 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. -Splashtalk 01:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Centofanti[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 18:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Bio of an accomplished artist; 1,100 Google hits JoJan 18:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - there are hundreds upon hundreds of artists with similar bios. Nothing notable about this artist. Wanda5088 02:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Artwork has only been sold on eBay and books are self-published. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 19:50Z
  • Delete NN does not meet WP:BIO --rogerd 04:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Ramsoomair[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 18:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 gravity - brenneman(t)(c) 07:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity field[edit]

This article is superfluous as articles on gravitational field and gravity already exist. MP (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted under expanded A7 - Lucky 6.9 23:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Makeshift Heroes[edit]

Afd on The Makeshift Heroes

Following usual guidelines for bands.


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punkobeat[edit]

So subcultural that there are no Google hits and no internal wikilinks. Delete. Gobeirne 18:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craigstrome[edit]

no what or why a couple of houses deserve their own article JBellis 18:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Benbecula JoJan 19:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone familiar with the subject provide some context? Is it really "a couple of houses" or a town or something else? Geographical locations are in general kept but small neighborhoods are not. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 19:39Z
  • Map sources for Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 3 --JBellis 22:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per JoJan. Atrian 03:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN not much here to merge, and who's gonna do it? --rogerd 03:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Jevons[edit]

Jevons is probably worth an entry, but this is just an attack (or at the very least opinion), with no actual content ArtVandelay13 18:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep since nominator says the subject is notable. I've cleaned up the article. (There were only 2 words that were non-NPOV. It would have been a lot easier to clean it up than bring the article to AFD.) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 19:35Z
  • Merge an article with one line in it? It's better just to mention this on the club article, unless P.J. has done something notable. Atrian 03:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've done a quick expansion job to make it more encyclopedic. Given some of the players who have articles on here, I reckon this one deserves to stay in. Keresaspa 14:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's properly factual now so there is no need to delete it as it is a serious article.
  • Yeah, Keep now that it's a proper article. Is it normal to vote against oneself...? ArtVandelay13 16:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, Keep changing my vote. Looks good now. Atrian 19:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - Jevons scored four goals the match that Grimsby beat Barnsley 6-1 ! He's a legend in our time ! Andyd 09:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honeypump[edit]

Appears to be an advertisement for a Boston booking agent. Added at the same time as now-afd'd articles ben sisto and board.honeypump.net. Most of the article, just added today, is the content from the 2nd deleted article. Joyous | Talk 18:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ipodify[edit]

Looks like a neologism which is not in common use (268 google hits). The site referenced as having popularised the term doesn't seem to use it at all (it does however use iPopified). David Johnson [T|C] 18:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Savage[edit]

Danielle Savage was born on December 5,1997.She is the daughter of Jill Wallace and Lee Savage.She is an American Actress/Singer/Dancer.She has been in 2 Plays.She is mostly known from her YouTube webshow "That Crazy Show".She was born in Bastrop,Louisiana.Her mother Jill,is Filipino,and her father Lee,is Cherokee Indian.She has 7 siblings.They are Destiny,Dustin,Kenny,Dean,Delayna,and Deana.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trendy asian bitch[edit]

Not only is this a copyright violation but it's not very encyclopaedic. 509 results in google and most of them have identical text to the site this article was copied from. wikipedia entry link PdDemeter 19:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not even remotely encyclopaedic. David Johnson [T|C] 20:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tut, tut. Dan 20:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely unencyclopedic (unverifiable, original research, can never be NPOV, could be considered attack page). Copyvio. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 22:59Z
  • Delete per above. NeoJustin 23:21, January 3, 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as copyvio. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: copyvios can only be speedy deleted if they come from the website of a commercial content provider, which this one evidently didn't. See WP:CSD. David Johnson [T|C] 01:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. goodbye. Incognito 05:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Lauesen[edit]

Non-notable person in non-notable band. No google links other than there own page on MyMusic.dk Twthmoses 19:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shane O'Looney[edit]

This is an obvious vanity page MSJapan 20:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Creery[edit]

Article has been tagged as unverified since October. It looks like nonsense and/or a hoax to me. Delete. David Johnson [T|C] 20:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boxcasting[edit]

Delete, non-notable neo that admits itself in the final paragraph of the article. Borderline speedy as hoax.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 20:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 possibly speedy as an attack page). -Mysekurity 01:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penuz[edit]

dick-def neologism Segv11 (talk/contribs) 20:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -Splashtalk 01:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quietdrive[edit]

Vanity, advertising James084 20:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, there's a rule about non-notable bands somewhere, I haven't bothered to look it up yet, but I'm pretty sure it applies here. Obli (Talk) 20:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under Unremarkable people or groups as per WP:CSD. David Johnson [T|C] 21:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Delete. Not a speedy, but still a non-notable band IMO. David Johnson [T|C] 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. Much as I like blowing off NN band vanity, a contract with Epic Records and availability on iTunes makes this one rise above the rest, at least in my opinion. - Lucky 6.9 23:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a speedy candidate then, but they've still only released three tracks which, as far as I can tell, haven't seen much success. Being signed with a major label doesn't give notability - it may suggest that they'll achieve it in the future, but it doesn't make them notable now (IMO). David Johnson [T|C] 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to Regulated prostitution. -Splashtalk 01:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prostitutes here[edit]

Not notable. Could at least be merged with another article about prostitution (Prostitution in Germany perhaps?) WMarsh 20:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete not a notable subject. Shouldn't the afd tag be placed on the article, instead of the talk page? Andries 20:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am half asleep, sorry. I've fixed it now.WMarsh 21:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leifi[edit]

Article about a Swedish internet meme, may or may not have been featured on radio shows, all I know is that these prank calls were supposedly 'funny' for about a month. Obli (Talk) 20:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JoeJoe[edit]

Vanity linkfarming. -- Krash 21:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - brenneman(t)(c) 07:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winnacunnet High School[edit]

Virtually no content here, and this information already at List of high schools in New Hampshire. Dyslexic agnostic 21:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article doesn't meet the inclusion criteria at Wikipedia:Schools. David Johnson [T|C] 21:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Keep now that it has been expanded. David Johnson [T|C] 23:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: before anyone else says it, I know the stuff at Wikipedia:Schools isn't policy, but I think the criteria given there are fair. David Johnson [T|C] 21:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read the whole proposal. It calls for merging substubs, but not deletion. In fact using merges as an alternative to substubs and AFDs, was the whole basis of the compromise. A merge/redirect, allows for an editor in the future, to expand information on the school, and undo the redirect, making a full sized article --Rob 22:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added a few sentences and a link to the school history. This should be sufficient to allow someone to expand the article. Movementarian 21:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Jcuk 22:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletions. -- Rob 22:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with district unless expanded to meet and hopefully surpass WP:SCH.Gateman1997 22:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most high schools have articles. There's enough here to be worthy of expansion. -Drdisque 22:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 23:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very little of the information is in the list. CalJW 00:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with duistrict. There is inadequate information to justify maintaining a separate article. Denni ☯ 02:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and do not merge). Meets notability. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not a requirement of school articles per the new WP:SCH proposal.Gateman1997 04:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Read further... that's not consensus! Dyslexic agnostic 05:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What's not consensus? Consensus was reached weeks ago that the WP:SCH requirements should guide us, and notability wasn't one of them (and mind you I wish it were but I'm realistic).Gateman1997 06:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable school. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while there *might* be some consensus that some schools should be merged, there is no consensus that they should ever be deleted, so listing on AfD is not appropriate unless a hoax is suspected. 35,000 Google hits tells me this is a real school. Turnstep 18:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a notable school. --Terence Ong Talk 14:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this school is notable too Yuckfoo 02:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miss tabasco[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:Music Esprit15d 21:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Possibly a speedy candidate, but I think I saw something in there mildly resembling a assertion of notability. Movementarian 21:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • don'T delete: she's notable in montreal, look on google--tb 21:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be noted that the above comment is from the creator of the article. David Johnson [T|C] 21:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't seem notable enough for Wikipedia. David Johnson [T|C] 21:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And I'm from Montreal. Ifnord 22:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable musical group. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 23:24Z
  • Delete, 10 unique Google hits for "Miss Tabasco", most of which refer to a registered dog or a quarterhorse. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GemBox Software[edit]

Barely notable company selling .Net software. This page and others related to this company were all added by User_talk:Zsvedic Richard W.M. Jones 21:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Richard W.M. Jones 21:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ExcelLite[edit]

Barely notable .Net software. This page and others related to this company were all added by User_talk:Zsvedic Richard W.M. Jones 21:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Richard W.M. Jones 21:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plotches[edit]

Silly neologism. I believe it's a candidate for speedy delete but others may disagree, hence AfD. Ifnord 22:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a candidate for speedy delete, the author of the page, originally mentioned his family in the page. Then linked to a page on his cousins who 'invented' the term, a page that has already been speedily deleted --Hahaandy1 22:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond blade[edit]

delete non-notable wrestler for unreferenced organization, no notable google hits Drdisque 22:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virago[edit]

Wikipedia is not a thesaurus or (an etymological, philological and otherwise) dictionary. El_C 22:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The basic meaning of this term is a dictionary definition. It has become the target of an editor who is trying to insert original research that has been rejected by all of the other editors. -Will Beback 23:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page is apparently the project of an anonymous user who is using it to push his own POV. Earlier versions of the article were in clear violation of NOR and NPOV. The author claimed that he was presenting an established anthropological theory. I used several search-engines, for anthropology, medical, social sciences, and biological sciences databases, to look for articles on "virago." I found none, with the exception of a few biology journals that discussed a species of fly called "virago" (in these cases, virago was neither a concept nor a concept applied to humans, merely the latin name of a species of fly). I have found no evidence whatsoever to support the author's claims, and conclude that he is pushing original research. On the discussion page he has suggested that the "suppression" of theories of "virago" were the result of a Jewish conspiracy. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A Virago is a "man-like woman" and is thematically related to the idea of the Amazons. In the Middle Ages there arose a popular myth that the so-called "Red Jews" were forging an alliance with the Amazons (Viragos) to crush Christendom. See: Gow (1995) The red Jews: Antisemitism in an apocalyptic age, 1200-1600. [12][13]--Cberlet 23:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Take out the rambling and bigoted OR and the remainder dwindles to a dictdef. Durova 23:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Delete, lock tight, and throw away the key. Durova 12:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable and/or original research. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 23:27Z
  • Delete. This is clearly a POV article that is a glorified Dictionary definition rather than an encyclopedia article. I concur with all above-stated reasons for deletion. drboisclair 23:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most of the edits to this article are spent reverting a piece of anthropological heresy. --JPotter 00:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 00:16, January 4, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef turned personal essay. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The reasons for deletion have been well documented by Slrubenstein and others above. Sunray 01:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Steve. Guettarda 01:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. KHM03 01:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wiki is not dict, nor soapbox, nor journal for original research. --StanZegel (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and monitor subsequent contributions by the author of the content. 172 06:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Lock if only to prevent the very, very persistent anonymous user from recreating it. Or is there a way to prevent a deleted article from being recreated? If so, delete. --Brazzy 10:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is. Deleted titles can be locked. :) El_C 13:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nominator and StanZegel. Jayjg (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • double-delete in well-recorded memory of some shallow leftist deputies and their I-googled-holocaust-but -I couldn't-find-anything mentality (creating the brand-new 2005 leftist "bibliographical holocaust" unknown to the astonished public before) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.138.182.231 (talk • contribs) Jan. 4, 2006.Please delete Rubenstein's leftist lexicographic trash irreversibly which doesn't fit in this encyclopedia.Thank you.
  • Delete yup, it's a dictionary listing, and as noted above, a persistant target for a vandal who wishes to push his personal POV and original research. I've removed the vandalism from this article many times. --Krich (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have been here before see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virago. There is an encyclopaedia article on the subject of Virago that goes beyond a mere dictionary definition. It seems its too much for us to cope with though. Suggest locking for a cool off period of 6 months. Lumos3 09:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We already have articles on gender and gender difference, which is where any scientific material on this theme belongs. Why create a new article when we have an older, well established one to work on? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Other editors have since confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt that this is not a scientific term. All material that goes beyond a dictdef is original research of the worst sort. Durova 18:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, suggested move to Wikitionary, if it doesn't exist over there. --Terence Ong Talk 14:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and lock. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but encyclopedic articles about interesting words are abundant and desirable. "Virago" qualifies as an interesting word, because 1) it had formerly a positive connotation, then for a long time a negative one, until it was reclaimed as positive by feminists; 2) it was the original name of Eve in the Bible. These facts are not suitable for Wiktionary.
    It appears that people want to delete this article as an easy way to deal with a persistent anonymous POV-pusher/racist/sexist. The proper way to deal with this problem is to block or lock, not to delete an otherwise worthy article. AxelBoldt 22:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Axel, what is your evidence thaat Virago was the original name for Eve in the Bible? I know of no such evidence. It is used in the Latin Vulgate (by no means the "original" Bible) as a translation for the Hebrew word Isha. In Hebrew, "man" is "Ish" and Genesis 2:23 says Adam called woman "woman" because she came out of "man" (called "isha" "isha" because she came out of "ish") - the Vulgate translates "isha" as verago in order to maintain the pun, a word for woman that has within it the word for man. It is a clever translation (of woman, not the "name" for Eve), nothing more. It certainly is not being used as some "concept." "Isha" in the Hebrew Bible, "Virago" in the Latin translation of the Bible, and "Woman" in the English translation of the Bible, all mean the same thing: generic "woman." Once again the author of this article has made up out of thin air, or misconstrued and distorted, something to suit his own POV arguments. (Slrubenstein | Talk 23:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I have no knowledge of the connection of Eve and Virago beyond what's in the article right now. What you write above is interesting to me, and deserves to be put in the article. It appears as if "virago" is simply the Latin word for "woman" then? If the current version of the article is POV, then it needs to be fixed, not deleted. I don't know whether and I am not claiming that there is any "concept" known as "Virago", but there certainly is a word "Virago", and there are plenty of worthwhile things to be said about that word. One could even mention that some racist/sexist anthropologists use(d) the word to denote a (fictional/discredited) concept [if that is true, which I don't know]. So I'll modify my vote above to Keep, edit, and lock. AxelBoldt 18:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read it on www.sciforums.com, Mr.Rubenstein. But please open your eyes before. Dixitque Adam: “Haec nunc os ex ossibus meis et caro de carne mea! Haec vocabitur Virago, quoniam de viro sumpta est haec."

If you are not Axel, please sign your name. You quote the Vulgate. So what? What is your point? Here is the verse in Hebrew: וַיֹּאמֶר, הָאָדָם, זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם"מֵעֲצָמַי, וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי; לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה, כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקְחָה-זֹּאת. And here is the verse in English "And the man said: 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.'" So what is your point? The Latin word for man is "viro" and the Latin word for woman is "virago." So what? It is just a translation. What bearing does your quote have on this discussion? Should we have an article on "ossibus" and "carne?" They appear in the same verse, why not have articles that provide us with the translation of these words? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Axel, my main point is tht the anonymous contributor keeps adding false material. He does it again, in the above quote from the Vulgate. Yes, it uses the word "virago." No, it is not using "virago" to mean "Eve" (the proper name). Eve in Hebrew is Hava; woman is isha. The Vulgate is using "virago" as a translation for isha (woman) not for Eve. Look at the verse in any English Bible and you will see Adam saying that he will call it "woman." Just like the English word "woman" has within it the word "man," (or, the English word "female" has within it the word "male") and just as the Hebrew word for woman, "isha" has within it the Hebrew word for man, "ish," the translator wanted a Latin word for woman that had within it a root for man. The root is "vir" from which we get "virile." But it is also the source of the word "virgo" (meaning, a maiden or virgin female). Now, Axel, do you really think we should have an article on the latin word for "woman?" Should we have an article on all Latin words? The Vulgate uses the word "virago" to mean "woman" because that is what the word means. The problem with the anonymous user's material is not so much tht it is POV (although it is), but it is all original research that contradicts verifible sources. Axel, if you remove all the original research and non-verifiable claims from the article, nothing is left but a definition! And Wikipedia is not a dictionary! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that the anonymous editor keeps adding false/original/POV/non-verifiable material is a reason to block or lock, but not to delete the article altogether. I disagree with the claim that the only worthwhile thing to be said about this word is its definition. You yourself have said plenty of interesting things about it on this very page, including the reason of its use in the vulgate (was it invented for that purpose?) -- after all, Latin has at least two other, more common words for "woman". Furthermore, the word is used in English and its various connotations trace out an interesting history. None of this is suitable for Wiktionary. But I'm repeating myself. AxelBoldt 20:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Axel, please check virago in the Martin -Saller -Knußmann manual which has been setting t h e world standard since 1914 for physical anthropology.This is no joke. It is a sad thing that Mr.Rubenstein wants to present me as Anti-Semitic, but I am only anti-nitwit.I am a professor of anthropology with 45 years of experience. I travelled all 5 continents and made important contributions to anthropology. One anthropological journal elected me one of the most influential 200 anthropologists of all times .Virago is an important concept being at least 3500 years old inclusively its racial implications. Every statement of mine is true and correct. The old article was not racist or sexist.It e.g. contained positive statements about the Mongolid race. Please, Axel, check the Babylonian " salzikrum " concept in the Codex Hammurapi and all the other sources. Mr. Rubenstein is obviously not able to read German scientific literature.Mr. Rubenstein is only confusing you with the vulgate stuff Sunray or Wilmcw have introduced later on.

False. Edit history reveals that on this page it was you who introduced the Vulgate quotation: [14] Slrubenstein | Talk 19:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False: we are talking about the article , I referred to the article where you introced the OED definition with Eve. Stop this nonsense to have something "unbiased" ! Here we have an unprecedented event in the history of anthropogy the total denial of classic concepts even the old Boasians haven't dared to do.Stop this counterfeiting and smear campaign!Go back to the kindergarten where you belong!80.138.180.99 21:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • For those of you who want to know what Mr. Famous-but-Nameless is talking about, Martin, Saller, and Knußmann provide methods for measuring human morphology, such as skeletal remains. Such data can be very useful in determining the sex and age of the deceased and, in combination with other data, can be useful in determining other factors involving the health of the deceased. By the way, most scientists think there are seven continents, not five. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Axel read the manuals, read Weininger (he contributed the "m-f-scale"), the Prussian Max Hartmann who gained world fame for his three laws of sexuality, read the previous version of this article, google "Lesbian+iq" for the higher IQ of Lesbians,you will find charts including races, too, read about the racial implications of masculinity and feminity in Knußman, read about the pedomorphous feminity of the Sanid race in John Randal Baker's "Race"(Oxford University Press,1974)etc.Especially Antarctica is important for anthropology. Hahaha! Mr.Rubenstein presents Knußmann et al. as ridiculous "bonemen" (macabre connotation).Mr. Rubenstein must take not of the fact that the overwhelming percentage is not about sceletal measuring in each of the about 10 classics I cited. He is obviously not able to understand German like Durova who according to her own statements can understand only easy German.Read the passages about virago and read about her aggressiveness, less heterosexual libido,higher homosexual libido, less fertility,proneness to leftist ideologies (Durova is the best example, as a soldier and virago according to her own statements who according to US military manuals explicitly should have an aggressive character ).Mr. Rubenstein and Durova can be called lays in some respects as they have not enough language skills that would enable them e.g. to get in Felix Moos's secret service projects and to read difficult German literature.I myself speak 7 languages fluently and including Russian , Mandarin,French,Spanish and Dutch, I started to learn Russian due to be a prisoner of war in the Second World War where I lost 2 fingers in the battle of Stalingrad as a lieutenant.Durova should not be too self-confident in her physical skills which she threatened to use against me (see discussion page) as I gained a close-combat medal in Russia during my service in the German Wehrmacht. Especially Mr.Rubenstein's bibliograpghical skills are deficient what you, Axel can easily detect. Axel,please check the sources and you will see that Mr. Rubenstein is wrong. He uses manipulative tactics,too, called "deception by only focussing on unimportant details.".His behaviour reflects a lack of experience due to his young age.Whether there are 5, 6 ot 7 continents e.g. is not important. I meant of course the classical account :Europe,Asia, Africa, America,Australia.Axel, let's do it as you and I have proposed. Let us write some sentences about the anthropological concept in a very critical form Mr. Rubenstein can also be happy with (if he r e a d s the sources). B u t the concept has been an important concept, being in the 1996 world standard manual, and must be included here !80.138.130.218 14:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicht wahr. Hatte ich einmal Fluenz in dieser Sprache mit einem Hamburger Akzent. Heute praktiziere ich selten zu Hause, und deshalb errinerre einige Stücke langsam. You're adept at distorting facts to suit your purposes. You don't know me and you have no business adding me to your trail of red herrings. It's time to put the article to rest. Durova 07:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many mistakes, d-level: it is not "Fluenz" being a funny Anglicism , it is "Flüssigkeit", "praktiziere " requires direct object missing here , it is "erinnern" and "ich erinnere" , not "Stücke " but "Strukturen" e.g only to mention the most severe mistakes. Your German is wrong and distorted. Could you check it before you show off next time ?

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gayby[edit]

neologism Sceptre (Talk) 23:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this should be deleted, as it is a rapidly growing Internet meme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.18.196 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete, appears to be nonsense. Evil Eye 01:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find nothing wrong with this article. I have seen it used in many online games and finally know the history behind it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.132.71 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete neologism, and please sign your comments using ~~~~. Dan 16:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Lucky 6.9. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 02:31Z

Puh[edit]

neologism Sceptre (Talk) 23:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Active M[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion for having "no encyclopedic content." At first glance, I thought it was another band vanity, but claims that newspaper articles have been written about them in The Sun, so I brought it to AfD instead. Googling reveals a number of hits as an up and coming band, but they seem to be unsigned still. howcheng {chat} 23:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • They have a collaboration with a Gorillaz member who is IN the encyclopaedia also, so this might give the entry some more weight. As for band vanity, I would assume that if this was the case - they have not included pictures or media content - so I assume it's not that. The articles all check out and I do work in the industry (music journalist) and they have featured in the NME and Q for example. I am assuming someone has put them on the map here as they are mooted as one of the 'next big things'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.115.246 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you get the issue numbers and dates of the articles? That would make them verifiable at least. howcheng {chat} 00:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They aren't big yet. Dan 16:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC --rogerd 03:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chatcake[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion as having "no encyclopedic content." It's a web site which is apparently down (under reconstruction), with an Alexa rank of > 600,000 and 8 unique links in according to Google. Fails WP:WEB. howcheng {chat} 23:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable website. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 23:30Z
  • Delete. A poorly written article about a non-notable website. If it were ever to become more notable and an article worthy, I think a new start would be better than allowing this article to be kept. Evil Eye 01:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My personal opinion is that it should have been speedied, but since this process has already begun, let's proceed. -- Phædriel 09:55, January 4, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pn non-notable. Dan 16:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. Incognito 05:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable website. --Terence Ong Talk 14:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 06:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penta Laboratories[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion (no reason given), but it's a company, a "world class manuracturer (sic) and distributor of a wide range of electron tubes." No vote. howcheng {chat} 23:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak keep. The company does appear like it might be somewhat notable. Google throws up just short of 2000 hits, all of which must be about this company due to the obscure name [15]. However most of the article seems to be copied from their own website [16]. I'm not sure how this stands for any copyright violation however. Evil Eye 01:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as copyvio. Retagged as such. Chick Bowen 00:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teaboy[edit]

Was tagged for speedy as patent nonsense, which it isn't. However, appears to be complete bollocks. I did find some news articles about people who are/used to be tea boys [17] [18], but nothing about a worldwide strike. Googling "Samantha Progden" also gets zero hits. howcheng {chat} 23:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The worldwide strike did occur, it was just widely under-reported. Which is a shame, really, as it was a step up for teaboys everywhere. You try working the bottom rung of the career ladder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredbaty (talk • contribs) 2006-01-04 00:28:47 UTC
  • Delete. For a news story to get no hits in Google (none for Samantha Progden), then I think it's non-notable enough not to be included here. If someone wants to start a proper article only about the profession of a tea-boy, then let them start from scratch. Evil Eye 01:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 02:25Z
  • Delete pn. Dan 16:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F.E.L.L.P.[edit]

Neologism/dicdef. Absolutely no relevant Google hits. - ulayiti (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_3&oldid=1116878868"