Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 5

< January 4	January 6 >

Purge server cache

January 5[edit]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP due to this request not being possible. Mo0[talk] 05:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Ottl[edit]

I want all my wiki page creations deleted and my account deleted. Kingjeff 03:51, 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 KEEP Babajobu 01:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of Scotland[edit]

Delete. This article is nothing more than copy-paste from Scotland article. Luka Jačov 12:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This looks like a valid split from the main Scotland article. Looks like this will develop into a complete article of it's own (and probably the economy section in the main Scotland article will need to be shortened). Unless I'm wrong in how article slits are done... --Petros471 16:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Better than no "Economy of Scotland". --Kilo-Lima 17:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Scotland article was getting far too big and desperately needs splitting. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 19:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this happens all the time. Gazpacho 19:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others above. Yeltensic42.618 23:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there is potential to mature over a period of time. --Bhadani 06:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. --Terence Ong ^Talk 08:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, splitting is needed when another article gets to be too long. — TheKMan^talk 23:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was created as part of the on-going effort to get the main Scotland article up to Featured status. It was a Requested article at the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board. This is an extensive and complex topic, and as a very new article it is not bad: there is tons of scope for this to become a truly excellent article. Economic history of Scotland will likely be a necessary spin-off in the foreseeable future, if anyone is feeling keen :)--Mais oui! 20:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I can't believe this article was nominated for deletion! Astrotrain 22:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as copyright material.--File Éireann 00:50, 5 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 Babajobu 01:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Network Anatomy (disambiguation)[edit]

This page, like NetworkAnatomy itself, violates WP:VAIN, created by NetworkAnatomy (talk · contribs) whose edit summaries identifies her as a "company staff member" of the company in question. Beyond that, though, this isn't a disambiguation page for different articles that might be confused with each other, it's a list of different "meanings" for variations on "network" and "anatomy" with external links. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 02:33Z
Delete per nom. -- WB 06:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanispamcruftisement, as nominated. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Dragonfiend 15:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 19:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 21:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.It isn't a disambiguation page and it is confusing.--Dakota ~ ε 22:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Terence Ong ^Talk 08:28, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girl gamer[edit]

Delete, maybe merge Having this as a separate article from gamers is pretty much just sexism. 67.184.38.183 (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why "girl gamer" needs its own article. Delete it and maybe put a paragraph about girls in gaming culture in another article. Scottmso 00:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Phenomenon in male-dominated gaming world. Needs references though. -- JJay 01:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe merge. This article is little more than a drawn out, pretentiously written dicdef, mixed with some original research. The subject merits a mention in a gaming culture article, but I don't think there's anything here worth using. Actually, I think most of the articles about gaming culture could use an overhaul/rewrite, since they suffer from unsourced original research and social commentary. See Video game player, hardcore gamer, Indie gaming and others. Night Gyr 01:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak~~ keep Sure, why not? Youngamerican 04:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: I'm switching to plain old, regular keep, since the term/trend seems quite common now, moreso than your run-of-the-mill neologism. Youngamerican 01:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I could see how this could expand, but current state looks rather funny. -- WB 06:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nominator.--Dakota ~ ε 07:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At best Merge, but even making it good enough for a subsection of another article will take some editing. A.J.A. 07:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Expand, I think the title itself sounds funny and encourages people to think it is a pointless article, using the word "female" instead of "girl" will warrant a more serious look at the implications of the subject. I also think that there could be psychological issues to be looked at which could be very helpful to people. We should expand the article with a bit more of a scientific and factual meaning behind the idea; and then link to it from the main video game articles. ArgentiumOutlaw 07:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per JJay — J3ff 08:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 40k google and some references have been added -- Astrokey44|talk 10:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sufficiently obvious as not to require definition. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-known referenced phenomenon. I would love the phrasing to be to the point at the start, though. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've seem this phrase being used in few differnet places and can perhaps see why people might want to look up what it is all about and why it is used.Evil Eye 13:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I hate the term. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 14:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kep and expand, particularly with reference to games other than video games. Stifle 14:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Wow, girls who play games?! I'd say delete, but the info about these women becoming minor celebs is quite interesting. --kingboyk 17:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, are we going to seperate male and female masseuses now? The article offers no actual information, is heavily POV (males' general societal awkwardness, inherent sexual attraction, etcetera), and only aggravates furthering stereotypes. As a gamer, I sure as feck don't care if you have a penis or a vagina, and there's definitely no "inherent sexual attraction" to you Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 19:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. The subject of female gamers is a hot subject of study at the moment, in a field that is perceived as being men-only. At a time when gaming is transgressing gender borders, this is a particularly relevant subject. Perhaps move to Women in video gaming. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 19:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary topic that hardly warrants encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus 19:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I recommend changing the title to something of a more encyclopedic tone. The article is sourced and represents a social phenomenon that is the subject of news reports and sociology studies. As a female gamer and contributor to Wikipedia's gaming articles I consider this topic overdue. Durova 20:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup and move to a more professional title like Women in video gaming. Having the title be "girl gamer" is like Culture of the United States being under the title Yank culture. --Bletch 21:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why not talk about male nurses, then or, commando girls. It's just unecessary to have an article of it's own. Make it maybe a reference in the gaming article. Ricardo Silva 22:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and de-POVize. Yeltensic42.618 23:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there are gender issues with an activity, cover that in the relevant article, such as gamer. We shouldn't create these specialized little articles, until the main article is overgrown. --Rob 00:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup and move, as per Bletch's comments above. Coll7 01:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ajdz 05:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Bletch. --Terence Ong ^Talk 08:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- Rob 00:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thought this was going to be a case of good subject, bad article looking at the current votes, but there's nothing glaringly POV or unverified here. Needs improvement, but not the end of the world if it doesn't get it. --Last Malthusian 18:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Unless there's separate definitions for girl auto mechanics, girl television announcers, or boy ballet dancers. I don't see why a separation. The girl gamers should be included in the "gamer" entry as well as any other gaming genre- older gamers, boy gamers. ets. Steppen53 1/06/06— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.2.56 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I'd rather see it merged, better to still have it and a consensus... Makenji-san 00:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 01:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akeni[edit]

Nn software company. No media coverage. No incoming wikilinks. Official URL has 300K alexa rank -- Perfecto 01:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Perfecto 01:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 02:31Z
Delete per nom. -- WB 06:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Evil Eye 13:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 19:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 21:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Terence Ong ^Talk 08:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tinfoil Hat Linux[edit]

The Linux distribution which this article describes is apparently completely defunct and receives no mention within the last several years (as returned by a Google search). This article serves no purpose and should be deleted. Ryan Reich 01:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There may be many people either using this product or interested in its history. Please provide better arguments for deletion than apparently defunct. -- JJay 01:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 02:22Z
Keep/Cleanup The article is useful but should be cleaned up a bit. Schlockading 03:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - this Linux distro doesn't seem to have all that much impact, but it does have some Google presence outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just being defunct is not a criteria for deletion. --maru (talk) Contribs 04:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is not just another "my first Linux distro." It had some interesting toys. Gazpacho 07:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I'm pretty sure I found out about TFHL from this article, so it's not worthless. Gazpacho 01:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per maru.ArgentiumOutlaw 07:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claim to notability, no impact on any type of computing or society. -- Kjkolb 08:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only a little over 500 non-Wikipedia Google hits - that's very low for a Linux distribution or anything computer-related. Blackcats 10:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per JJay. -- jaredwf 11:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ since I am unable to verify whether this is a hoax or not. A sample of the 600-odd Google hits give me (a) Wiki mirrors or (b) a single "announcement" posting which may or may not have been a joke. The "official site" has gone, I found no evidence that this really exists or existed. I can't find a Sourceforge project, I can't find a download site with the disk image. If anyone can demonstrate to me that this is not a joke or hoax, I will happily consider changing my vote. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bordeline keep now - I am still not convinced that more than a handful of people ever used this, and secretly suspect it's Tuxcruft, but as a Linux wannabe I will go with the flow. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: The official site can be accessed through the Wayback Machine [1] -- jaredwf 14:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's definitely no hoax: I've used it. Now you can say you know somebody who has. :) ...I probably still have an .iso laying around somewhere... Turnstep 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is part of computing history and its ideas are important. Wikipedia is not just a catalog of currently available systems, it's comprehensive coverage of technology is one of its strengths. --agr 16:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is too little. --Kilo-Lima 17:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this distro was ever publically released it's a clear keep IMHO. But, as a long term Linux user (well over 10 years) I can't say I've ever heard of it. The WayBack machine link doesn't fill me with confidence, could easily be a 'vapourware' page. --kingboyk 17:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was able to follow the external link from the article and download the gzip'ed version of release 1.000 (but not the .img version, which appears first). It unzipped fine, but I haven't tried it on a system. It seems real enough. --agr 18:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well in that case I'd have to agree with user Jamyskis and say weak keep. Thanks agr. --kingboyk 19:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. To be fair, with so many distros floating around, very few Linux users, experienced or not, will know of all of them. I've been a user of Linux for four years and haven't heard of it. Many are just clones of existing distros. The notability of this distro is questionable, but if it holds true to its security credentials, then I think this would just about pass. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am willing to accept that this distro is instructive regarding secure-computing techniques. Not to mention that there is such a proliferation of pages on minor Linux distributions (some possibly defunct as well) that it is unfair to single out this one. However, the article needs a lot of attention: it is haphazard in its choices of what or what not to include and contains about as much opinion as fact. I think that the article, as it stands, is not worth having; therefore if we will keep it, we should rewrite it. Ryan Reich 20:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a pass at it earlier today. Let me know if anything else needs changing. --agr 22:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will post my suggestions on the article's talk page since there is no need to clutter up this page, which is for a more direct discussion of whether the article should go or not. Ryan Reich 23:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Terence Ong ^Talk 08:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agr has really improved the page and I think it's now a useful enough source of information that it should stay. Ryan Reich 20:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - THL generated a fair amount of discussion when announced even if few people went to the trouble of actually using it. It's of historical interest even if now defunct. It's of cultural interest even if it's a hoax and never really existed (of course its existence or nonexistence should be verified for the article). Phr 08:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Genuine distribution, has established notability. Turnstep 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep dsws 02:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Rainbow Warrior. -Splash^talk 21:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter wilcox[edit]

Attempted assertion of notability, but, while the Rainbow Warrior story itself is certainly important, not every single character in it was. Delete. Soo 01:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not verify, merge and redirect to Rainbow Warrior?.
Agree with previous poster, anyone looking for peter wilcox should be redirected to rainbow warrior article to find appropriate info. ArgentiumOutlaw 07:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I (for once) dont feel particularly strongly about this one, but it would be nice to see the article expanded. For example was this guy a high ranking member of Greenpeace? Had he any previous press exposure? That sorta thing. At the moment I vote weak keep just to see whether any improvements happen with the article. Jcuk 08:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (capitalize last name), 'merge and redirect unless expanded in AFD period. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rainbow Warrior. Evil Eye 13:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to Rainbow Warrior. -- Dragonfiend 15:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Rainbow Warrior. --Kilo-Lima 17:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Peter Wilcox and expand. As the captain of the famed Rainbow Warrior there is surely enough material on this guy to form a whole article. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 19:28, 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 KEEP Babajobu 02:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aisle[edit]

Why does 'aisle' deserve an encyclopedia entry? The material about church architecture might be moved to an article on that. RickReinckens 01:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Should be in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Phaldo 03:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and Cleanup - put in Wiktionary under "aisle." Schlockading 03:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already in wiktionary Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki -- WB 06:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Expand, the way it is now, it looks like it should be a wiktionary entry, but when it is expanded I see a lot of potential for valid and useful Art History and Architectural article. ArgentiumOutlaw 08:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Above. But it needs a heckufa lot of work.... Jcuk 08:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I was going to vote a provisional "keep" to allow time for the article to be re-written and expanded, but I see that it's been here on Wikipedia for two and a half years already and it's still just a dicdef. If anyone feels strongly enough about keeping this they can work to expand it substantially (adding about history, significance, etc.) in the next few days and then message me and I'll change my vote. Blackcats 10:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - I'm changing my vote, as this AFD has apparently motivated Jonathan de Boyne Pollard and some others to drasticly expand and improve this article such that it is now clearly encyclopedic and way more than a dicdef or anything suitable for Wiktionary. Way to go guys! Should be an obvious keep for everyone now. Blackcats

Transwiki. This article should be copied and/or moved to Wiktionary. -- Eddie 11:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ dictdef, already on Wiktionary. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep excellent rewrite, compliments to those involved. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary and then merge with Church. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 19:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Becuase we do need it. --Kilo-Lima 17:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it's already on Wikitionary. Durova 20:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -- I AM THE ONE WHO NOMINATED THIS. Before doing so I looked up "chair", for comparison. After nomination, someone added quite a bit. Although it is still fairly weak and needs additional reformatting work, my attitude is that the threshold for inclusion should be fairly low and I think it now at least comes up to the level of a legitimate stub.

I agree with ArgentiumOutlaw that this now should be expanded regarding things like Art History and Architecture. What are the oldest known examples of aisles? It should be mentioned that aisles often have signs designating the contents. Are the spaces between shelves in a library sometimes referred to as aisles? In dark places such as movie theaters, the edges of aisles are sometimes marked with rows of small lights. Etc. The wiktionary entry does not address any of those topics, nor should it. Those are proper topics for an encyclopedia article.

RickReinckens 05:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP When I originally nominated this it contained three sentences and two images of churches. At that point I was not willing to "adopt" it to fix it. Since Jonathan de Boyne Pollard expanded it I have adopted it. Basically, the entire article has been written after it was nominated for not having enough information to be in an encyclopedia.

RickReinckens 23:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both the 1911 britannica and the catholic encyclopedia had articles on "Aisle".--Samuel J. Howard 06:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we needed a reason, Samuel J. Howard provided it. Cleanup and expand as necessary. Vegaswikian 00:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rewrite since Afd nomination. -- JLaTondre 18:30, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Green (pwnz0r)[edit]

This article is ridiculous! I see no way it looks like a real article. Please DELETE. Georgia guy 01:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But did you read the text? It says the deleter will be cursed with a curse! That can't be!Jason 08:49, 4 January 2006 (EST)

I can live with that. Delete. <K F> 01:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable vanity biography. Tagged as {{nn-bio}}. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 02:20Z

Delete - article is completely useless and much of the information is obviously made up. Schlockading 03:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:33, 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 Babajobu 01:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pork (software)[edit]

Delete: Not notable. Probably will never be more than a stub. Not every Unix/open source software program needs an article in an encyclopedia. — Shadowhillway 01:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Wikipedia is not a software directory. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 02:13Z
Keep/Expand - Article needs to be expanded, but not deleted. Schlockading 03:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- WB 06:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Currently non-notable. - CorbinSimpson 07:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Expand per Schlockading, also to Quarl please elaborate by giving a quote from the WP:NOT you linked to, to validate your reasoning. ArgentiumOutlaw 07:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially an ad. -- Kjkolb 08:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- JJay 08:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert for a piece of software that doesn't appear to be particularly influential or popular [2]. We don't list every scientist or business, so why would we list every piece of software? Average Earthman 08:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is too little. --Kilo-Lima 17:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Average Earthman. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξ φ 18:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, this is an encyclopedia not some dictionary to look for all types of software. --Terence Ong ^Talk 08:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Average Earthman. -- JLaTondre 18:32, 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 Keep. Stifle 01:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Ryan[edit]

This person seems to be a complete no-mark. All pertinent links on page are red. Waste of space keeping this trivia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Light current (talk • contribs) 00:27, 5 January 2006

Keep I see no reason to delete an article just because it has a lot of red links in it. If he was indeed one of the wealthiest people in Newfoundland in the early twentieth century then he may be well worth an article. --DavidConrad 02:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Lots of Google results for '"james ryan" newfoundland'. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 02:18Z
Why delete famous people? That's two attempts at defiling our proper grandeur! Props to James Ryan, I feel thy Pain! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.42.239.174 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 5 January 2006
Keep Seems to be a reputable article, although the person himself is not of much importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.161.209 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 5 January 2006 (AKA Schlockading?)
- Well, this does not seem a very good reason: even a very well-written/formatted etc. article on a non-nontable subject is still out of place here; but I cannot judge on this one, no vote 131.111.8.101 03:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- JJay 03:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- WB 06:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable as per the following links
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]

Jcuk 09:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - very notable person~~, and the nominator isn't even a registered user~~. Blackcats 10:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Oops - I realized he just forgot to sign. Blackcats 10:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ryan's Premises, as mentioned in the article, is a Canadian heritage site that deserves an article in itself (a future task I plan on tackling). The question is how you can have an article about a prominent and historical business without an article about its founder. The red ink, as it seems to get people all excited, are fodder for future articles. HJKeats 13:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This one is marginal for me, but I'll side with the other voters above on this one. Evil Eye 13:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all: Please don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). --DavidConrad 05:48, 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 MAKE INTO A DISAMBIG PAGE. — JIP | Talk 08:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Charleston[edit]

This article is redundant with the article Siege of Charleston, and incorrectly states that the battle was in 1780. Roy Al Blue 02:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect & delete article content. This is an obvious candidate for a redirect & could have been boldly redirected - no need for AFD but not much doubt about the outcome. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correction The battle was in 1780, but it is still a redundancy. Roy Al Blue 02:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Redundant. Youngamerican 04:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambig per Blackcats. Youngamerican 13:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per simon. -- WB 06:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as redundant. Scoo 10:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make this page a disambig - between the U.S. Revolutionary War Siege of Charleston battle and the U.S. Civil War battles: Battle of Charleston Harbor I and Battle of Charleston Harbor II, listed at Battles_of_the_American_Civil_War#South_Carolina. Blackcats 10:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or disambiguate. - per above. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig per Blackcats. -- JLaTondre 18:35, 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 06:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lovato[edit]

Vanity Page SailorfromNH 02:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE This is some random persons profile Phaldo 03:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - non-notable bio of real person. —ERcheck @ 03:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Mest. There appears to have been a previous nomination over a year ago. It's not clear why the article wasn't deleted at that time. Pburka 04:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- WB 06:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. ArgentiumOutlaw 07:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable vanity biography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 08:54Z
Delete per nom. VegaDark 11:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from the mainspace. The looks more like a userpage. -- Eddie 11:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Evil Eye 13:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mest. -- Dragonfiend 16:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 21:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, why is this here? James084 02:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn and vanity. Sarah Ewart 07:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nn-bio, and I've tagged it as such. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 05:17, 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. Mind matrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dixiebagger[edit]

Neologism or uncommon regional slang. No evidence that this is in common use. Article cites source as something s/he overheard. Google shows nothing for "Dixiebagger" as one word. As "dixie + bagger + union" I got lots of hits re baggers at Winn-Dixie. Saint Midge 02:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if verifiable, delete ~~if not. Youngamerican 04:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)~~ Youngamerican 20:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks made up. -- WB 07:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 08:55Z
Delete per nomination. Movementarian 11:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Also, Google search -- "Dixie bagger" -Winn -- did not match any documents. (Exact phrase "Dixie bagger," without "Winn"). [8] -- Dragonfiend 16:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BIO. Kilo-Lima 17:32, 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 deleted by Friday. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 23:16Z

Ane[edit]

non-notable — J3ff 03:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VAIN - article was created by user with same name -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable vanity biography. Recommend the article author see WikiMe for writing biographies and/or WikiTree for writing genealogies; article author may also want to consider moving the content to his user page. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 07:30Z
Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO and appears to vanity. Movementarian 11:08, 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 deleted by Friday. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 23:16Z

The rodani group[edit]

non-notable. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ane — J3ff 03:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete It's somebody's resume. A.J.A. 07:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable vanity biography. Content copy of Ane. No need to discuss, just bundle the two AFDs. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 08:08Z
Delete per Quarl. Movementarian 11:10, 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 deleted by Friday. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 23:16Z

Guardians Infinity[edit]

non-notable — J3ff 03:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable reference to fictional work, non-notable web forum. Subject "is a story in making held in the author's forum". —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 07:22Z
Delete as per nom. Forum only has 5 users, so hardly notable. --Oscarthecat 08:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark 11:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Evil Eye 13:25, 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, although I can testify to the danger of using multi-tabbed browsing when using Wikipedia. Joining those who got a good laugh from reading it, so it's to BJAODN this thing goes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinaut[edit]

neogolism — J3ff 03:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see: made up term, neologism, newly coined, self-reference. Yep, that's deleteable. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added to BJAODN, so make sure it's D. Daniel Case 03:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zoe -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zoe abakharev 04:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN or Merge with "Wikipedian" article Schlockading 05:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zoe. -- WB 07:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 07:24Z
Delete, why not just add every possible portmanteau of wikipedia and a word that means person. eg 'wikiguy' or 'wikineer' or even 'wikijanitor'. ArgentiumOutlaw 08:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination.
BJAODN This is very funny, I particularly like the advice against using tabbed browsing. Zunaid 08:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN it, per Zunaid. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zoe -- Dragonfiend 16:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidelete or BJAODN Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:20, 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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Duff Chart History[edit]

OK, when this article started, I put a "mergeto" header on it, but now, this is getting out of hand. We're supposed to have an article on every single and every album she has ever released, for every chart in the world? To begin with, there is not a single cite for any of this information. For another, this violates WP:NOT, as it's a collection of unencylopedic information. Imagine if we did this for every music group that has ever existed. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good encyclopedic information on this important star, but a merge would be OK if the Duff article is not too long. Of course, I favour keeping The Beatles record sales, worldwide charts along with other articles of this type. Don't think we should do it for every group, just the ones with widescale chart success. -- JJay 03:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ...in other words, every group whose fans are editing WP. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no idea who edits these articles. Am I a fan of any of the articles I edit? What a strange concept. But I guess, if Duff, or Beatles or Bach fans want to contribute, there's probably no harm in it. As long as the result adheres to the project goals, like in this case. -- JJay 05:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It says "Redio"... Anyways. -- WB 07:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Zoe. -- Kjkolb 08:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on what Zoe said. --Rob 09:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Hilary Duff discography and cleanup, infusing any relevant content from the main article. -- Grev 09:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per above. Blackcats 11:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This would go majorly out of control if we mentioned all motable charts her songs were in... I'm on the fence on this.. -Mgm|^(talk) 12:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic chartcruft. Zunaid 12:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Hilary Duff discography and add any relevent info from Hilary Duff, as per Grev. Evil Eye 13:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zoe is right. Eusebeus 19:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zoe. I was going to vote merge, but the more I read Zoe's nom the more it convinced me. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good lord. Delete. Note: it appears to have been moved to Hilary Duff Discography Info, where it's equally crufty. --Calton | Talk 00:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Jjay. It's very encyclopediec. Plus the page is going to be too long at the end of editing. It does not say "Redio" either. It's new Calton it will be edited better. So now is not a good time to determine. Give it a few weeks it'll look much better. Trust me. Oh yeah, Zoe this artist has had so much chart history she needs this page. Unlike some others. If every group had a page like this it would be scary. How about if the artist has 4 albums they can finally have their own chart page. If they have over 20 charts.Tcatron565
- If every group had a page like this it would be scary. First unchallengable thing you've said. And by the way, don't delete the AFD tag again. --Calton | Talk 04:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary detail MattHucke ^(t) 18:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --NaconKantari 23:35, 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. Mind matrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance and Liberation[edit]

Non-notable, merely a mod in development. Contains lots of non-encyclopedic content as well. Blatant advertising and reads like a copy of a website for the mod, which Wikipedia is not. Full of original research and unverifiable sources. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 03:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any worthwhile content to D-Day and/or French Resistance and and then delete. Blackcats 11:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Delete - my bad - was falling asleep last night when I voted on this, so didn't get to look at it as closely as I should have. Blackcats 07:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just another mod InvictaHOG 15:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but to save them having to rewrite it, tell them to move it to the Developer Community page. And I think Blackcats is misunderstood - this article isn't about real history, it's an advert for a mod for the computer game Half-Life 2. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξ φ 18:40, 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. Mind matrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CeaSe (rapper)[edit]

Could not find on Google. As text indicates, this guy is going to be the next big thing. Maybe, but he has to do that first then he gets a Wikipedia article. Daniel Case 03:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity, wikipedia isn't a blog. Incognito 05:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet criteria in WP:MUSIC. Movementarian 08:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable, non-notable musical group. Can't find on Google; not on AllMusic. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 08:58Z
Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC, WP:NOT a crystal ball. -- Dragonfiend 16:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delte - Fails WP:MUSIC. --Kilo-Lima 17:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete next big thing = current no thing. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This is a vanity article. Ajwebb 21:58, 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. — JIP | Talk 08:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Pond[edit]

Been here since August. Non-notable barely begins to describe it. D e nni ☯ 03:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for significant information Schlockading 05:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, this is highly insignificant. eg..."There is a little shack by the pond" ...... ArgentiumOutlaw 08:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is funny! (Or maybe I'm just sleep deprived and slap-happy) Delete. Only really note worth ponds like Walden Pond should have their own articles, and actually that's large enough to be considered a small lake. Blackcats 11:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sugar Pond offers ice skating during the winter when the temperature is cold enough. A red/green indicator by the pond and at the Recreation Department downtown says whether the ice is safe to skate on. There is a little shack by the pond, but it is rarely open. Delete, text book example of unencyclopedic information. Any pond can be skated on if it's cold enough, so that's totally irrelevant. I'm pretty sure more ponds have such a light and the shack has nothing to do with the pond. Once all that is removed, you're left with CSD A1 material. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Gary Kirk (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Zunaid 14:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3rd weakest keep ever. I give geographic features the benefit of the notability doubt, but this almost stretches it. Youngamerican 14:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: to the closing admin, If keep is not an option, I transfer my vote to merge. Youngamerican 13:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is too little. --Kilo-Lima 17:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to town article. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:22, 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 keep, which was the majoriry opinion both before and especially after discounting invalid votes. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keyra Augustina[edit]

This nomination was made by an anonymous user. I've tried to fix it. The article was deleted once on AfD and the second AfD was cut short after it was realized that it had been deleted before. However, I believe that she might be notable for an article. She has a lot of non-duplicate Google page results and about 100 image results. She has also appeared in Maxim magazine. -- Kjkolb 10:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may be of a sexual nature but the person has clearly had an impact on society as she has had numerous mentions in popular culture on the internet, TV and magazines - appeared in not just Maxim but FHM. Both major worldwide publications and not to be shirked at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashiro (talk • contribs)
Keep. She's hot. That's not my reason to keep, but it never hurts to point it out. Proto t c 12:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DCEdwards1966 17:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Indecent exposure. And if you think this reason is bad, then please read the above! --Kilo-Lima 17:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saccerzd 21:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC) She is relatively well-known on the internet, is featured on Maxim meagazine's website and has 500+ google images related to her. Definitely keep![reply]
Keep — again. jareha 21:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — As you [most] have stated, it is definitely worth being kept! ;o) Isn't she so lovely? (and doesn't she seem smart considering her studies...?) In my opinion these two photos are less provocative than these RAP TV clips or album covers we see everyday, aren't they? For heaven's sake keep it. Williams 0:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.237.3.53 (talk • contribs)
- Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : She is not indecent, just hot ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.122.190.156 (talk • contribs)
- Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Her article has merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.2.116.249 (talk • contribs)
- Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She definitely has the notoriety and the article is an encyclopedic survey of her accomplishments to date. I imagine that Ms. Augustina will go on to even greater heights, perhaps in academia or business, once she receives her diploma. -- JJay 02:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.40.242.22 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)--user's first edit. -- JJay 06:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete as non-notable biography. Couldn't find relevant. QuidditchBall 11:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)--user's second edit. -- JJay 06:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- very non notable,Linkspam. Dafalgan 15:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)--user's first edit. -- JJay 06:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-enciclopedic,not good for wikipedia. Phyloo 16:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)--user's first edit. -- JJay 06:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is as worthy of an article as any other model. 206.201.180.226 18:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote discounted due to anonymous editor. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that some here are saying she is not notable simply because she is not famous. There is a distinction and just because she is not as familiar to the general public as say Cindy Crawford, that does not mean she is less signifigant as a model worthy of an entry on this site. She has appeared in one of the world's formost men's magazines in Maxim, has been featured on many sites such as gorrilamask and ifilm and is certainly worthy of an entry here as she made a bit of a stir on the internet that has lead to her notarieity in many circles (evidenced by the fact that she was asked to pose for a magazine as popular as Maxim). AriGold 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, there should be a way we end this debate. This is not the first time it has come up and each time a consensus agrees that she is worthy of an article. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Keyra_Augustina#VFU_Debate for the last time this was addressed. AriGold 18:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NON ENCICLOPEDIC. she ISN'T a model,those pics have been STOLEN from her PC,She doesn't want to be a famous,Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life,I hope you can understand the 90% of the information is false, she hasn't got an official web site,that links are spam of porn websites with publicity. NomiARG 20:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the majority of the pictures are "stolen", and YES, she IS a model. Proof can be found here http://www.maximonline.com/girls_of_maxim/girl_template.aspx?id=1137 where Maxim did a phhotoshoot with her. The picture in the magazine isn't one of the stolen ones, it is a professional one that, imo, makes her a model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AriGold (talk • contribs)
Keep -- notable pinup model. NomiARG's arguments are irrelevant -- Keyra is quite famous. Haikupoet 21:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-enciclopedic. Ratchelk 16:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)--user's first edit. -- JJay 06:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- notable --alex 18:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non enciclopedic. Oscorrp 23:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)--user's first edit. -- JJay 06:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Non-notable biography.Triniron 01:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)--user's first edit. -- JJay 06:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- notable pinup--~~Jeff 18:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.109.63.34 (talk • contribs) [reply]
- Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ridiculous, non-notable, un-encyclopedic Cavewoman 02:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)--user's first edit. -- JJay 06:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --NaconKantari 02:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-enciclopedic - kast0r 02:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)--user's first edit. -- JJay 06:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : per reasons above. Churro 11:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)--user's first edit. -- JJay 21:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Glido 12:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)--user's first edit. -- JJay 21:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-enciclopedic, spam/hoax, unverified. Qeezer 14:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)--user's first edit. -- JJay 21:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable,non-enciclopedic. Jolukas 15:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)--user's first edit. -- JJay 21:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What is far more telling than the fact that many of the above votes are first edits is their common spelling error (*enciclopedic). <K F> 22:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.173.231 (talk • contribs)
- Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep She is famous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.1.136 (talk • contribs)
- Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP HER!!! KEEP HER!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.152.14 (talk • contribs)
- Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Maxim shoot pushed her notability up over the borderline, if only just barely. The number of sockpuppet delete votes is absurd. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've never heard of that gal before, but that is completely immaterial. The article is well-written, NPOV, referenced, and she has really become notable (and thus encyclopaedic), if only / exactly because (let's suppose it's true) "those pics have been STOLEN from her PC,She doesn't want to be a famous". <K F> 22:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'. Why remove it? Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Socially relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlcideNikopol (talk • contribs)
- Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On Maxim, on Howard Stern, I've seen her talked about on many message boards, she is socially relevant.ImmortalDragon 23:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ifilm lists one of her movies (the second I think) as the third most watched film on they're site, I think she's at least as notable as Leeroy Jenkins Makenji-san 00:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Racial Myths[edit]

Does not meet notability guidelines as per WP:WEB. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When an article about a website has, very early on, a long listing of contributors id'ed only by nick, you don't even need to check WP:WEB. Daniel Case 04:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. tregoweth 05:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable web forum. No Alexa rank for http://racialreality.shorturl.com/ (only for shorturl.com). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 09:02Z
Delete, as above. Evil Eye 13:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Dragonfiend 16:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hell, go ahead and delete it, then! -- Gerkinstock 19:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Errrr.... no reason to get upset, if I vote keep will that make you a little happier? ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Quarl Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. I'm not upset, I'm actually surprised this page has lasted this long...:) -- Gerkinstock 23:12, 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. Mind matrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hertz Football League[edit]

Someday maybe we will have notability standards for fantasy sports leagues. However, there isn't even a category for them now, which leads me to believe there are no other articles and thus they aren't considered notable per se. Daniel Case 04:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the HFL can set the bar and create notability for valiant fantasy sports leagues which have years of experience. This article isn't even 1/20 finished, as there is a lot of history of its hosts, Yahoo Fantasy Sports and ESPN.com Fantasy Sports which have yet to be covered in the article. I sincerely hope HFL will be given the opportunity to showcase its league and its hosts to the rest of the fantasy sports world.

Well said, but really, we haven't even gotten our act together as far as corporations are concerned. Fantasy sports leagues are not exactly high on the list (And do sign your comments with the four tildes, please). Daniel Case 05:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverified and original research. Movementarian 04:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Movementarian -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 06:58Z
'Delete, nn. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 14:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete close to a joke, certainly not an encyclopaedia candidate Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:45, 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 08:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damariscotta-Newcastle, Maine[edit]

Unclear what value/meaning this CDP page has in addition to the Damariscotta, Maine and Newcastle, Maine pages describing these towns in Maine. Is the CDP the union of these two towns? If so, why is the population *less* than their combined population? ScottMainwaring 04:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humorous comment: It's one of those weird places that Stephen King writes about. Something is happening up there that you don't want to know about but will soon be made into a major motion picture when it's all over and the world has been saved from Lovecraftian aliens with glowing red eyes which will make the paperback edition fly off the shelves so that unscheduled layover at O'Hare will be a lot less boring. Daniel Case 05:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Census-designated place explains weirdnesses in how CDPs are defined. Perhaps this one is weirdly defined (i.e. isn't Damariscotta plus Newcastle) or the statistics are wrong. But it's a big article generated from census data so I don't see why it should be deleted just because two numbers don't add up. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 07:02Z
Keep I disagree with this article being deleted. While Damariscotta Maine and Newcastle Maine are towns, Damaroscptta Newcastle Maine is a CDP which does not cover the towns, but rather areas without a municipal government. The possibility is that Damariscotta-Newcastle Maine is an area between the two towns? Or perhaps it is just geographically located near both, and the name was decided upon becasue of this. Onthost 04:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Damariscotta-Newcastle CDP includes the parts of the two towns near the border between them [9]. Who knows why the Census Bureau decided to do this. -- Mwalcoff 00:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment** OK, this article should defently NOT be deleted since it is not a mistake. Thank you for clarifying this for us. Onthost 02:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Onthost & Mwalcoff. -- JLaTondre 18:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I.e., I've been talked out of advocating its deletion. Thanks everyone for clarifying the status of this CDP. I've revised the three pages (Damariscotta, Newcastle, and Damariscotta-Newcastle) to try to capture their interrelationship. ScottMainwaring 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 delete. Mind matrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life 177[edit]

This is yet another mod under development for Half-Life 2. I don't think it has achieved sufficient notability to warrant being included on Wikipedia as its own encyclopedia article. It is already listed under List of Half-Life 2 mods. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: still under dev, so not notable -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 06:57Z
Delete. Private games need to be released at the very least before they can start becoming independantly verifiable and notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MgM, as ever. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, If it's a mod for Half Life then merge it! Empty2005 13:02, 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 Babajobu 07:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bih-sut[edit]

Subject appears to be unverifiable via Google. Possible hoax or implausible typo. Muchness 05:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 06:56Z
Delete as per Quarl. Sliggy 21:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ There's a reference to Bisut in Gakhar and a few Ghits - so it does look like a real place. Tribes names would often be similar to place names and the Arabic lettering is also correct. I'd like to see more verification but I don't think it's a hoax and it's quite a plausible transliteration from Arabic. Dlyons493 Talk 21:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment [10] gives Bisut as a place in Afghanistan. Dlyons493 Talk Dlyons493 22:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Punkmorten 13:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment the article is about the Bih-sut, "a small tribe of Pakhto-speaking Afghans". There is no evidence for this tribe, even with Dlyons493 admirable efforts. Sliggy 16:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's absolutely correct - I was hoping someone could source it but they haven't. I'm changing my vote to Delete unless sourced. I'd now vote keep an article entitled Bisut about the place but there's so little info available that it's not worth starting. Dlyons493 Talk Dlyons493 00:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I had a go at finding proof, but all I could find were maps that don't show the tribe, and so can't be used to prove or disprove the tribe's existence (since it can be argued that they are not detailed enough to show a small tribe), e.g. [11] [12] Sliggy 01:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

its real.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A3 "No Content" Babajobu 00:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Grand Lodge of the Three Globes[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's been empty for half a year and nobody noticed. Perhaps it was already transwikied to wiki source. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 06:55Z
Delete. The content was transwikied some time ago judging by the edit history. Some just forgot to nominate it for deletion I guess. Movementarian 08:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aren't empty pages speedyable? --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:31, 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 redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 11:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ode on Melancholy[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was movd ws 7/05. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a John Keats poem that was moved to Wikisource. I would say that it should be redirected to Keats and a Wikisource link be included there, but most of the other Keats' poem articles have Wikipedia worthy content so stubbing this and seeing what happens might be a better approach. -- JLaTondre 01:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I hope someone comes along and writes a good article on this poem, but I don't think we should keep an entirely empty page until they do. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, blank pages are speedyable, aren't they? --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, then redirect to John Keats until someone chooses to create an article for the poem. Babajobu 00:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Thoresen[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aegon UK. Failing that, Delete. Other than resume-type content, there's not really anything here. -Colin Kimbrell 16:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Aegon UK. Doesn't appear to be too much of a notable individual. -- (aeropagitica) 07:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per (aeropagitica). Movementarian 09:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aegon UK. Evil Eye 13:33, 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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 11:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongtom[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to HARD-Fi.-Colin Kimbrell

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per Colin Kimbrell. Stifle 14:45, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 11:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japonica Partners[edit]

Advert/Vanity - Rudykog 19:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep This seems to be a case where a crappy wikipedia entry is hiding a company of some notability. Most of the text seems to come from Armenepedia, and indicates a heavyweight financial organization. having said that, I could happily change my vote to delete If the entry remains as useless as it is now for any length of time.MNewnham 01:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! {{{1}}}

Rewrite This page is nothing short of corporate advertising, as currently presented. It needs to be rewritten to demonstrate the company's notable status in order to justify its retention as an article for research. -- (aeropagitica) 07:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite if the company is of some value; otherwise speedy as advertising.--Mitsukai 19:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if not rewritten by close of AfD. If it's important, someone will be along with a better article any day now. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:19, 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. -Splash^talk 21:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PH10[edit]

This band makes a claim to notability, having toured Europe, and released on their own label, but I'm trouble finding evidence for them outside of their own site. Xoloz 20:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Buy their album on Amazon.com. See a review here MNewnham 01:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 14:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified claims by an {{nn-band}}. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:53, Jan. 11, 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 redirects are cheap, no valid reason to delete given. Johnleemk | Talk 11:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McClatchy Interactive[edit]

Delete, since the mention of this subdivision in The McClatchy Company seems more than enough. As it stands, the subdivision page is both of substub quality, and borders on vanity (if you consider it on its own and not as a subdivision) to my taste. BACbKA 14:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 11:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete superfluous, per above Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The McClatchy Company. Doesn't need it's own article, but should be redirected not deleted as it will discourage recreation and allow people to find parent company when looking by this name. -- JLaTondre 18:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When searching by name, the article will show up anyway. There will not be a flood of hits btw ;-) As for the recreation, an ignorant user will still be able come up with a creative spelling you miss anyway, w/o researching about the parent article (capitalisation variations, Company vs Co., or smth else...) --BACbKA 15:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And, since it is a vanity and self-promo, I predict that recreation will not happen by non-affiliated parties. --BACbKA 15:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap. Your last statement is exactly why I mentioned "discourage recreation". -- JLaTondre 18:07, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 11:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bicameralism Annotations[edit]

See also Seperation of Powers & Checks and Balances Annotations (AfD discussion).

This article is a copy of the text from Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution : Senate Document No. 108-17 : 2002 Edition : Cases Decided to June 28, 2002. It is in the public domain as a government document, so it should be moved to The Annotated Constitution of the United States in Wikibooks. DLJessup (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not an encyclopedia article. Stifle 01:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks unencyclopedic/orig. research Paul 08:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Netherverse[edit]

no reference found, no google hits for netherverse and James Kamakahi Netherverse James Kamakahi Melaen 21:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable possible original research. Stifle 01:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable, original research or non-notable reference to fictional work. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 06:52Z
Delete per Quarl -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. KHM03 11:43, 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 Keep. Stifle 01:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alloparenting[edit]

it has been already transwikied to Wiktionary, it's no longer necessary to have this page on wikipedia Melaen 21:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Jonathan de Boyne Pollard rewrote it into an encyclopedia article instead of just a dictdef. —Cryptic (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has been significantly expanded. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has the potential to be expanded in to a proper article for research, rather than the definition of the term as is present at the moment. -- (aeropagitica) 07:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rewrite. Punkmorten 16:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as currently written Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rewrite. Ajwebb 21:59, 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. Mind matrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bimach[edit]

non notability , see google Melaen 21:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete never heard of it and no references, so fails WP:V. Stifle 01:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism - only 753 google hits, most not in english. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism, dictdef at best. -- (aeropagitica) 07:56, 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. Mind matrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeph pawn[edit]

Keep I have heard of Jeph Pawn, I have The Second Album, so does an exchange student from Osaka, Japan, at my homestay. Ivan Pineda and Anthony Blinoff are still fairly well known in Sydney so I would not dismiss this entry. -DC_Johanson.

Band history totally unverifiable, a hoax MNewnham 21:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. If we get sources and references I could be convinced to change. Stifle 01:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stifle -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable band, no hits on allmusic.com. This information needs to have its sources cited for a start, as the text of the article is not suitable for research. This would be more appropriate on a tribute website than on WP. -- (aeropagitica) 07:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. And if their album "achieved success" in the US, why has Amazon not heard of it? Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 08:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as functionally unverifiable. Not found on the usual suspects. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable (as above). Ajwebb 22:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have The Second Album, so its obviously not all just smoke. -KelvinDougherty

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 11:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick William Collins[edit]

Keep The name rings a distinctive bell, will definitely get back to this as soon as possible, however PWC disappeared off the scene completely whereas Ivan and Anthony can still be seen - DC_Johanson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.101.77.225 (talk • contribs) .

World famous lead guitarist of Jeph pawn, who nobody has ever heard of MNewnham 21:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable at the moment. Stifle 01:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN lead guitarist of NN band Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 08:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Re segv11: I have The Second Album by the band, and was not even in Australia/USA/UK when I bought it (after hearing Poison Candy). Makes your point (NN band) moot -KelvinDougherty —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.101.77.225 (talk • contribs) .

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; kept. (Article was expanded.) Johnleemk | Talk 11:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FreeRADIUS[edit]

non notable website Melaen 21:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Barely escapes an A1/A3 speedy deletion. Stifle 01:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if expanded. The article is about the project, not the website that hosts it. 1,000,000 Google hits. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 06:51Z

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giblet soup[edit]

it is already on wikibooks, I see no point in having it here Melaen 21:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Melaen. Wikipedia is not a cookbook, nothing to transwiki, delete. Stifle 01:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not encyclopedic, already in wikibooks, delete 4hodmt 19:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stifle -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per stifle, and in line with precedent, since it's apparently already been transwikid to the right project. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already transwikied. Youngamerican 20:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N5 (notation)[edit]

Delete. Again. It's another fictional notation for RDF language. See N4 deletion process. — Anrie Nord 21:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Anrie Nord. Stifle 01:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again. unverifiable, original research. If the author creates N6 I hope it can be speedied. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 06:47Z
Delete again per above. — Anrie Nord 09:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:17, 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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 11:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Music Store Protocol[edit]

not encyclopedic Melaen 21:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to iTunes Music Store. Doesn't seem to deserve its own article. Stifle 01:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on iTMS. This is a useful tidbit of information. Maybe merge to an article on the technical aspects of iTMS? Cyde Weys _vote^talk 14:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems the right thing to do. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Gazpacho 21:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect (or is it just Merge? Can't remember). The reason is that an article could be written about the protocol in question but there isn't enough there now. Haikupoet 21:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Merge" implies redirect also, as merging without a redirect violates the GFDL. Stifle 14:40, 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. — JIP | Talk 08:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey a gordon[edit]

vanity Melaen 21:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can't userfy, so speedy delete nn-bio. Stifle 01:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't think its a vanity page, looks like a biblo to me. Onthost 05:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment doesn't seem very notable, but I did verify that he is a co-author of the bird book. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 06:45Z
Weak delete. I read the article and don't see any assertions that this person's work is encylopedic. Vegaswikian 00:35, 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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 12:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TWEN[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion as an advertisement, but it doesn't really read like an ad. Bringing it to AfD to respect the desire of the anon user who tagged it. No vote. howch e ng {chat} 07:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to Westlaw.Obina 10:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Westlaw per Obina. -- JLaTondre 01:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Cleanup and Wikify before transferring information to Westlaw. -- (aeropagitica) 07:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. Not really worth a repost. Proto t c 12:57, 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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 12:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesto Vidal[edit]

Unverifiable. Non-notable. Vanity Taragüí @ 11:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with super8 (his band, which at least has three albums) and redirect. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Pablo D. Flores. Stifle 14:44, 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 08:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tales from the Heart[edit]

nn. Google gives from the Heart%22 comic&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official 950 hits. r3m0t ^talk 17:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no reason to delete this. -- The Anome 05:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author needs to assert notability of title. Why did it win an award? The reason should be enough to justify inclusion. -- (aeropagitica) 07:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, a comic published by Slave Labor Graphics indicates at leas a modicum of notability. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 14:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course, but needs more info. Dyslexic agnostic 20:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, damn. This one. Um. It was by, it was by a woman, it was about her experiences in the Peace Corps, in Africa... dammit, who was it by! I want to say Sarah Dyer, but it wasn't her. Keep. DS 01:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan mohammad[edit]

This was listed as a speedy, but the article does attempt to assert notability. Googling Adnan Mohammad + International Holdings brings up what appears to be unrelated pages that don't match the article content. --D e ath phoenix 17:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article is virtually orphaned: two AfD articles and a sandbox article are the only things that link to it, that's all. B.Wind 23:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable biography. Couldn't find relevant Google hits either. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 06:40Z
Delete per Quarl -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Worthless junk. Delete. --kingboyk 19:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not so notable to be here. --Bhadani 06:11, 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 no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BKHoliday[edit]

Incorrectly listed as a speedy. --D e ath phoenix 17:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No vote. I've heard vaguely of this meme, but I don't know if it's notable enough to be kept. The guy's singing is very annoying, though. --D e ath phoenix 17:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The song (unfortunately) is notable enough to keep. I don't know if BKHoliday is the original source of it (if so, then keep). Kenj0418 21:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fries are done! I've heard of this meme and the song is notable. Sceptre^{(Talk) | (contribs)} 21:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, nn-flash. Stifle 14:44, 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 copyvio. Johnleemk | Talk 12:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Baldone[edit]

Incorrectly listed as a speedy. This article reads as a vanity resume, and I might have deleted it if this person wasn't a member of the US House of Representatives. As it stands, if it can't be cleaned up, it should be deleted. --D e ath phoenix 17:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List for cleanup --D e ath phoenix 17:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's a copyvio (cut and paste) of his vote smart page. --Bachrach44 18:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Added copyvio tag as per comment from Bachrach44. --Pboyd04 19:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though he's minor, he's still a political figure. A.J.A. 08:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment: Articles should be blanked when applying {{copyvio}}. I've done this. Let's let WP:CP take care of this one... Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a copyvio. What was the point of reposting the AfD? Speedy close, let WP:CP handle it as per Segv11. Proto t c 12:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio and list on WP:CP per Proto. To the vote closer: one confirmed copyvio vote should be enough to get it listed there, IMO. --D e ath phoenix 13:18, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 12:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policast.com[edit]

Defunct internet radio station. Not notable. r3m0t ^talk 18:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete interesting but unless they did something actually special this needs to go. --Pboyd04 02:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems notable enough. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 06:39Z
Delete per Pboyd04. Stifle 14:44, 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 Keep. Stifle 01:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Nathalie of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg[edit]

User:Morhange tagged it for speedy. The reason was on the article's talk page: The deletion pages are way too confusing to figure out; this article is a single sentence with no real bio. information on the subject other than who her mother and aunt are. I removed speedy tag and notified user that he(?) should go through afd. But he's a newbie and don't know how to do it. So I am completing this nomination on his behalf. No vote on my part. Renata3 06:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've expanded and wikified it as best I can. Jcuk 20:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep articles on royalty. Brighterorange 01:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the niece of the Queen of Denmark, this particular princess is not particularly high in the line of succession but I think she is still close enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia based on her membership in the royal family alone. Crypticfirefly 06:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously important and looks good. -- JJay 07:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup and demonstrate her notability with information on position within and relationship to the line of succession the Royal Family. -- (aeropagitica) 07:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but please find a less amusing way of stating whatever "the princess moved to her own stud" means. - Nunh-huh 11:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure what the point of reposting this was. Proto t c 12:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep all princesses! Cyde Weys _vote^talk 14:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Royals don't have to be particularly good at anything to be noteworthy. Smerdis of Tlön 20:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as an article on royaltly. Ajwebb 22:02, 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. Mind matrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partyvibe[edit]

nn website Alexa rating is 267,570 and google search just looks like nn blogs mentioning it Pboyd04 22:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable website, advertising. http://partyvibe.com has Alexa traffic rank of 261,073 (rank of 10,000 needed for website to be considered notable). 88,000 google hits but only 161 not omitted (very bad sign). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 06:36Z
Delete very non notable. The page's talk page even has a comment from the suppossed original author calling it a press release. Finally, the article itself doesn't even explain the website, and reads more like an essay. Tom Foolery 02:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Quarl. Stifle 14:37, 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 redirected. Punkmorten 14:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linoleum (band)/Temp[edit]

Delete This is a duplicate and older version of the linoleum (band) article Boddah 05:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually went ahead and made it a redirect to linoleum (band), so in case anyone comes back looking for where the article once was they can still find it by typing in the old title. If this was the wrong thing to do, sorry! But it can always still be deleted. delldot talk 06:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough, I just figured it would be better to get rid of it completely. Boddah 16:32, 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. Mind matrix 02:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shing Ha Hyung[edit]

From WP:PNT, been there since December 21. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Korean, article with the title exists on the Korean wikipedia at ko:싱하형, so it's probably a notable subject. - Bobet 01:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator abstains Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it isn't translated, it's no use to us here. Not sure what use a Korean-language redirect would get us anyway. Delete. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to the Korean article, this person is a user in a well-known troll in a Korean digital image website. -- WB 07:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just can't see it ever being of use in the English Wikipedia. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 07:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Translate If this is notable, then it should be rewritten in English to be included on the English-language WP. -- (aeropagitica) 07:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: it's been sitting on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for two weeks, with nobody taking interest in translation. It was therefore listed here, per WP:PNT practice. Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could provide a translation. But, as I have written above, it's about a famous Internet troll in a Korean website. -- WB 08:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a foreign-language article, that nobody has translated, about an internet troll on a Korean website. The only guy who could translate it says it's not worth it, as it's not notable. I'm gonna agree with the only guy who speaks Korean here and vote delete. Proto t c 12:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is totally all in Korean. No translation, looks notable over at Korean Wikipedia, but no one is going to translate it, delete it. --Terence Ong ^Talk 15:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if not translated and moved to an accessible namespace. 23skidoo 20:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if you stumbled upon this page you obviously should be on the Korean wikipedia. Not only is this article a stub, but the Korean version looks like a stub as well. If an English speaker wants whatever this topic may be on Wikipedia, feel free to make the article in English and with a title thats at least romanized. Tom Foolery 02:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Translated. -- WB 05:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos to WB for translating this. However, the subject is clearly non-notable (being a troll on web forums does not exactly satisfy WP:BIO), so delete. --Metropolitan90 05:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I should say that he is really notable though. You can ask random Korean teenager, chances are, they'll know. Not only is he a troll, but he also fits into the category of Internet phenomenon. Simple search in Yahoo! or Yahoo! Korea returns over 75,000 results (Google doesn't index many Korean sites). If you look in the Yahoo! Korea search results, it's pretty notable. I would say if Hello My Future Girlfriend gets to be kept, this should be as well. But I still vote delete. -- WB 07:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. -- why give vandals the credit they desire? Tawker 08:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable internet meme, possibly change to English text title. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, forumcruft. If, by some miraculous feat, it is kept, then at least please transliterate the title to the English alphabet. — JIP | Talk 10:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. -- WB 11:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Not English, and its time is definitely up. Moreover it has been given to the German Wikipedia. Punkmorten 10:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soland[edit]

From WP:PNT, been there since December 22. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German --Emersoni 18:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Information about members of a Swiss family, with some genealogical info since the 16th century. Does not appear very notable, though. Kusma (討論) 05:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator abstains. Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Translate Hard to judge notability of individual if the article is written in a non-English on the English WP. -- (aeropagitica) 07:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: it's been sitting on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for two weeks, with nobody taking interest in translation. It was therefore listed here, per WP:PNT practice. Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's nn genealogy. Dan 23:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to de.wp, and delete. Stifle 14:37, 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. Mind matrix 02:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copperpot[edit]

Was listed as a speedy, but asserts notability in the form of being used on Pimp My Ride, etc. This is not a vote. Mo0[talk] 05:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per segv11. Scoo 10:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Oh the capitalisation! Dan 23:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nn-band, or just a regular delete otherwise. This group meets the main criterion for non-notability: a Myspace page. Stifle 14:36, 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. The only relevant "keep" votes are from User:Robert Paveza and User:Shadypalm88. Most of the "keep" votes are sock puppeting by anonymous IPs, one of whom even replaced the AfD nomination statement with his own explanation why the article should be kept. — JIP | Talk 11:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valhalla legends[edit]

Valhalla Legends is a highly technical and extremely popular online community, mainly focused on computer science and programming. The members of the innermost part of the community, the actual vL clan, are responsible for reverse-engineering the BNCS (Battle Net Chat Server) protocol, maintaining BNLS (Battle Net Logon Server, which is used by thousands of battle.net bot developers), and creating, as well as revising, documentation on these two servers' protocols.

Keep 22:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC) KEEP - This community is a great source for information related to computer science, programming, and client emulation. The goal of wikipedia is to provide people with accurate, free information. Seeing how this community is a great source of information, as it accomplished so much and provides service to so many, deleting their wiki would only be contradicting wikipedia's goal.
Delete per above. DreamGuy 06:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above as well as the overall strangeness of the subject mentioned in the article 24.0.161.209 06:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DreamGuy FreplySpang (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable online gaming group. I wish for expansion of WP:CSD so that this kind of article could be speedy-deleted when no notability is asserted. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 06:33Z
Speedy delete as {{nn-club}}. CSD A7 does allow NN "groups of people" to be speedied, including bands, clubs, etc... Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I tagged an article about a web forum once as nn-club and an admin disputed it... so now I'm just conservative and say "wish it qualifies for speedy delete" instead of "speedy delete". I would like A7 to say something like "This includes online gaming groups, web forums, mailing lists, ..." —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 23:05Z
Delete Yet another frag-fest clan. -- (aeropagitica) 07:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is what I stated on the Discussion page:

Well, the article was around and was a stub. I recently expounded and added actual and accurate information to it, and all of a sudden it's listed under "Articles for Speedy Deletion." The group has had over 1700 members in the latest iteration of its message boards (which is I believe the third iteration). Its services have provided for tens of thousands of people (see BNLS, which I haven't checked to see if that's been marked too), if not hundreds of thousands, when one considers the wide distribution of Blizzard Entertainment's vastly distributed software. If this needs to be included in the article, then fine -- but I don't think that the article should be deleted.

Robert Paveza 07:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

The members of Valhalla Legends are known as pioneers in developing gaming software, in a community that exceeds 500,000 users; further, they actively host a very well known support forum for their products, which has sub-forums to support those learning C++, C, VB, Java, and many other programming languages.

It is something that many will be interested in reading more about, and looking up, so is certainly a positive addition to Wikipedia and should be kept.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.169.234 (talk • contribs)

Weak keep forum has 1700 users, so it is notable. --Oscarthecat 08:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some info with BNLS. Scoo 10:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is something I have given consideration to, it seems that this topic merge would also be inappropriate; BNLS is a user authentication system, and while Valhalla Legends is very much tied to this system, it is hardly their single accomplishment. Robert Paveza 17:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Battle.net. Blackcats 11:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be inappropriate. Robert Paveza 17:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment 2000+ members is pretty common for forums.Geni 14:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This just doesn't meet notability requirements. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 14:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a free webhost. That's what your own webpage is for. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 15:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's special, of course, there is a web page. Robert Paveza 17:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no merge. Nothing verifiable here. I'd probably have speedied this. Friday (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have verified with one of the members who created BNLS that, although he doesn't have unique connection statistics, the BNLS server was around a year or two ago regularly receiving over 350,000 connections per day. 2,000 forum members might not be many, but that is quite a few connections. Robert Paveza 21:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gamecruft. Functionally unverifiable, and what is verifiable is trivial and unencyclopaedic. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Typical gamercruft. Not-notable to boot. Dan 23:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Battle.net#Community. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 02:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ajdz 05:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Krash 04:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is going to be an agreement to speedy delete as nn-club, which I would like to see done, but I'll settle for a strong delete as non-notable and unverifiable. Stifle 14:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps merge into Battle.net as the prevailing opinion seems to be for deletion Harrym 10:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extremely notable and influential within niche community and also offers highly-used resources. All comments regarding "gamercruft" are ill-informed; Valhalla Legends is not primarily a gaming clan. Also refer to Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; Valhalla Legends' niche status does not not alone preclude it having an article. WP:NOT webhost is also a weak argument; they have their own site already and the article is not being used as a true web site. --Shadypalm88 18:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Achievments appear at least somewhat noticeable within niche, see no reason for deletion.

Comment: No matter what the outcome is, could you please state it at requested moves? Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 09:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 02:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Chance[edit]

This musician is thusfar insignificant in history. Kingturtle 06:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete Kingturtle 06:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Doesn't show any signs of meeting criteria in WP:MUSIC. delldot talk 06:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per delldot -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per delldot. -- (aeropagitica) 07:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Long been an urban legend...well, then Delete. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 15:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How far "underground"? Dan 23:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Save Have rewritten this and added additional information - agree he is not notable purely as a singer/songwriter but he has also done other things as well.Jud 17:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- he's a session musician. that isn't notable. Kingturtle 18:18, 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 delete. Mind matrix 02:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desperados[edit]

AMG has a listing for them, but no description. Not much info available overall. Seems non-notable to me, but not so much as to be speedied. – Clockwork Soul 06:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. – Clockwork Soul 06:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Scoo 10:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete, I've updated the article. AMG page linked above has info about another "Desperados". Elgard 11:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Now the band is called "Dezperadoz", so just rename the article and there will be no need to delete it, because AMG page linked above has information about another band.Elgard 11:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was about to speedy it too. Until I noticed that we had someone contesting. Sigh. Not-notable. Don't meet WP:MUSIC. Dan 23:09, 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 (A7). howch e ng {chat} 07:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lethyl Synn[edit]

nn songwriter(?) that released a whopping 1 song. Hasnt been touched since it was created by an anon in August. Lucky13pjn 06:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as {{nn-bio}} / CSD A7 Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable musician. -- (aeropagitica) 07:07, 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. Mind matrix 02:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plazoo[edit]

Some random website's shameless self-promotion. Yes, I realize it has 500,000 Google hits; however, once you get past about the third page, it is just ad-riddled pages with titles dealing with casinos and Russian underage porn. Hosterweis 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not notable, vanity. Incognito 06:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Also, http://www.plazoo.com/en/top.htm might be interesting to look at. --Timecop 06:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spamcruft Cyde Weys _vote^talk 07:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pagerank inflating spam - Femmina 07:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Femmina --Depakote 11:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Proto t c 13:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Spam. --kingboyk 18:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tapir
Delete Jmax- 19:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eusebeus 19:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 22:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is spamcruftisement. Almost to the vani- level. Dan 23:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam site. Ashibaka tock 23:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Forallah 02:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 11:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Unalienable Right[edit]

Blogger self-promotion (the kind of thing Wikipedia could use less of); 124k Google hits, with about five that actually relate to aforementioned blog (Google test doesn't work here; the words are kind of in the ~~Constitution~~ Declaration of Independence) Hosterweis 06:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity, blogcruft. Incognito 06:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another useless political blog spamvertisement. --Timecop 07:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable blog. -- (aeropagitica) 07:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blogcruft. Actually, the reference is to the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. And all articles are not created equal, and are not endowed by their creator with any unalienable rights... Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, sorry. Got the two confused. Fixed now.Hosterweis 07:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable vanity - Femmina 07:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vanity --Depakote 11:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. God bless User:Timecop's anti-bloggery page. Proto t c 13:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Tapir
Delete Notable? I think not. Jmax- 19:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC) User had 3 edits before this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes[reply]
Delete nn blogcrap. Eusebeus 19:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as non-notable vanity. Ajwebb 22:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Hosterweis says, this is precisely the kind of thing Wikipedia could do with massively less of. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I'm sure the US Constitiution never uses unalienable. It's inalienable. This is blatant non-notable advertising. Dan 22:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The US Constitution doesn't use it at all, believe it or not. It's in the Declaration of Independence though, where it really is "unalienable". You're right it ought to be "Inalienable rights", but it isn't. Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Forallah 02:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC) User's only edits are to this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes and his/her talk page[reply]
Delete as non-notable weblog. http://www.federalistjournal.com/fedblog/ has Alexa traffic rank of 2,470,548 (rank of 10,000 needed for website to be considered notable). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-06 07:39Z
Keep. The article fits the category as well as the other articles in the category. To be consistent, you'd need to delete all of them or none. Simple fairness demands basic consistency. 71.137.119.209 22:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're workign on it. Please point out any "other articles in this category" which need to be deleted either on my talk page or [[13]]. --Timecop 05:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The claim of only "five Google hits" is silly and obviously untrue (probably meant as an exaggeration not to be taken literally). If the Google search is refined to "The Inalienable Right"+"blog" for instance, you can see a far greater number of hits (references to the blog in the search output are relatively easily spotted by all three words being capitalized). Better yet, if you search Yahoo for "link:http://www.federalistjournal.com/fedblog −site:federalistjournal.com", you can see about 30,000 incoming links. There are a large number of links from other right-wing bloggers such as Michelle Malkin and Rathergate (not linked from the blogroll, but linked from within individual blog entries). The characterization of this page as self-promotion also seems inaccurate, it appears to be a straightforward description of the blog. We don't delete articles on political grounds just because of their right-wing politics; although this is hardly an "A-list" blog it certainly appears to meet the minimum notability threshold. -- Curps 01:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice that it's the same sites linking to it over and over that's causing the hits: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.federalistjournal.com%2Ffedblog+-site%3Afederalistjournal.com&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&xargs=0&pstart=1&fr=FP-pull-web-t&b=91 Tapir 22:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not exactly, no. Yahoo truncates the listing after only 94 entries with the notice "we have omitted some entries very similar to the ones already displayed"; however they seem to do the truncation way too drastically and entirely omit entire sites. Just one example, well-known (notorious?) right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin links to them on at least two occasions: [14] [15], but this doesn't show up at all in the above drastically truncated 94 entries. It's not clear why, but if you try an alternative search, searching Yahoo for "linkdomain:federalistjournal.com", then you can discover many of those omitted incoming links (including the Malkin links). It's hardly surprising that the majority of incoming links come from fellow bloggers of a similar ideological bent, but that's true of pretty much every single blog in existence. Again, this is hardly an A-list blog, but it does seem to meet minimal notability and verifiability criteria and there is no indication of its article being self-promotion. -- Curps 02:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to spend that much time proving notability, then it is definitely NOT notable. thanks. --Timecop 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No time at all. Two Yahoo searches, and the second one is only necessary because of what appears to be a bug in Yahoo's "linkdomain" functionality. -- Curps 23:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many of the above voters appear to be GNAA members or meatpuppets responding to Timecop's "war on blogs", who don't seem to do much on Wikipedia other than "warring on blogs" and engaging in minor pranks or vandalism (for instance, User:Femmina adding User:Depakote's name to the List of big-bust models and performers [16]). Closing admin please take note. -- Curps 01:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, what we have here is a non-notable political bullshit blog trying to increase pagerank by being in wikipedia. Nothing else. I could care less what party it belongs to, I don't give a slightest shit about politics. --Timecop 04:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belive it or not, User:Depakote actually is a big-bust model and performer. - Femmina 15:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. And Timecop actually is dead, too [17], but in the time-honored tradition of dead people he's still voting anyway. -- Curps 02:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 11:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Admins, there appears to have been some 'vote' rigging (not that it's exactly changed the course of the discussion) going on. See [18]. I'd like my vote put back, oh and changed to Extra, extra Delete. No, really, I just found that and didn't know how to fix it myself. Dan 20:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I put them back - why curps would remove them, I don't know. He's usually a trusted administrator so I'm going to assume good faith that it was an accident. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 20:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh oh. It turns out I was editing Tapir's old version: see [19], namely his 18:59 5 January edit, and I obviously missed the "You are editing an out-of-date revision of this page" warning. My apologies, that really sucks. They really ought to make the out-of-date warning a lot more prominent, maybe change the background color or something, it's far too easy to miss. [I have now done just that, see below] Here's what happened: after I noticed Tapir's "MUSHROOMS ARE NOT FUCKING VEGETABLES YOU IGNORANT AMERICANS" edit at Pizza and making an edit there, I checked out his other contributions and found the "war on blogs" contributions. I clicked on diff to examine his edit, and then obviously clicked on "edit this page" at the top of the page and missed the "out-of-date" warning. By truly unfortunate coincidence, the last edit prior to mine turned out to be Tapir's second edit (22:19, 8 January 2006) to this page, so when I later clicked on the article history and found an edit by Tapir just before my own, everything appeared exactly as expected. Sorry about that, it was in no way intentional. -- Curps 23:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I have now made the "editing an out-of-date version" warning WAY more prominent (a standard messagebox rather than mere text). -- Curps 00:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Check it out:[reply]

WARNING:

You are editing an out-of-date revision of this page.

If you save it, any changes made since this revision will be removed.

- - - Comment - Placing your ugly template here is misleading for people who may want to continue to vote. Remove that and this comment please. -- Femmina 06:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saret Pen[edit]

Individual is not notable whatsoever Kingturtle 07:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kingturtle 07:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borderline speedy Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not an online memorial service. -- (aeropagitica) 07:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page was created as a practical joke. I want this page, the main article and all images associated with it deleted now. Those images are copyrighted and you do not have permission to use them. I want my IP removed visably from any spots on this discussion or you will be hearing from my lawyer.

Sincerely Do Not Show My IP Again.

P.S. I want the history removed as well.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.145.98 (talk • contribs)

The above comment was edited by Donsm82 (talk · contribs) to hide the IP address. The IP address is still visible in the edit history though. — JIP | Talk 11:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ASAP. No point to this page. Dharmabum420 10:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is now borderline speedy as {{db-author}} as well as {{db-bio}} Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 11:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to have my IP associated with this thread what so ever yet this site continues to defy. I am sick of this crap. I want my IP address removed from all parts of this site and this entry in paticular now. Donsm82.

Tough luck. When you made edits to Wikipedia using your IP address, it was entered into the edit history records, which are publically viewable, and required by the GFDL, which you implicitly agreed to by editing Wikipedia in the first place. No amount of crying "I'll sue! I'll sue!" is going to change this. — JIP | Talk 12:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mother fucken piece of crap. You embarrass me you are in deep shit. unsigned comment by 67.185.145.98 (talk · contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PodNova[edit]

non-notable advertisement of a blog/podcast aggregator Timecop 07:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and think about the childrens - Femmina 07:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per Femmina <3 Cptchipjew 13:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advert, vanity. Incognito 07:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hmmm. 843,000 Google hits. However, because all of them are exactly the same, it excludes 842,949 of them from view (see here). --Hosterweis 07:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Incognito. --Depakote 11:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. delete. delete. delete. delete. delete. delete. delete. delete. DELETE! __earth 12:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this could go either way. Not sure if it meets WP:WEB but it is known in the podcasting world. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 14:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How well known? I'm not into podcasting myself but if you could convince me, I'd consider overturning my decision. __earth 16:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't. Delete. Tapir

I don't have a good way to answer that. Podcasts are useless without a good aggregator, you see, and so many have sprung up in the podcasting world. This is one of those. Typically podcast writers will work to get their podcast listed on as many different aggregators as they can find. There are some really big ones, like Podcast.net and iTMS, and then the medium-sized ones, like PodNova. I'm just not sure how to vote. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I couldn't change my vote =(. But you might be interested in User:Timecop/The_war_on_blogs. That's the reason why there're too many delete vote here. Most people that vote here do it without even considering the site notability.__earth 01:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. I do know that several people have this page on watchlist, and generally agree with all the content nominated here. I know you do too, and appreciate your "support". --Timecop 04:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advert Jmax- 19:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and give him a medal for doing yoeman work on ridding WP of this detritus! Eusebeus 19:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It would be pointless to have stubby little articles on every podcsting directory on the internet. Plus, prejudicially, how many times can you fit podcast in an article? Dan 22:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Forallah 02:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Proto t c 10:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podcast Alley[edit]

non-notable directory site. no need to include every index/directory site in wikipedia, especially non-notable cruft like this Timecop 07:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Incognito 07:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Hosterweis 07:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertising - Femmina 07:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, advertising. -- (aeropagitica) 07:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above --Depakote 11:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as obvious consensus reached. Otherwise, delete. Proto t c 14:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this could go either way. Podcast Alley isn't exactly unknown in the podcast world. I find their claim that IP/vote matching is infalliable is, well, hilarious. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 14:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further investigation I have found that this site is the #3 Google search result for "Podcast", making it hardly non-notable. Then again, it is a directory site, of which there are many for podcasts. I think the best solution would be to merge this and others into List of podcast directories. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 19:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete worthless Tapir User had 8 edits before this recent blizzard of podcasting "delete" votes
Delete Advertising. Jmax- 19:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Jmax User had 3 edits before this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes[reply]
Delete nn Eusebeus 19:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn podcruft. Quite incorrect Cyde, don't you see how well IP's interact with WP? hahaha. ; ) Dan 22:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nearly meets the strict WP:WEB with a rank of 10,641 on Alexa [20], and has 610,000 google hits. --Interiot 01:39, 6 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. Ah, the GNAA goes for the bandwagon effect. This is a notable podcasting site, with a decent Alexa. Perhaps the GNAA members ought to take up a hobby, like knitting or something useful. --Calton | Talk 05:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except one problem. If "Poscast Alley" is notable, where's entries for "Postcast.net", iPodder.org (got deleted/redirected, haha), "podcast bunker" and thousands of other shit sites which do nothing but reindex the same content over and over providing absolutely NOTHING NEW OR INTERESTING. Wikipedia is NOT an index of every damn website in the world. If someone wants podcasts, they can type "PODCAST" in google and find a pile of shit sites dealing with this stuff. The article is trash too, since when is tracking votes by "IP address" has been innovative, or even effective? Proxies anyone? I bet if the GNAA you really love actually decides that the GNFOS podcast is worth being #1 on that site, how long do you think would it take before thousands of "omg, unique IP address" votes will start to come in? Nice try though. --Timecop 09:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major site in the podcasting community. Haakon 22:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge as per cyde weys WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 08:27, 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 keep (no consensus). Not quite a two thirds majority, and I'm also concerned with a massive GNAA influx of voters early on in the debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W.bloggar[edit]

W.bloggar was nominated for deletion on 2005-02-11. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.bloggar/2005-02-11.

nn piece of software; every google hit after the first page is a blog post of someone testing out aforementioned software Hosterweis 07:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advertising for a useless software product - Femmina 07:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Above user is a participant in the GNAA "war on blogs". Rhobite 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I won't write this under every time it occurs, but this is totally immaterial. We comment on the contribution, not the contributor. If someone wants to aid Wikipedia by improving the ratio af signal to noise, I don't care if they eat babies for breakfast. They could go about it with a bit more subtlety, and the quality of the nominations would be improved by linking to the searches (and perhaps an Alexa ranking per WP:WEB or the actual blogs), but ad hominum attacks are not on. - brenneman^(t)^(c) 01:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The notes are intended to inform the admin who ends up closing the AfD, so that they can consider GNAA's coordinated effort to delete blog-related articles. They aren't personal attacks. I don't think these coordinated votes should be counted at all. I remember other users from the last group of nominations who agree about this. Rhobite 02:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      And I recall users who felt that we should focus on the issues and not who raised them. Your more recent annotations are perfectly acceptable to me as they are not about the person. If you want to start throwing out all "co-ordinated votes", I'd suggest that you nominate Schoolwatch at WP:MFD. However, since this is not a vote, I'd support a closing admin who disregarded any recomendation that did not provide any rational per the Guide_to_deletion.
      brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So what Gay Niggers can't vote? From when? - Femmina 10:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incognito 07:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Above user is a participant in the GNAA "war on blogs". Rhobite 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. It's ok to cover some wildly popular blogging tools, but there's no point to list hundreds of the ones like these. --Timecop 07:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Above user is a participant in the GNAA "war on blogs". Rhobite 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Several hundred hits indicates at least somewhat wide use, which is why this passed VFD the first time around. Also, fix the page so it actually links to here. Night Gyr 08:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisement --Depakote 11:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Above user is a participant in the GNAA "war on blogs". Rhobite 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Proto t c 13:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jmax- 19:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the above user's edits are to blog AfD's except for 2. Rhobite 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tapir
- All of the above user's edits are to blog AfD's except for 8. Rhobite 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with “delete” arguments. I don’t blog, and I don’t use Windows, but I disagree that this software is useless, and I see nothing here that’s blatantly subjective, so I don’t think it constitutes “advertising” any more than does, say, “Microsoft Windows.” The only thing that’s missing here is a comparison (or link to a comparison) to like software. For instance, Wikipedia is probably the only hope for a query like “show me a list of blog client software that implements the MetaWeblog protocol.”
To say this is an “advertisement” (in the sense of “marketing”) is tantamount to saying that this was contributed by a W.bloggar insider, is it not? (Don’t confuse “advertising” with an enthusiastic user’s testimonial.) Frankly I consider that a reckless assertion, not (evidently) based on fact.
I don’t have any opinion on W.bloggar’s notability though. —Fleminra 19:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete point above notwithstanding, this is nn, non-encyclopedic. Eusebeus 20:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hosterweis. There is no shortage of tried-once blogs and no shortage of crap software for making them with. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-known blog software. Rhobite 01:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 320,000 google hits. --Interiot 01:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-known software with wide usability.--SarekOfVulcan 01:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 320K hits but I'm not seeing anything impressive. A single hit on news, and only 35 group hits. It would be nice to see the alexa ranking of the homepage, but I can't seem to connect. Delete unless evidence of notability provided. - brenneman^(t)^(c) 01:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexa: rank 104,042. --Interiot 02:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Forallah 02:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No edits before today, and no edits outside AfD. Rhobite 02:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - So was I mistaken when I thought wikipedia was "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."? Forallah 02:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Anyone can edit, but AfD requires some familarity with the way things work, as well as caution about people with goals other than the project's in mind. Plese don't take it as a personal thing. - brenneman^(t)^(c) 03:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have read all of the wikipedia rules and etc., I am completely familiar with the system. (Pillars, etc.) Is an AfD not also editing wikipedia? Forallah 04:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Replying on User Talk:Forallah. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am going to have to assume good faith Forallah and hope you continue to positively contribute to Wikipedia. However I would just like to say that in the future try to include more information in your AfDs than just "as per norm". Tom Foolery 06:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have to play the devil's advocate here and say that we accept this from more established editors without question. Please see the talk page linked above. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The amount of google hits are hard to ignore, and the alexa rankings only are a sliver short of WP:WEB. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 08:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Proto t c 10:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Already commented/voted above WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 07:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the number of google hits... Mairi 05:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per strong Googles. FCYTravis 07:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Javacast[edit]

non-notable concept with a single homepage hosted at Geocities. Timecop 07:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Podcast; this doesn't deserve an article in its own right. -- (aeropagitica) 07:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which bits would you merge? Would you consider "delete and redirect" instead? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn. Google brings up a ton-and-a-half of nothing. --Hosterweis 07:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Podcruft. Incognito 07:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per above --Depakote 11:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crufty neologism. Proto t c 13:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lol geocities Tapir User had 8 edits before this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes
Delete advertising Jmax- 19:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC) User had 3 edits before this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes[reply]
Delete what Tapir said. Eusebeus 20:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 22:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -Casting neologisms (and those who create them) will burn in silicon hell. Dan 22:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another foocast. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grr... Timecop, please improve the quality of your nominations a little by providing us with some evidence that you've done your homework. If you provide the links that show that things are not notable, people will take them more seriously and you are more likely to get um, uninvolved people to agree with you. It also wouldn't hurt to space them out a bit more? Fairly low Google, nothing on News. Delete unless evidence of notability provided. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Forallah 02:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC) User's only edits are to this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes and his/her talk page[reply]
Delete per all the above deletion reasons. Cptchipjew 10:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 08:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. -- Femmina 17:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photocasting[edit]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=photocasting&btnG=Google+Search 500 google hits for a non-notable concept (um, uploading photos to a website anyone?) nn neolojizzum. Timecop 07:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This appears to be a neologism at the moment. The author needs to assert the concepts' notable status. Surely anthing that can be rendered digitally has the potential to be -cast? -- (aeropagitica) 07:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This foocasting rubbish has to stop! Non-notable. Incognito 07:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User:Timecop seems to be on the warpath against this kind of thing; see his user page. Still, most of his nominations seem to be correct. Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cast this non-notable advertising into /dev/null - Femmina 09:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above... --Depakote 11:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Femmina --Hosterweis 13:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE per above Tapir
Delete. Agreed, Incognito Jmax- 19:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eusebeus 20:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with predjudice against the -casting trend. NN-Neologism. Dan 22:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial neologism Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with all the other foocasting articles to Podcasting genres and derivatives. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 23:01Z

But please let's have a redirect at Listcruft of podcruft :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Forallah 02:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 08:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Batmanand 08:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Proto t c 10:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP AND NOTE Steve Jobs just announced support for this in iPhoto during his keynote --Nick Catalano (Talk) 17:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If we have the iPhoto article why to we need this lame ass stub? Delete and redirect is the best option NOT keep. Incognito 17:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP and expand. Photocasting will take off in a big way soon, it's the standardization of photoblog rss feeds, such as those distributed by Flikr, for distribution to devices like pmps and applications which turn the rss feeds into screensavers etc- it is NOT just a facet of iPhoto. This article will become important very soon. This unsigned vote was placed by 88.109.46.177 at 16:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
That's ok - when it does we should have good article on it. Until then I think that wikipedia is WP:NOT a crystal ball. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 21:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP and expand Just realized I was looking at the photocast aricle not photcasting... oh well... I'm a little late to the party and I apparently don't get this moderation process, which appears to be over. :) ...but I assure you photocasting IS about more than iPhoto and it does have a big future. I'm very knowledgeable on the subject and will work on the photocast article when I get a chance. It isn't the worst article I've seen around, in fact it contains a pretty good dose of info to start with. I've been working on the vlog article... and that's actually worse... perhaps BECAUSE it has so much attention. It is getting there though. --mmeiser 11:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T._Bag[edit]

Likely hoax, or certainly non-notable. Search for "t bag" "divvy dend" on google, or search for their albums, return no results. Oscarthecat 08:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Complete Bollocks Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteHoax. Obina 15:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. -Kilo-Lima 17:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have the terrible feeling that it's not a hoax though. Certainly comes under not notable nevertheless. It's so annoying that all these people keep putting in those tiny phrases which avoid CSD A7. Dan 22:13, 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. Mind matrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary and Karla Show[edit]

non-notable spam advertisement of some unknown blog (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22Mary+and+Karla+Show%22&btnG=Search) Timecop 08:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I downloaded and watched their show #28. It featured two ugly hick chicks drinking cheap wine, laughing histerically about nothing, and speaking in a way that was almost impossible to understand. If this is the "future of the web", god help us all. --Timecop 05:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - go advertise your crappy "show" somewhere else. Thanks. - Femmina 09:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Femmina. Scoo 10:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ridiculous, Not notable. --Depakote 11:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided If it's in the iTunes Top 100 Podcasts list it would seem to be notable, wouldn't it? DavidFarmbrough 12:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It really wouldn't. Maybe if it was in the top 10, regularly, and then only maybe. Proto t c 14:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn advertisement - Hosterweis 13:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Proto t c 14:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advert. Incognito 18:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Mary and Karla are said to have been the first podcasters to use a signature catch-phrase." IMPRESSIVE. Delete. Tapir User had 8 edits before this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes
Delete as per Femmina. Jmax- 19:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC) User had 3 edits before this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes[reply]
Delete, preferably with an RPG. NN. Dan 22:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanispamcruftisement with probably the single least catchy tagline I've ever seen - which may be indicative of the overall standard of the "show". Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if "Mmmmmkay" is the most notable thing about it, I'll help with the RPG. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 01:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Forallah 02:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC) User's only edits are to this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes and his/her talk page[reply]
Delete per nom. Eusebeus 05:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke this hell I live in the SAME STATE, a mere 25 minute drive from these people and I've never heard of their show. Clearly they dont belong here. ALKIVAR™ 10:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't seem to be an advert, just a little stub on a show that's consistently one of the top video podcasts on iTunes, Podcast Ally, etc. I say it should stay. If shows like Dawn & Drew have pages, why exclude others? 24.211.106.246 03:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Will[reply]

Thanks for reminding about DAn and Drew show. It will be deleted eventually. Because it has alexa ranking of 17k and only several hundred unique google hits. --Timecop 03:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete, this reads as an advert to me --Justwes 05:53, 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. Mind matrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skypecasting[edit]

Yes because combining two useless words together makes it even more useless. non-notable concept, etc Timecop 08:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - 187,000 hits on google, many articles explaining what it is, eg [21] --Oscarthecat 08:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - actual number of hits is 351 Night Gyr 08:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , possible Merge with other podcasting articles (see possible merge of podnography et al). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 09:06Z
Delete - possible delete or just delete - Femmina 09:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many google hits including slashdot and new scientist -- Astrokey44|talk 10:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not very notable --Depakote 11:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if it has google hits. It's a neologism. Delete, and if that won't work, redirect to Skype. Proto t c 13:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or more weakly, merge) per Proto. --Hosterweis 13:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Podcast if the information is required at all. -- (aeropagitica) 15:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nom. --Kilo-Lima 17:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Worthless foocasting neologism. Incognito 18:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --kingboyk 18:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom TapirUser had 8 edits before this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes
Delete No. Jmax- 19:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)User had 3 edits before this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes[reply]
Delete This should just be trashed. Eusebeus 20:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. For reasons stated above. Oh and hello to all the new editors. -- JJay 21:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How could you possibly vote to Strong Keep this????? Eusebeus 05:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Check JJay's voting history: some people have less of a problem with trivia than others; JJay seems not to mind it as long as it's verifiable, which is his prerogative. I disagree, but that's mine. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I also dislike block voting and sockpuppets. -- JJay 22:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right with you on sockpuppets, do please let me know how to arrange a block vote :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See nom's talk page for details. -- JJay 19:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for preference, but perhaps merge all foocasting to one single Cruft-O-Rama. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Skype. Tom Foolery 01:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Forallah 02:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)User's only edits are to this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes and his/her talk page[reply]
Delete per other delete votes. Cptchipjew 10:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mergewith Skype which is hardly a useless word. Crunch 19:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge per above WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 08:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - was looking for SkypeCasting on Google. Found this article. Now I understand what the term is about!

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Citibank (and I have completed this redirect). Stifle 01:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citibank, N.A.[edit]

Delete This page has basically nothing but one sentence saying that its a common name for Citibank companies worldwide. Basically unencyclopedic and should be either deleted or merged to Citibank. Terence Ong ^Talk 09:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Citibank or Citigroup; not sure which. Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect as per others Scoo 10:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Citibank. Youngamerican 14:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Dan 21:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above.--SarekOfVulcan 01:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Citibank unless N.A. has some meaning that should be explained. --Ajdz 05:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redirect NA at the end of the name is short for National Association, most national banks have it as part of their legal name, but not advertised J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 16:03, 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. Mind matrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tonic_lotion[edit]

advertisment Tomandlu 09:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advert and WP:BALLS Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, advertising. -- (aeropagitica) 15:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an advert. Even though English like that would prohibit me from buying that product. Dan 20:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert type thing. Stifle 14:34, 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 delete. Mind matrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TouchTaxi[edit]

DeleteNon-notable company, fails WP:CORP, google returns short of 300 hits, the vast majority being press-releases — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcordina (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Terence Ong ^Talk 10:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. It's a very stubby stub about a very stubby company. Dan 20:46, 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 keep. Mind matrix 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freezepop (band)[edit]

NN band, but not speedyable Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I don't think they're non-notable. Hell, somehow I know about them. I think the article does a good job of asserting notability. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 14:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cleanup strongly urged for this. At last, a band article where the band are mentioned on allmusic.com. Notable, if obscure. The page layout is terrible and really needs to be improved asap. -- (aeropagitica) 15:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only do they have an allmusic entry and stuff, but they also have been a featured artist in every Harmonix game released to date. Makes 'em pretty well-known amongst rhythm game enthusiasts, I'd say. Mo0[talk] 06:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is significant precedent for keeping highly prolific video-game musicians. (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or cleanup - This band is not just a blip - they have a significant discography now, and are gaining a lot of exposure. Alex 20:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are a great band, and very relevant in the my local music scene (Boston) The article certainly needs some cleanup though.--BrokenStoic 23:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Freezepop is a very prominent band in the synthpop scene. And anyone who's played a PlayStation 2 game has had to have heard of them by now. They've been around for a while, they done a lot of work... the fact that this article is even up for deletion is, frankly, a little shocking. Freezepop is definitely a notable band. The article really needs to be cleaned up, though - starting by creating separate pages for each CD. --Pele Merengue
Keep Freezepop is a relevant band to many groups of people. Not just am I a big Playstation gamer, but in Boston (where I attend college), Freezepop is absolutely one of the most popular local bands. I must admit that I am biased, as my favorite band is Splashdown, but with that said, I don't think there's any reason to not have an article on Freezepop. The article needs a small amount of clean-up, but I don't think any drastic changes are necessary.--Kicking222

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:BorgHunter as A6 and A7

Jon Lassonde[edit]

The article appears to be copied from Edmond-Charles Genêt except the name was changed in the introduction. No source has been provided. Shawnc 09:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect speedy redirect in that case... Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Speedy delete A6, as it's a hoax article to disparage the title person. "He's gay and likes it in the bum" is not generally a common encyclopediac statement. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 15:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is an attack on the subject. -- (aeropagitica) 15:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article now appears to be missing? Dan 20:37, 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. Mind matrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too small[edit]

As far as I can tell this article has no foundation in reality. In mathematical terms, it is meaningless. Therefore it should be deleted. Stefán Ingi 09:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Complete, Total and Utter Bollocks. This proves that Wikipedia is unbounded, since for any stupid article x, there exists an even more stupid article y... Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 10:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Essexmutant 11:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was marked for speedy deletion per CSD:G1 (patent nonsense) which it is not. (Patent nonsense is a jumble of characters and words with no meaning whatsoever.) I removed the tag. However I also vote to delete. Stifle 11:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definition in my opinion should be - smaller than is usable, adjective describing something that is not large enough for some context. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.225.83.207 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- jaredwf 14:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is totally useless as a reference article. -- (aeropagitica) 15:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Infinitesimal, maybe? -- Plutor 17:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe, just maybe, Redirect as above. Dan 20:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redir.--SarekOfVulcan 01:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect. Infinitesimals denote quantities which are sufficiently small, not excessively small. Ryan Reich 01:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: too big. Charles Matthews 22:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete, no redirect. --C S (Talk) 09:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I do feel it falls under CSD:G1/2, as well -- Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.) Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:27, 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 keep. No consensus to delete, and the article has been expanded. Punkmorten 10:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Groundcrew[edit]

dictdef Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 10:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary -- Astrokey44|talk 10:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that there's as much to say about ground crew as there is about air crew. Keep. Uncle G 02:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G. Stifle 14:34, 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 redirect; nothing mergeable. Johnleemk | Talk 12:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Takutanuva[edit]

is this fictional character notable? Does the move in question even have an article? Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 10:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bionicle: Mask of Light -- Astrokey44|talk 10:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trim down and merge. A paragraph max in the movie article. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 10:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, but that article will need attention as well! Dan 20:24, 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 redirect to Tree (graph theory). Mind matrix 02:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Directed tree[edit]

dictdef; not sure there's any content here worth merging with any tree articles either Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 10:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dictdef. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 10:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's about math? Redirect per below. -- Saberwyn.
Redirect to Tree (graph theory) like Rooted tree. -- jaredwf 12:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tree (graph theory). —Ruud 12:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge with Tree (graph theory). Schlockading 13:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, no merging necessary.--SarekOfVulcan 01:42, 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. Mind matrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swan Glassey[edit]

Several editors claim this is a hoax article. Google found only Wikipedia mirrors. jni 10:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam/hoax. Scoo 10:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified -- Astrokey44|talk 10:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified. It might have something to do with the John person mentioned at the end; plus, has anyone ever heard of "Swan Crystal" (as in the type of glass)? It's balls, I think. Dan 19:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Given his claimed accomplishments, he should be easily verifiable. Also, conservation of charge was known before the discovery of electrons and before he was born, so the claim that he discovered conservation of charge is dubious. ManoaChild 22:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as unverified. Ajwebb 22:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously fake, and when researched, can find NOTHING to support this entry. --Evianboy 11:22, 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. Mind matrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podjournalism[edit]

I can't find much evidence this term really exists outside of one person's use. Google doesn't give much: [22] [23]. NicM 10:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's a dictdef in any case; but it certainly smells like a bollocks neologism. Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 10:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Melchoir 10:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Terence Ong ^Talk 13:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with podcast, if required at all. -- (aeropagitica) 15:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as more Podbollocks. Dan 19:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 15 hits on refined Google search. Might deserve a mention in the Podcasting genres article in planning to merge all the foocasting articles. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 22:59Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — JIP | Talk 11:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin tankleff[edit]

notable? Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 11:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Either a double parricide or a miscarriage of justice. Notable either way? --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep but only if it gets cleaned up a lot. Dan 19:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important case. -- JJay 21:22, 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 keep. Interested parties are cordially invited to merge, move, redirect, and/or clean-up as the move strikes them. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 20:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The God of Village[edit]

Although this article seems to be written in good faith, I cannot find anything on the 'net to directly support this concept. Taoism does indeed support a hierarchy of gods, so perhaps this "God of Village" is instead many many separate "Gods of Villages". In any case, unless the article can be cleaned up by someone with more indepth knowledge than I have, I would suggest a delete Madman 16:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this article is merged with Taoism make sure it doesn't land in the Tao chia (or Daojia) section of philosophical Taoism, which has no gods. Endomion 17:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & cleanup. Most English-language sources on religious Taoism refer to these local deities as a "Land God" or "Earth God." (Look halfway down this page for an example of a statue of a Land God.) They fit into the Taoist hierarchy of dieties above the Kitchen God but below the City God or Town God. Aside from the name-- which may well be a legitimate translation-- there is nothing wacky about the info in the article, though some of it might need sourcing. I agree that it should be cleaned up rather than being merged into the Taoism article. Crypticfirefly 04:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--Oh, and it looks like the article originally had an image of "Tudi Gong" or "Tu Di Gong"-- I have no idea what picture was there originally, but it was probably something like [this]. If I had time to clean this up now, I would, but I don't . . . Crypticfirefly 05:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this title should redirect to a discussion of village gods in general, or a disambig pointing to Tudi if "The God of Village" is really a specific title for the dude. Kappa 06:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a good point. There probably should be a village gods disambig. page, as they have them in Japan, Korea, India, etc. Crypticfirefly 02:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion did not gather enough votes for consensus, relisting. — JIP | Talk 11:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change into village god, village gods in Taoism, spirit of village, or something to that effect. I do not know enough about the subject to be sure what form would be the most appropriate. - Skysmith 12:42, 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. Mind matrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilleus Aksakov[edit]

VegaDark listed this as a speedy deletion under CSD:A7, but because the page asserts that he is a hero, it does not qualify. Bringing it here instead. My vote is to delete as unverifiable. Stifle 11:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A hero of a myth that we don't have linked isn't much of a claim to notability, but I understand not wanting to speedy it. VegaDark 11:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - heaven knows what mythos this is about. No Google hits for this - partially a Czech/Hungarian (?) version of the name of the Russian writer Sergei Timofeyevich Aksakov - or any of the other names. Tearlach 14:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Neunt of Axelrod. Tearlach 13:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as random weirdness with no explanation or notability. Dan 18:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, invented idiosyncratic mythology. Smerdis of Tlön 20:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per comments above. Ajwebb 22:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is either patent nonsense or completely garbled to the point of nonsense. Hu 18:09, 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 keep. Mind matrix 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalence[edit]

I came across this while stubsorting. It's already in wiktionary and I feel this can't get past a dicdef status. Unless anyone can think of a useful redirect target, I suggest it to be deleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care what happens to it. Aha. Ahahaha. Just my little joke. Delete. Proto t c 12:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is much more about it's use as a psychoanalytic term here than in wiktionary, and it's more appropriate to keep it here, as it goes beyond a simple dicdef. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Squiddy. Stifle 14:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has more scope than a mere dictdef. -- (aeropagitica) 15:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still a dictdef to me. PJM 16:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a psychoanalysis term. It's quite well written too. Dan 18:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice article, goes well beyond a dicdef. --kingboyk 19:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is more than a dicdef, and has potentials to further mature. --Bhadani 06:14, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 12:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Tech 222, Cumberland 0[edit]

Found during stubsorting. Not only is it a bad title, it's something that should be mentioned in the article on the teams involved. If the teams don't deserve articles the game doesn't either. I'm not sure if it can be merged as I'm not aware of naming conventions for these sports teams, but if merging isn't an option, this should be deleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Individual articles on football games notable only for extreme scorelines are not encyclopedic. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was going to suggest Merging with Cumberland University since this seems to have precipitated them dropping their football program, but it's already there. I doubt the article could be expanded further, so delete. Wrathchild 14:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Squiddy. Stifle 15:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Squiddy. --kingboyk 16:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This can be mentioned on each teams' article page, if required. -- (aeropagitica) 17:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pa. Dan 17:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Georgia Tech v. Cumberland, 1916. There's been a recent discussion as to whether individual sports results are worthy of inclusion; no consensus appears to have been reached generally. There does seem to be a faint consensus that non-routine, highly unusual or record-setting results are notable. This would count. Smerdis of Tlön 20:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Georgia Tech v. Cumberland, 1916. Ive seen this score cited a bazillion times in various formats. More than just a fact to be collected. Youngamerican 20:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Important in college football history. -- JJay 21:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP as per JJay...this is what happens when non-Americans try to dictate what is important to Americans...they try and delete things that are significant that they've never heard of....i bet there are plenty of soccer entries i could AFD using this criteria. WillC 23:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Remember to assume good faith here. I doubt its any New World Order/European Union conspiracy against to make us like soccer and techno music. I can assure you that any articles dealing with soccer get as much scrutiny as those American football. I think those that disagree with us find this to be random trivia and/or a crappy article with a bad title. We think the article has merit. That is the only difference. I do think that there should be another name for the article, as the current title sounds a bit odd. However, we are all here to make wikipedia a better resource. Youngamerican 00:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...there are plenty of soccer entries i could AFD using this criteria Try cricket instead: some crazed cricket fans created articles for EVERY game in the English league's season last year. --Calton | Talk 01:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Smerdis. I'm normally against articles on regular-season games, but this event is famous. -- Mwalcoff 00:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here. When there's enough material for even a halfway decent stub, then break it out from Cumberland University. --Calton | Talk 01:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move per Smerdis. Cumberland's page on the subject is quite amusing.--SarekOfVulcan 01:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ok, maybe the title could be better, but I started this article and was hoping it could be expanded on. I am new to wikipedia and learning the ropes and hoping to make my own little contribution. Maybe I should study the protocols better but I stand by that this is a significant entry and those who recommended deletion are very unconvincing and only justify their arguments based on easily correctible technicalities. I see bits and pieces about this game around the net and was hoping it could come to some coherence. The fact that some have expaned on it makes it worthwhile and that, in the end, was what I was hoping for. -- MrMurph101
Keep and move per Smerdis - precedent already set with the articles in Category:National Football League lore. Sam Vimes 12:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Smerdis. Notable game in football history. --FrankCostanza 20:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Smerdis. --Arcadian 21:56, 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 as delete rationale is no longer valid. Johnleemk | Talk 12:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of family separation research articles[edit]

Collection of external links. Delete. Melchoir 12:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia articles are not lists of external links. (Exception: (if they happen to be the reference material for an article split out because of size). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Evil Eye 13:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expand List items should not be just links, as wikipedia is not a link farm. However, research items can easily have well formed citations, and they should. As of note, family seperation related links at times may seem like spam, but they are very useful and encylopediac. I suggest to review the links and see if they are spam, like if they lead to an ad-supported site with information that can be found elsewhere without ads. Family law related topics easily get unbalanced from npov because some wikipedians delete non governmental related information, which excludes one party of the two sides of the respective pov. — Dzonatas 14:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand this proposal. Expand how? Melchoir 00:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Compare the top section to the bottom section. The top section should be more like the bottom section. The top section is mainly links as you have nom'd. Your nom is untrue for the bottom section. Either way, it can be expanded further for family law resource. Give more information like when was such report or citation made, the title of such report, why was the report done, and more questions one could ask if the link dissapears. If you still want to delete the article, then move such research back to their original pages. — Dzonatas 01:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, "why was the report done" does have some encyclopedic value, but that makes the page sound like a References section in search of an article. Melchoir 01:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned at Talk:List of family separation research articles, it was the intention that each article should have a précis, though I don't think much has been done on that front. My feeling is that, whatever people say wikipedia is and is not, links to bona fide research are always useful. If this article appears as a list of references waiting for an article - and the list was originally moved out of an article following someone's comment a while back - then why remove information which could be useful? There are 6 other articles which link to the article, so presumably it acts as a list of references, or related material, for their benefit. It seems a pity to delete this for no particular reason. My other preference would be to move it. Matt Stan 19:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in current form. Pn. Dan 17:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jim62sch 01:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the request to delete still valid if I go and change the article to make it different from what it was when the deletionist arrived? That's what I'm doing anyway, changing the list into a series of paragraphs, explaining a bit about each article - though in fact most of the titles are fairly self-explanatory - in the hope that it will invalidate all the other deletionists' votes above, since you wouldn't then be deleting that which had originally been proposed. Down with deletionists! I say. They would spend their time better actually doing some of the donkey work, rather than exercising officious power with no responsibility! :-) Matt Stan 19:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes you can improve it while it is under AfD. — Dzonatas 01:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep in its current form. Turnstep 23:48, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NetworkAnatomy[edit]

Article created by User:NetworkAnatomy, reads like an advert, company is apparently not publicly quoted (see WP:CORP), and scores ~800 Google hits, which seem to be mostly press releases. Has been in business for a bit under 4 years, whihc is long enough for the word to spread if they are genuinely notable. I think this is vanispamcruftisement. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network Anatomy (disambiguation). Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NetworkAnatomy has reponded to immediately delete the insertion of disambiguous alternatives which caused an unexpected vanity appearance. NetworkAnatomy, while starting out in 2002, went into revenue operations in 2004 after nearly two years of development. Notariety (direct interests) since 2004 have grown by 247% and continue today. We are an up and coming company with growing independent writings and evaluations on our work. We followed the standard corporate outlines already presented in Wikipedia. The compliance rules for Wikipedia are not trivial so we look forward to the support to make it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NetworkAnatomy (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. Page verges on incomprehensible at points, and the subject is not notable enough to justify keeping an article about them free of advertising POV and properly written. --Last Malthusian 18:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Last Malthusian. Stifle 14:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:CORP. Suspect ulterior motive of nominator may be to use the word vanispamcruftisement. ;) Turnstep 23:51, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstraction methodology[edit]

This article seems to me as advertisement, has anyone heard of this ? I propose to delete it Khalid hassani 12:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in fact it migth be a Speedy candidate. Not because it's POV or anything, but because the article doesn't actually explain what the subject is, or why it's significant. Dan 17:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem to be an ad. Searching on google for "Abstraction method" UML produces a fair number documents. Weak delete for now (as article is an ad) will change vote to full delete if people no-one can verify notability, or keep if people can. --Petros471 17:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert. Stifle 14:34, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Holmqvist[edit]

There was a notable Swedish TV journalist of this name, but this claims to be about a Danish historian and is likely a hoax. I find no trace of either the person or his books in the catalogue of the Danish Royal Library. u p p l a n d 12:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pn, not on Google either. Dan 16:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable Dlyons493 Talk 21:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable and no claim to notability. Stifle 14:34, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawhid Boys School (London)[edit]

To me, it's pure advertising. Skyscrap27 13:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reluctantly. I think the general precedent for keeping schools is nuts, but they are generally kept. This article requires NPOVing, though. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I would love to save this school, but this is blatent advertising and unverified at the moment. Thier website contains no information. Movementarian 14:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up, per Squiddy. The word "we" should generally not appear in Wikipedia articles (outside an acknowledged quote, of course.) Also, check for copyright.Bjones 14:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete this school seems to defend a certain idiology, this is not what I will call a universal and humanist education, to say the least. This looks to me like a Madrassa or kind of, though they seem to give modern teaching too, not that there is inherently something wrong with that, but the subject has been lately very controversial, in Pakistan for example, but elswhere in the muslim world too (see also Taliban) --Khalid hassani 14:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, perhaps, but creating an article isn't a sign of approval.Bjones 15:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me it reads like an advert, maybe it might have its place in a Yellow page directory, but clearly not in WP. I am still looking for the Encyclopedic content here --Khalid hassani 15:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup per Squiddy. Islamic schools are quite unusual in the UK and that alone makes this noteworthy. We don't delete things just because they are (or might be) controversial. Dan 16:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup Should we delete the article on Hitler because we don't support Nazis? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with it being an Islamic School. I think it's an example of advertising and that's why I think it should be deleted, not because it's an Islamic school. Skyscrap27 17:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we keep it, then we would have no reason to refuse any and every other private school ! everyone must be treated on equal footing. This seems to me clearly an advert with no Encyclopedic content, and should go into places like this Yellowikis. Schools with famous and numerous alumini for example, have their places in WP not any and every school. University of Al Karaouine which is also a Madrassa clearly has its place, not this one.--Khalid hassani 17:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see from the history that the page was a terribly blatant piece of advertising/propaganda, but that's now been removed leaving little more than a stub. What to do? I suppose weak delete. --kingboyk 18:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess that this version says it all. A guy has apparently changed the content while the discussion was ongoing --Khalid hassani 18:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you read the deletion notice, on the article which clearly states "You are welcome to edit this article,...". What part of that do you not understand? The message you left on my talk page indicates you're fairly new to AFDs. It's incredibly normal, and common, for articles to undergoe massive changes during AFD. They can't be blanked, redirected, or changed to a different topic. But they can always be improved, and in fact, should be improved. Do not invent non-existent policy please. --Rob 18:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some more reading form Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion:
- You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period. Indeed, if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article (noting in the discussion that you have done so if your edits are significant ones).
Also, note, I removed copyrighted text. Putting that text back would actually be prohibited. --Rob 18:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- Rob 17:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand ASAP. Otherwise merge w/ city.Gateman1997 18:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge per WP:SCH if/when a suitable merge target is identified/created. I think an article on private Islamic schools in the UK (or maybe London) specifically would be a good target. I wouldn't mix it in with an article with state schools, or other non-Muslim schools, as info in that article wouldn't apply. --Rob 18:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks fine now. Calsicol 19:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as and when information becomes available to do so. Jcuk 19:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thivierr Ashibaka tock 21:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there anything about this school that makes it notable? If so, can it be stated in the article so as to propose a reason to keep and not delete? -- (aeropagitica) 21:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This school, like all others, is an important public institution and should be written about somewhere, even if it cannot sustain an article on it's own. Presently people do create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, I feel it is always preferable and takes much less energy to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district of local education authority of other school system, while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use. This is the baseline consensus that I feel was reached at WP:SCH. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep please this school is notable Yuckfoo 02:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, helps to cover education in Stoke Newington and Islamic education in London. Kappa 02:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Schools --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:49, 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. Mo0[talk] 02:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dorchester Town footballers[edit]

Nomination for all of the following articles: Craig Bradshaw, Ryan Hill, Simon Radcliffe, Mark Jermyn, Glenn Howes, Mark Robinson (footballer) and Nick Jones.

All of the above are players at Dorchester Town F.C., a minor ~~amateur~~ semi-professional English football (soccer) club; Dorchester currently play in the Conference South, which is the sixth tier (division) of English football - more than 110 clubs rank above them. None of these players are or were professionals, nor have they done anything that gives them a reasonable degree of notability. Delete all as non-notable. Qwghlm 13:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: I missed out Andy Harris when making the original nom. It should also be added to the list of articles to be deleted, for the exact same reasons as above. Qwghlm 14:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Qwghlm. -- Elisson • Talk 13:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination. Movementarian 13:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As it is a notable club, a merge as CTOAGN suggests might be a good solution. Poulsen 22:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Non-notable, as per nomination. Poulsen 17:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pn. Dan 16:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all too Julien Tuerlinckx 21:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nominator. Might be an idea to remove the links in the "Current squad" section of Dorchester Town F.C. to discourage the recreation of these articles. Sliggy 22:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination -Aabha (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging within the club article is a better idea. All content that is factually correct is useful. -Aabha (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. They could either go in a new section of Dorchester Town F.C. (see F.C. United of Manchester#Current players), or if that would make the article too big, create a new article with a title like Players of Dorchester Town F.C. There's no point having loads of one-sentence stubs, but I like the way Wikipedia's coverage of English football goes so far down into non-league. It gives us more rather than less credibility IMO. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk)
- Please clarify - do you mean merge with a redirect, or merge without? Qwghlm 09:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having just checked the merging guidelines, they stipulate that redirects must be left in place, for the sake of preserving article history. So merging without redirecting is not an option; if a merge goes ahead then all the above pages will have to redirect to Dorchester Town F.C.. I don't think that's a very good idea; if someone's non-notable, they're non-notable, and should be deleted totally. Qwghlm 18:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as per CTOAGN. Carioca 22:08, 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, see reasoning at the bottom of the discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby George[edit]

Tagged for speedy as little or no context. Article is really short, but I think there is a enought ontext here to clear the speedy deletion criteria. Appears to be a professional darts player so I say keep as we do with other professional sports players. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable enough - I've heard of him and I don't follow darts at all. Qwghlm 13:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Professional darts player and presenter on the BBC. What more do you want? Movementarian 13:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, note how I nominated this article for speedy deletion before it was expanded. Before I can comfortably vote keep, I would like to know what it is he presented. Also, the article states he lost an Embassy game, I'm more interested in what he won... - Mgm|^(talk) 13:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darts, of course. Movementarian 14:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He presents the Lakeside World Darts Championship (see World Professional Darts Championship.) He won the Hainault Super League Singles in 1976, the Essex Masters three years running (76-78,) the North American Open in 1978, the NOTW Championship and Butlins Grand Masters in 1979, etc. Essexmutant 16:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, that's the kind of information we need. Can anyone explain the stray sentence fragment? - Mgm|^(talk) 19:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, darts pundit. Kappa 14:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not my kind of topic, but I can see the article, as it stands, grossly under-represents his record: see [24] [25] [26]. Tearlach 14:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - very notable darts player and celebrity, needs expanding though. Essexmutant 16:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not a darts fan, but he is quite famous in the UK. Needs expanding, though. Dan 16:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This has to be the most famous person I've seen AFD nominated yet! He may be a nobody in the rest of the world, but he's a household name in the UK. --kingboyk 16:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not in this household but I will defer to the will of the other voters. -- (aeropagitica) 18:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There must be more people who have heard of Bobby George than who have heard of the most famous person in some academic categories with scores of members. Calsicol 19:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Bobby George is one of the most recognised and well known figures in darts, although no longer a very successful player. Didsbury ryder 21:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to make a slight ivocation of IAR here to speedy up the process. Clearly this thing is going to be kept. Even the nominator, i.e me, wants this kept, and Mgm who added the first delete tag voted "weak keep". THere is no point in discussing this further. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:58, 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 03:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trickle attack[edit]

A search for "Trickle attack" spam on Google shows only 10 unique results. Interestingly, "trickle attack" itself shows 71 and a review of some of the additional 61 websites citations for trickle attack do not concern spam, but discuss the use of trickle attacks in warfare and against firewalls. I therefore nominate this entry for deleltion because it is a narrow definition of a non-notable neologism. Madman 13:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - someone is trying to coin a neologism here. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 14:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pn. Dan 16:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as nn neologism. Stifle 14:34, 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 deleted by User:Mailer diablo. Punkmorten 10:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odamex[edit]

Not notable. No information at link which was last updated Nov 2005 Naturenet | Talk 13:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Obina 14:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pn. Dan 16:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stifle 14:33, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Safe Guard (Soap)[edit]

Nothing but blatant advertising. Limited expansion potential. Qarnos 14:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Safeguard soap is certainly a notable product and has plenty of history. Then, move to the correct title: Safeguard (soap) and expand. PJM 14:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, move, expand per above. Youngamerican 14:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps this can be used as a model: Ivory (soap). PJM 14:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per PJM. There is scope to expand - old brand history can be interesting.Obina 14:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but edit out the advertising. Substantial rewrite needed.Bjones 14:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PJM, and Bjones. Dan 16:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but be careful not to drop it during the page move. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 05:19, 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 03:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nanocompetition[edit]

Looks like original research to me. Wrathchild 14:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does to me as well. Dan 16:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smacks of original research to me as well. -- (aeropagitica) 17:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as random non-notable neologism and original research. Stifle 14:33, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citadel of Troy[edit]

Nothing here not already on Troy. Stifle 14:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless stub, pn. Dan 16:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough information in the article to make it worth merging in to Troy. -- (aeropagitica) 17:23, 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 cleanup. Johnleemk | Talk 12:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramanathan V. Guha[edit]

Errr...is this guy really that notable? Article reads more like a resume cover letter and doesn't seem, to me, to establish notability. Wrathchild 14:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If he really co-founded Epinions then he has at least a claim to notability. Agreed that the article reads like a (badly written) CV, however. --kingboyk 17:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup I don't want to have to read a c.v. to try to understand why this person is notable. If it can't be stated clearly in a sentence then it should go. -- (aeropagitica) 21:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup - He's a well-known computer scientist in knowledge representation and artificial intelligence circles, and is one of the creators of the Resource Description Framework that is the basis for a lot of Semantic Web work. I think that makes him notable, though I agree the article could be cleaned up. -- cmh 03:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain: Is he notable to he here? And surnames ending with "Guha", which is a surname used in Bengal normally has no convention to write names like Ramanathan V. Guha (I mean names are written in full) - though exceptions my be there, of course. Full name shall be appreciated. I would invite more comments as regards the notability. --Bhadani 06:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think he's notable because many of the projects he has lead or made significant contributions to — not just Epinions, but the Cyc project, and the Resource Description Framework and Semantic Web — are well-known enough within the computer industry to make him an "industry figure." On the subject of naming, he is often cited in the computer industry press and computer science academia as "R. V. Guha" and is otherwise referred to within the English-language portion of the industry via an "anglicized" name, as in the entry's title. This might be important for discoverability and linkability, though there could always be redirects to his proper or preferred form (whatever it may be). -- cmh 07:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup - As indicated already, how can you question the noteworthiness of the create of RDF the basic foundation of the next generation of the Web. This is quite ironic where you also factor in the role that Wikipedia will ultimately play in the materialization of the Semantic Web vision (Wikipedia will soon become the Semantic / Data Web Poster child). I understand that outlines without the "Stub" notice can be misleading re. encyclopedic pages (I've been burnt by this myself across Wikipedia already), but we cannot have a true encyclopedia without its prime responsibility of knowledge creation and exposure compromised by inadvertent distortions. To remove this entry from Wikipedia is to distort extremely valuable history! I don't think this is anyone's intention.--Kingsley_Idehen 22:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 14:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Banbury[edit]

nn-bio. recommend Delete or Merge into related school article, if such exists.-- Syrthiss 14:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 15:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Oakton High School, he isn't notable enough on his own, but the information in this article doesn't appear to be in there. Dan 15:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual. -- (aeropagitica) 17:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Dan Jcuk 19:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. -- JJay 21:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge see Dan above. Tom Foolery 22:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Recommend the article author see WikiMe for writing biographies and/or WikiTree for writing genealogies; article author may also want to consider moving the content to his user page. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 22:54Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMT Labs[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "advertisement without encyclopedic relevance," which is not speediable. Bringing to AfD to respect the wishes of the anon user who tagged it for speedy. No vote. howch e ng {chat} 22:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete company is nn, website has an Alexa rank of 1,642,727. --Pboyd04 22:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexa rank should have no bearing here. We're looking at WP:CORP, not WP:WEB. howch e ng {chat} 07:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pboyd04 Endomion 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete adspam. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it would be easier if we first decide if Spleak is notable, since that is their main product. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 22:53Z

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

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

AfDs for this article

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Walker[edit]

Non-notable graphic designer turned medical activist CDN99 15:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but with rigorous attention to WP:NPOV (we can do without the authorial viewpoint of "arguably the best book" and "documenting the assault"). Also, the Archives Hub shows he's done a lot more than medical activism. Tearlach 20:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- JJay 21:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep can you stop wasting my time on malicious attempted deletions. You are also trying it on with National Anti-Vaccination League. It is a bit obvious you are attempting to suppress any criticism of allopathy. Martin Walker is the number one medical critic in the UK. We have NO medical investigative journalism in the UK, so he is the only one doing that in the UK of any note apart from WDDTY. john 18:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Notable published investigative writer. Ombudsman 20:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A bunch of nonsense about a non-notable intended only to push POV. Soltak | Talk 18:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vandalism and POV magnet. Stifle 01:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keysport[edit]

This article seams to be an hoax, specially if considering its original version. Google hits (used to justify the article during the first vote did not have in mind that those links describe a completely different game. Hope we can quikly delete this article that is already more than a year old. Mariano(t/c) 15:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely bogus. In case you were wondering, the team names are distorted versions of real sports teams, proper names, etc., and the wikilinks are pointed at random. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 22:51Z
Delete as random hoax. Stifle 14:28, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chav vehicle modification[edit]

Chav vehicle modification was nominated for deletion on 2005-08-11. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chav vehicle modification.

Though this page was deleted back in August, I put it here rather than in speedy because this version is, if nothing else, well developed and goes back to September. However, I feel that the original view - that this information is unverifiable, only vaguely encyclopedic and that most of it is covered in 'chav' still applies. Robdurbar 15:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may also be worth considering that the chav article (until today ) previously linked to Rice burner - so a merger into that aritcle could be a possible alternative to deletion.Robdurbar 15:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article were to be merged into Chav, then it would need a rewrite, as it is less than neutral.
Comment If this article were to be cleaned up, it would form an acceptable paragraph on the Chav article. As it is, the tone is derogatory and it says more about the attitudes of the author than about the behaviour of the subject. -- (aeropagitica) 18:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (again)in Burberry simply unreferenced anecdotal prejudice . The opening line asserts 'Chav Vehicle Modification is an often derogatory term' - but is it an often used term? Google gives only one citation that's not a mirror [27] and the article offers nothing more. So non-notable, unverified, POV, original research as it stands. --Doc ^ask? 19:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sceptr e ^(Talk) 20:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is distinctly POV and mostly conjecture. I did get a brief snicker out of it though. BJAODN perhaps? Dan 20:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and not BJAODN. These articles attract the unverifiable, prejudice, schoolboy sniggerings and the absurd. Secretlondon 16:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as repost of already deleted material. Stifle 14:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. chocolateboy 17:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if it were rewritten from NPOV, there are 39 google results of which most are Wikipedia+mirrors, therefore the term is not notable and may violate no original research. Joe D (t) 00:28, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 12:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discover America[edit]

Delete. This appears to be a nn band that does not pass WP:MUSIC. However, there is a decent-sized list of contributions, so I didn't want to list for speedy. Lbbzman 15:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I looked and couldn't find anything to refute your claim. They're touring small theatres in big cities but apparently only as a secondary band to a band I never heard of. I never heard of their interviewers and one of their interviewers' web sites doesn't work properly. Delete this and their one album which also has an article. And don't be put off by large contribution quantity since it's basically one guy + two anons + a couple people doing wiki. --Wknight94 (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wknight94. Stifle 14:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You guys are right in that this page doesn't meet the requirements. I'm probably voting to keep this only becuase I wrote a majority of the the page. However, as soon as they release a second album they will meet the following requirement: Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). With the new release, I will be re-creating the page if it is deleted now. Our entropy 16:57, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Anti-Vaccination League[edit]

This isn't really an article, and doesn't have any useful information to be organized CDN99 15:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googling yields 267 hits; it's a defunct group --CDN99 13:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand to contain some slightly more useful information Jcuk 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep; it's an important lesson to remember that such a group existed and had support (anon)
Keep Important historical organisation, and seeing as all vaccination pages are biased and vaccination criticism gets deleted off Wiki eg Lily Loat, --attempts Viera Scheibner, Vaccination critics, there needs to be a source of present day anti-vaccination people, seeing as Vaccination critics looks to be going. And since my research is vaccination I would appreciate it if other editors didn't try to delete my work. john 17:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a present-day organization. John's "research" is described here, as well as his numerous articles created to support his criticism of vaccines. --CDN99 18:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no sympathy for the anti-vax position, but this contains valuable information for those of us who attempt to counteract the damaging influence of anti-vax fanatics like John (whaleto).

History needs to be preserved. Unless we understand our history, we will be doomed to repeat it. Even the rantings of misinformed anti-vaxers should sometimes be preserved. They just need to be labeled for what they are: rants, misinformation, dangerous, prejudiced, one-sided, etc.

Wikipedia needs to be more than an ordinary encyclopedia, which includes the concept of being a relatively unlimited source of information. Bytes fill less than paper.....;.) -- Fyslee 21:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try and refrain from personal abuse, ad hominem abusive is an admission that we have no argument. When you have spent 12 years looking into vaccination, like I have, you may realise you are the one who is misinformed. "When we criticise others, we are in fact giving a description of ourselves"--is a saying you may like to meditate on. john 22:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be but it is hard to change a dinosaur. john 22:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Noteworthy. Ombudsman 21:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Roots date back to the 19th century. No valid reason to delete. -- JJay 21:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The importance of keeping this information is similar to the preservation of Auschwitz. It's an uncomfortable experience, but very thought provoking. The ignorance, misdeeds and delusions of anti-vaxers need to be preserved to some degree. If they succeed because of our ignorance of their errors, we will see a return of mass deaths from easily preventable childhood diseases, and will certainly see the problems of overpopulation being solved in a grusome way. These people deserve a place right up there with Goebbels and Goering. -- Fyslee 22:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain But please remember Wikipedia:No personal attacks. That last comment is bringing us close to invoking Godwin's Law. --Arcadian 15:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadian: I don't understand why you admonish me for a mild comment This edit, on my user talk page under a big banner 4th policy violation - personal attacks yet for this person who called me a Nazi you only post a mild rebuke here. Can you explain why you treat him differently? john 21:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I didn't call you nor antivaxers "Nazis". I never even used the word. I have visited Auschwitz, and I only used that abhorable historical situation as an illustration of why we preserve its history. The history of antivax efforts should be preserved for the same reasons. I could have chosen many other illustrations, but since both follies involve great loss of life, it came to mind.

A few good links that expose the antivax positions:

The Anti-Immunization Activists: A Pattern of Deception - Ed Friedlander, MD

Issues in Immunization - Lon Morgan, DC

Misconceptions about Immunization - Stephen Barrett, MD

Anti-vaccination Liars - Peter Bowditch

Compare the Risks: Disease vs. Immunization

-- Fyslee 01:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - What a collection, not a match for mine [^{[deprecated source?]} Bowditch has made ad hominem abusive his own. Morgan on a geocities site that is defunct, and he was an expert at ad hominem last time I looked there. Barrett is the best know pharma shill, where they have made it an art form of puting lies [^{[deprecated source?]} between truth, like any good propagandist. And Friedlander doesn't communicate, as I'd like to expose his lack of knowledge. john 09:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A bunch of nonsense intended only to push POV. Soltak | Talk 18:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see no reason for deletion here. Turnstep 23:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - of historical interest (note all those surgeons in the 1936 board) but in need of balance, expansion and circumstances under which it was abolished. JFW | T@lk 14:36, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 12:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling Free[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOT- crystal ball. PJM 15:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per PJM. -- (aeropagitica) 18:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm confused. Is this ballery or not? What's a "rumored album". Nonetheless, burn it! Dan 20:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.The original version of this article met all standards for a Wikipedia article. Some "Spears-hater" thought it would be funny to do this to a few of her albums' articles, by clearing all text and leaving the first sentence, but rewording it as well. See the article on the Original Doll album.--65.8.223.167 21:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Only 3 google hits for 'spears "feeling free" "crazy, sexy, beautiful"': 1 unrelated, 1 wikipedia, 1 a blog misled by this article. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 22:49Z
Delete. The fans can wait until the record company confirms something. At the moment the Wikipedia and Britney fan sites are the only references for these rumors. --Red-Blue-White 11:48, 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 keep. Punkmorten 10:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute for Smart Government[edit]

This was originally nominated for a speedy deletion by Mundlapati with the reason "Promoting the site". This is currently not a valid speedy deletion criterion, so I have moved the discussion here. My vote is to delete. Stifle 11:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any reason as to why this should be deleted?! Looks like a perfectly sensible article to me. --kingboyk 17:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. --kingboyk 15:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with kingboyk. No reason to delete at present. -- JJay 02:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and drop me a line if someone finds a reason for deletion. Turnstep 23:59, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:06, 11 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Doll[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT: Crystall ball (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feeling Free) above for another Britney Spears-related album. Essexmutant 16:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a home to rumour and scandal. -- (aeropagitica) 17:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all above. --kingboyk 17:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not a home for Britney Spears...and what they said. ; ) Dan 20:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 22:43Z
DO NOT DELETE - This article met all of Wikipedia's standards before it (and the Feeling Free) article was vandalised! This is informative and necessary, the album is due in only a few months and people WANT information. If necessary, I will personally re-build this article
- You are free to do so. Make it factual and verifiable, and nobody will have a problem with it. Turnstep 00:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Britney Spears releasing an album in March... No songs have been recorded for this album yet... There are rumored tracks to this album..." ??? --Red-Blue-White 11:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NACB. Turnstep 00:04, 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 03:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cam Cornelius[edit]

Weak delete as failing WP:BIO. Stifle 14:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Although they have an IMdb entry, it consists of three very non-notable entries. Turnstep 00:07, 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 keep. Punkmorten 11:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of museums in Nanjing[edit]

Merely a list of museums somewhere, only one of which has an article here. Not encyclopedic. --Gary Kirk (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — There are a number of such articles in Category:Lists of museums. To be consistent they would all need to be deleted. But I think this is sufficiently encyclopedic to retain. — RJH 16:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Red links are no reason to delete. u p p l a n d 16:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[Possibly] Merge with Tourism in China? --Kilo-Lima 17:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you any idea how big China is?! I think that idea is a non-starter! --kingboyk 20:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per RJHall Jcuk 19:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per u p p l a n d. -- JJay 02:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nanjing is a major city. ReeseM 03:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and give some introductory words. --Bhadani 06:25, 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 03:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Seeds Publishing[edit]

Non-notable website (no data at Alexa), advertisement. --MisterHand 15:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advert --JeremyStein 15:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advert and as it fails to meet WP:WEB. Dan 21:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete advert. Stifle 14:25, 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 Speedy deleted by Jnothman (A7) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-07 22:52Z

At Daggers Drawn[edit]

No group albums. Don't think this meets WP:Music. Eeee 16:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (now allowed for nn bands). --kingboyk 17:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- (aeropagitica) 18:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nn-band. Stifle 14:24, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 13:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Skinner[edit]

Utter nonsense, non-encyclopedic. I can't make heads or tails of this. --MisterHand

Speedy delete as Complete Bollocks. Essexmutant 16:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it is a book biography - of Neal Asher, as that is the only article that links to it - that is the reason I didn't list it for deletion before and just added context and wikify templates. -localzuk 16:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As it currently stands it's unintelligible (or as Essexmutant rather more eloquently put it, 'complete bollocks'). --kingboyk 16:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This may look like complete bollocks in the context of Wikipedia, but in the context of a blurb for a sci-fi novel it makes rather more sense. Probably copied from the author's website or the book jacket. --Spondoolicks 17:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but it's the context of Wikipedia we're talking about. If the article were cleaned up I might be persuaded to change my vote. --kingboyk 17:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Essexmutant 17:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utter gibberish. Also refer to The Line of Polity added by same user Planktune. Atrian 19:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense, no context, useless to a researcher. -- (aeropagitica) 22:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MisterHand. Also refer to my rant at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Line of Polity. Madman 22:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gibberish. Dan 22:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unintelligible. If someone cares about the article then clean it up first so we could decide if it is encyclopedic/notable/etc. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 22:42Z
Delete per nom. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 05:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at my urging, the original author has provided some context, and modified the article. -- MisterHand 14:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an improvement over what it was before. Still doesn't appear encyclopedic as written though. Essexmutant 14:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have any of the complainants read the book in question? If so you might help by contribution! I am new to Wiki and would prefer help to hassle. Also note that it is an ongoing article not a 100% synopsis of the book and its author, if thats what you require then add it yourself Planktune 15:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't sit around all day writing and editing Wiki like some of you. You may type a thousand word article in one go. I can only afford the time to do it bit by bit. I would suggest that you give an article more time before you crusade against it. Planktune 15:10, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 13:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Art[edit]

inappropriate tone and unuseful info at all Clutcher 16:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

desperately needs a rewrite by someone who knows something about the subject, but I feel it COULD be a really good article. Jcuk 18:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It does not seem like an actual art category...but I'm certainly no expert. I don't see it specifically mentioned in Art periods. It could scrape WP:NOR. I put an expert tag on it. PJM 19:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What classical art? Greco-Roman? Han dynasty? This article is fated to either be a POV mess or an inclusionist mess, either way a mess. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is already a page listing Old Masters. This page is POV and adds nothing to the understanding of the concept of Classical Art. -- (aeropagitica) 22:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. KillerChihuahua is correct, there are several different types of classical art, if this paticular type is already covered adequately at 'Old Masters' then there is little point in keeping this. We must keep the nice image though. Dan 22:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several different types of art that can be referred to as "Classical art"? I sense the calling for a disambig page. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: compare this to Classical music —Wahoofive (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Something like this would do nicely. -- Saberwyn

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Jonel | Speak 23:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edependence Day[edit]

This is the name of a marathon for the TV show Ed, Edd n Eddy. I can not imagine anyone actually looking for this information. NickelShoe 16:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ed, Edd and Eddy. Skyscrap27 18:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 19:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per skyscap Sceptr e ^(Talk) 21:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Dan 22:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 22:39Z
Delete. The marathon has passed (July 2004), I doubt anybody except extreme EE&E fans will ever refer to this again. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If it helps a single person, it's worth keeping it. Skyscrap27 14:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no real opposition to merging, I didn't really need to be so quick to put this on AfD. It looks utterly useless, but there's no harm in merging. NickelShoe 14:52, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 13:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Line of Polity[edit]

Utter nonsense, non-encyclopedic. See also:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skinner -- MisterHand 16:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no context, doesn't really make sense.--Alhutch 17:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should this perhaps be db-nonsense instead? It is incoherent. -- (aeropagitica) 18:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment apparently, this is a book by Neal Asher. I have put a notice on the creator's talk page inviting him/her to edit the article in such a way that we understand what this is supposed to be talking about. But even as a book description it doesn't make much sense to me. --MisterHand 18:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure gibberish. Who writes this crap? Atrian 19:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. MisterHand is correct that it is a book and one that probably would rate its own article if we actually had an article. This current "article" is pure gibberish and needs to be deleted. I dislike the apparent present practice of keeping such nonsense around just because the putative subject is notable. We should only keep such articles if the subject is notable and the article is intelligible. Madman 22:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC) (I'll get off my soapbox now).[reply]
Delete - I wish i could be this imaginative. NJ 22:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pa. To be that imaginative would require a large dosage of something illegal. Dan 22:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at my urging, the original author has provided some context, and modified the article. -- MisterHand 14:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would seem to me that the people requesting deletion have little or no clue about the subject they wish deleted, they consider it nonsense even though the article is far from completion. I guess if I would have written the next bit and come here to add it and found my article deleted I would have not been happy at all. All because some people do not have the common to research thier complaint before action. Instead of voting for deletion why not just keep your ideas too yourselves or add relevant information if you have any. Planktune 15:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. KHM03 17:52, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 13:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Empire of Reunion[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia! If you'd like to add your vote to this page, please follow these instructions:

Click the Edit link
Go to the end of the page
Use English
Add a line like the following

*'''Keep''' Reason to keep ~~~~

This will create a line that looks like this:

Keep Reason to keep Your IP Address 14:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you continue to participate. --JeremyStein 14:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Non-notable micronation, article may also be a copyvio but contributor claims text is PD, delete--nixie 16:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Strong Delete Article created by the person who started this ~~club~~ micronation. It's unlikely that anyone outside of this group will ever want to help clean up the article to make it more balanced. --JeremyStein 16:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my vote to strong delete after seeing the flood of anonymous supporters and vote tampering. The most applicable Wikipedia policy would be WP:WEB, by which this site does not qualify as notable. --JeremyStein 14:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Appears to be a variation on the vanity page theme. Atrian 19:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote tampering! - the above vote was changed to "Keep it" by 201.8.142.53 [28] I have reverted it. --JeremyStein 03:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. I don't know if this micronation is notable, but the article needs a lot of work. Use Sealand for a good template. --Billpg 19:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but add a cleanup tag. The article has improved a lot, but still needs work. --Billpg 08:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete test article. Gazpacho 20:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep it The text is public domain, I guarantee it and I will ask them to state on their page that it is PUBLIC DOMAIN. We are so many micronationalists in the world and I doubt nobody will contribute Claudre 22:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy[reply]
keep itI'm ambassador of Republic of Orange in Reunion and don't agree with this delection, It's very important text to the new novice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.141.91.18 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
Keep it I disagree with previous comments since Reunion is one of the first and still is the biggest player in Portuguese-speaking (Lusophone) micronations, as well as is member of many intermicronational organizations both in the Anglophonia and Lusophonia. It is not a club or a non-notable micronation (have those who wanted to delete it, actually visited its website? Plus many people out of Reunion will surely want to contribute, as it has generated many other more micronations. -- Ralph, 22:24 5 January 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.141.81.52 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
This comment above is mine. I didn't intend to signup to wikipedia just in order to add a comment, but now I was forced to due to the accusations of sockpuppetting. Also I was not aware of the syntax, now I am getting it. Cresci 21:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy[reply]
Keep it Reunion is the biggest lusophone micronation, worldwide known, keep the page.. -- Tsavkko, 20:40 5 january 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.22.208 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
Delete. Micronations sometimes become famous enough, as is the case with Sealand, to merit an article. However, this micronation has not reached that stage yet, and this paticular standard of article will not help it get there either. Dan 22:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote tampering! - the above comment was removed by 200.152.2.245 when he added the comment below [29] --JeremyStein 03:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reunion has been portrayed by the media all over the world. Just look at some of the links I wrote below. Claudre 12:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy[reply]
Keep it Keep the description!! Everybody loves Reunion! -- Greenspan, 21:04 5 january 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.152.2.245 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
Delete NN fake nation, sockpuppet-supported. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fake nation, yes, perfect for the category FICTITIOUS COUNTRIES, don´t you think? FICTITIOUS = FAKE. Claudre 12:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy[reply]
Keep it!!! According to the Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, an encyclopedia is “a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject.” Wikipedia must contain all the encompassing aspects of micronations. As to this subject, not talking about the Holy Empire of Reunion shall be unacceptable, because Reunion is the most famous among the Portuguese speaking micronations. It will be a shame for Wikipedia the deletion of this article. José --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
Non-notable? --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- The NY Times (USA) does not agree: [30] --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- La Liberátion (FRANCE) does not agree: [31] --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- Ta Nea (Greece) does not agree: [32] --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- O Diario de Pernambuco(BRAZIL) does not agree: [33] --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- Writer of ILS NE SIEGENT PAS A L'ONU does not agree: [34] - I can look for more if necessary. --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- There´s also LA REPUBBLICA, LE QUOTIDIEN, ESTADO DE SAO PAULO, VISAO (portugal), etc. Claudre 23:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy[reply]
By the way, I welcome reductions and contributions to the initial article; maybe it´s too large, or even with an English that is not so good...But Reunion is notable. (I am the author, BTW) Claudre 23:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy[reply]
Please note that Claudre has already voted above. --JeremyStein 03:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeremy, I never wished to "vote again". I just want to say that Reunion has been in the media almost as much as Sealand. But, as your friend here said, "death to micronations". He forgot to say Sieg Heil! I wonder if he will be reported for trolling.... No... of course not.Claudre 11:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy[reply]

Of the referenced articles that I can read (those in English), Reunion is not the subject of the article, merely an example. The subject of micronations is notable. Reunion is notable only as an example on the micronations article. -- --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy JeremyStein 14:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reunion is notable, and has been mentioned in sources outside of Micronations. And the fact that this isn't the first time a Micronation has been scrutinized like this shows that the Wikipedia should perhaps re-evaluate its stance on micronations. User:Tonerman 15:29 PST, 1/5/2006 --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy

keep it The Holy Empire of Reunion is one of the most important micronations of the World, Claudio de Castro it's founding father is one of the most loved persons on the Island of Reunion, a France Ultramarine domain. The importance of this article isn't only for the micronationalism itself, but for the french citzens of the Island of Reunion. It was even mentioned by President Chirac in 1997. 201.8.51.13 23:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Jorge Adamatti --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy[reply]
Delete and redirect to micronation. This on line game club is real. It has a mention on the micronation page as an example of a 'virtual' micronation simulation. It does not need its own page explaining it rules, any more than an Everquest guild does. This page is created as advertising for their web game. Real but non notable beyond entry on other page.Obina 23:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obina we need no advertising we just think we deserve to be here like ALL THE OTHER "game clubs" (SIC) listed at the category FICTITIOUS COUNTRIES. Claudre 12:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy[reply]
keep it Zachary Vance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.13.26 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
Keep I am against Delection! Sure! Reunion is a mark to the micronations! Lucianot - Cool! lucianot --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
Delete. Non-notable micronation. The article is very hard to read too. Rhobite 01:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non Notable being on the media all over the world? Ok. If the article is bad, let´s change it. Not delete it. Claudre 12:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy[reply]
KEEP IT!!! We must support the concept of micronatia. And we support the article by our dear friends in Reunion. Signed, James E Bentz II, Chancellor, Empire of Tebeakesse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tebeakesse (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
PORRA, DELETAR REUNIÃO???? CEIS SAUM DOIDO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.151.87.21 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
The above comment was originally added to the top of the page; I moved it here. Please translate this to English. I believe it says something like "Delete Reunion? That's crazy" --JeremyStein 03:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Death to micronations (except Sealand) D e nni ☯ 03:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A nice way to justify an opinion. Adolf Hitler would agree. Claudre 12:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy[reply]
Bold textse vcs deletarem reunião eu vou dar... porraada. gerson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.151.87.21 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
The above comment was also added near the top of the page. Please translate this to English. --JeremyStein 03:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It means "I am going to be very mad if someone deletes Reunion"... LOL, That´s just the support I need :-/ Claudre 12:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy[reply]
Keep it. This is one of the most important Micronations of this style. That is enought to keep it. I am Spence, King of Zarahemla, friend of Reunion --anonymous vote and sole contribution to wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.193.227.238 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
Delete non-notable --Ajdz 05:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep itI'm the Secretary General of L.o.S.S, Nicholas Paul Nix, B.S., M.P.A., and it is unfortunate that bookburners wish to delete this article as if it never existed. I hope that articles like this will continue to help advance the public's knowledge of historical events that have occurred outside the context of what can be considered usual history ~~--SGLOSS , 6 January 2006 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.13 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
The community of Reunion was one of the shining success stories of twentieth century micronationalism. Not only did it involve active participants from the continent of South America, opening doors to whole new languages and cultures, but it influenced a generation of similar micronational communities. I am proud, after so many years, to still call myself a friend of Reunion. You should be as well, this article must stay. - Vincent of Morovia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.198.232.65 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
Delete. Non-notable micronation. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 09:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(NOT A VOTE) If there is a category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fictional_countries for Fictional Countries, why can´t Reunion be listed with so many of Its partners and friends? Maybe RACISM because we are mostly Brazilians? Claudre 11:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy[reply]

Comment - that category should be for countries created in notable works of literature, film, etc. Narnia and Oceana are good examples. --Ajdz 06:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT! There´s only true information, about true people, enjoying their hobby. Micronations on web is a strong reality since the beggining of the commercial internet. Filipe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.186.86.130 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
STRONG KEEP IT. Micronationry is a well-established phenomena, practised by thousands of fans, and Holy Empire of Réunion is one of the oldest and most important micronations in activity. Only prejudice and unreliable misunderstandments could justify eliminating this interesting article.--Cava — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.50.93.83 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
Keep Réunion is one of the main sites of micronational hobby 200.223.106.203 19:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy[reply]
Keep it!!! Any micronationalist will know that the Holy Empire of Reunion is one of the major micronations. I am surprised that some wikipedians have such a bizarre desire to delete pages about micronationalism, especially considering the seriousness with which micronationalists themselves hold their movement. User:NicholasJB --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- The "Holy Empire of Reunion" is not a nation; it's a web site. It's a web site dedicated to prepending that it's significant. You can go ahead and declare war with the Purple Bunny Federation or develop diplomatic ties with the Flying Islands of Jasonia but at some point you're going to bump into the real world. The bank won't take your currency, your parking ticket will not be waived on diplomatic immunity, and you can't have your pretend country listed in the encyclopedia. --JeremyStein 20:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It´s not a nation. It´s a FICTITIOUS nation, just right for wikipedia Category FICTITIOUS COUNTRIES. 200.142.120.138 20:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy[reply]
    - It's still not notable. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 20:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What about including the article in the CATEGORY "micronations", where you can find the PRINCIPALITY OF FREEDONIA and the nation of Atlantium, which have received less attention of the media compared to Reunion? Which are "game clubs" like Reunion? We have signed treaties with them, for God´s Sake, what makes them different? Claudre 12:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy[reply]
Keep Strong Keep It! I really don´t know why you thought about deleting this page, because Reunioun is the most important portuguese-language micronation! This page is so important to micronationalism, cointaining a lot of information to us. José Paulo de Siqueira Guida 200.195.8.134 20:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy[reply]
"keep it!" and grow up. this page isnt hurting anyone and is "containg a lot of information". liam. --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
What the bloody hell is this? Delete per WP:BALLS, WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:VSCA, and send to BJAODN if desired. Stifle 14:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC) _{Restored vote by Stifle that was inadvertly removed, I believe no ill intent J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 16:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
delete per Stifle, and most of the established users above J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 16:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, established organization. MattHucke ^(t) 20:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy[reply]
Merge to micronation. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-07 22:47Z
Delete as non-notable. Google only has 25 links to www.reuniao.org, most of which are micronation directories or personal sites (e.g. geocities/tripod). Would support a merge. Turnstep 00:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reason to keep: This is one of the most important Micronations of this style. That is enough to keep it. I am Spence, King of Zarahemla, friend of Reunion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by HRHSpence (talk • contribs) . --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
Delete, mainly per Stifle. --Academia de las Artes y las Ciencias 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; irrelevant article probably created for advertising purposes. --OneEuropeanHeart 22:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - "Sao Francisco", heh. Seriously, it looks like nonsense to me, esp. with the 20-year-old leader... assuming it is a micronation it is like someone starting one in their backyard - it is that notable... WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 23:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, non-notable article, contains sections with unverifiable information, possible fancruft case, not all web content (including micronations) should have an article, possible vanity case, only one POV (creator), possible advertisement/spam case. COA 11:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Harvey[edit]

Former official of minor political party. Who cares? Sceptic 17:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Former official of minor political party. Is anyone other than the author and his friend interested in what meetings he did not attend?

Merge He's worthy of a mention but nothing more. --kingboyk 17:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Delete Sceptic convinced me. --kingboyk 18:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge with Veritas Party page. -- (aeropagitica) 17:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete This is not a vanity publishing site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.122.122 (talk • contribs) 18:42, January 5, 2006
Keep Just becuase he is part of a minor party to you, doesn't mean is should be a delete. --Kilo-Lima 17:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See [below] for further explanation of why it should be a delete. Sceptic 18:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These pages are being added by a couple of characters (not the subjects of the pages as it happens - see also Daniel Moss) who are obsessed with Veritas and keep adding spurious links to their own sites. Wikipedia entries for other parties do not detail party officials, nor do they list individual parliamentary candidates - this information can be accessed via the Constituency pages Mansfield (UK Parliament constituency) if anyone wants it. Sceptic 17:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Veritas. Not especially notable. However, it should be noted that there is a WP article for General Secretary of the Labour Party at the very least and said person has his own article. Dan 22:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The General Secretary of the UK Labour Party is hundreds of times more important than this person. ReeseM 03:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Product of one user who appears to be furthering a campaign to denigrate what remains of Veritas. David | Talk 22:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From comments made by the user who created this on his talk page, he has been creating these based on his own personal knowledge. There are quite a lot of other articles here. I've added {{unreferenced}} tags to some of them but they are being removed without sources provided. Morwen - Talk 13:58, 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 Merge with 2ch Babajobu 07:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nihon wa hansei shiru[edit]

Obscure meme (zero Google hits, apparently relevant only to one web forum). Ohnoitsjamie 17:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May be relevant to only one web forum, but that forum claims to be the largest on the internet! I'd say merge since the subject matter doesn't seem notable enough to have an article. Can't imagine anyone searching Wikipedia for it. --kingboyk 17:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It gets zero google hits because you're searching for it in Roman characters, not Japanese ones. Try "apology juice" (which I just added a sentence about.) 87 hits is still pretty weak, though, so no vote. -Seventh Holy Scripture 18:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2ch. Not strong enough to stand on its own, but a vital part of 2ch's, um, history.--Mitsukai 19:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ammending my nomination to merge Ohnoitsjamie 21:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mitsukai. Nihon ga suki desu. Dan 23:04, 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. -Splash^talk 21:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Moss[edit]

Former official of minor party - who cares? Sceptic 17:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not worth mentioning 213.86.122.122 17:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These pages are being added by a couple of characters (not the subjects of the pages as it happens - see also Michael Harvey) who are obsessed with Veritas and keep adding spurious links to their own sites. Wikipedia entries for other parties do not detail party officials, nor do they list individual parliamentary candidates - this information can be accessed via the Constituency page Rushcliffe (UK Parliament constituency) if anyone wants it. Sceptic 17:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has appeared in The Guardian [35] , The Times [36] , The Financial Times [37], and on The BBC news website [38]. Not Totally non-notable then... Keep Jcuk 18:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That description of those hyperlinks is completely misleading. None of them are actually articles about this person, that would satisfy the WP:BIO criteria, at all. They are all election result pages. We already have coverage of this person that is exactly equivalent to those in Rushcliffe (UK Parliament constituency), as pointed out above. Uncle G 18:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That description is "Has appeared in the following newspapers." How on earth is that misleading?! Jcuk 20:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - We can all read the second sentence that you wrote, you know. It's right there. ☺ Uncle G 23:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Veritas (party). Not notable on his own, but the party is known. Dan 23:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also totally unverifiable. Morwen - Talk 14:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above. PJM 14:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate vote[edit]

delete This is of no interest to anyone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.122.122 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doomcore[edit]

Does not establish notability. Gives one example of a "doomcore" band which seems to meet the criteria for speedy deletion: Cobra Noir. I would have listed this for speedy too but it didn't seem to fit as neatly into a criteria. TomTheHand 17:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this is a description of a musical sub-genre then there should be more bands to provide evidence. As it stands, the article is not useful for reference. -- (aeropagitica) 17:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stands, per aeropagitica. Dan 23:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete imaginary music genres —Wahoofive (talk) 00:52, 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 02:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Burroughs[edit]

Most of it is humourous, unverifiable and non-notable Prashanthns 17:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable and a joke. "....Burroughs did an in-depth study on the the alarming preponderance of single mothers with multiple children. He has said he plans to look into the rights of "men who accidently impregnate women, only to learn the women want nothing to do with them and their child" in 2006" and " good for WP:BJAODN

Delete Sarcasm. -- (aeropagitica) 18:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he's also planning a coup to displace Jimbo. --^demon 18:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above. PJM 18:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable, nn. Not even funny. Dan 23:13, 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 KEEP. -Splash^talk 22:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dex Dexter (band)[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion by ^demon as nn-band, but article states they were signed to Trade2/Island Records, which is a notable label. They have an AllMusic entry for one EP, so I don't think they qualify under WP:MUSIC. If the consensus is to keep, then the article should be moved to Dex Dexter (band). howch e ng {chat} 17:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep They made the cover of Melody Maker and were signed to a famous label, although it would seem they bombed after that. (A quick Google search reveals). --kingboyk 17:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Strike --kingboyk 11:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping with my original tag, so delete. However, I think CSD should be expanded so bands that fail WP:MUSIC can be deleted outright. It would save a lot of these CSD->AFD moves for bands. But that's just my 0.02USD. -^demon 17:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NN bands can now be speedily deleted, if that's what you're saying (see the top of this very page). I think the point here is that they have a claim to notability because they're in AMG and were on a famous label. --kingboyk 18:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I understand, but I still think CSD is too restrictive, nonetheless. --^demon 18:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually a tough fight just to expand A7 from a single person to persons. I don't think we'll ever get a speedy criterion for bands who don't meet WP:MUSIC, and we actually shouldn't, as a) those are guidelines and not policy and b) there are some bands who cannot meet them due to the nature of the band (see Ghost Mice for example, who are inherently never going to meet the criteria but are notable nonetheless). howch e ng {chat} 07:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I understand, it's just frustrating that sometimes we MUST bring things to AfD, due to policy. My opinion is that if it would draw a general consensus of delete, then AfD should be avoided. That's why I hate the "claim of notability" part, as almost every band and most people make a claim to notability, unfounded or not. --^demon 11:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep as per kingboyk 80.177.152.156 18:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, per WP:NMG. PJM 18:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs to be cleaned up. Move to Dex Dexter (band) as per ng. Atrian 18:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If they claim notability you can't speedy. Which is stupid because most of them do. NN-Band. Dan 23:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, many don't, because people don't read the links we give them. Since the expansion of A7, I have personally speedied a ton of nn-band articles that would have previously made it to AfD. howch e ng {chat} 07:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we just be clear here: they made the cover of Melody Maker, a very famous national music weekly in the UK (WP:NMG cannot apply: "Has been prominently featured in any major music media."). They are listed on AMG and they had a record deal with a well known label. This isn't a bedroom DJ or a high school band; let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater! --kingboyk 05:04, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical Institute[edit]

No meaningful content Hirudo 18:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think what's currently there is worse than no article at all. Hirudo 18:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the single sentence is true then it can be added to the article on Gregor Mendel. -- (aeropagitica) 18:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A1. Tagged. Keep per below. PJM 18:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename "Philosophical Institute, Olmütz". I've added content and context. Tearlach 18:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PI is mentioned on bio page for Gregor Mendel. Add a stub to it for expansion. Atrian 18:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw after edit by Tearlach (It's not out of line for me to do this, is it?) Hirudo 19:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - no, it isn't. Where is an "Admin!"? Dan 23:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, it kinda is. There need to be no delete votes for it to be taken off. I'll have a word with Aeropagitica. Dan 23:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that the page has been revised and updated, the content is enough for it to be an article useful to a researcher. I hereby withdraw my previous delete nomination. -- (aeropagitica) 23:57, 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. howch e ng {chat} 23:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matsumiya[edit]

Japanese slang term. Punkmorten 18:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough to make the rounds in English otaku circles yet, if ever.--Mitsukai 19:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. utcursch | talk 11:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Japanese Wiktionary. Stifle 14:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you know how it's spelt in the Japanese alphabet? Punkmorten 11:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This listing is being withdrawn. The reasons are outlined at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard#User:VMORO, User:Peter Isotalo, Bulgarian lexis, and Bulgarian vocabulary. If you feel this closing is in error, you are cordially invited to bring it up at WP:DRV. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 15:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian lexis[edit]

Page is an exact duplicate of Bulgarian vocabulary, created by a cut-and-paste move by VMORO (talk · contribs) after his page move (from "Bulgarian vocabulary" to "Bulgarian lexis") was reverted. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 18:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Standard title for this kind of article is XXX vocabulary. "Lexis" is a fairly obscure term that sorta excludes morphology, which is somewhat inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. There's simply no reason to avoid using "vocabulary". / Peter ^Isotalo 18:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't need duplicate content in WP. Atrian 18:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peter. I wouldn't mind a redirect, but if the page was already previously moved and unmoved, then the redirect already existed and I guess wasn't good enough for the author. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 22:38Z

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 00:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Duggan[edit]

Not notable canadian physician. Volunteering for Doctors without Borders is nice, but anyone with a medical degree can do that. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC). For clarity's sake, Speedy Delete[reply]

Delete non-notable. Put her back in WP when she's written a few journal papers or pioneered some new research. Atrian 18:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very good for her but Delete per all above. PJM 18:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... it would seem that the bar has been set pretty high for living people as opposed to other articles of non-living, non-person characters. Can someone explain to me the criteria for notable individuals in Wikipedia? HJKeats 19:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DP, specifically WP:BIO. Considered speeding under A7 at WP:CSD. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable biography. Recommend the article author see WikiMe for writing biographies and/or WikiTree for writing genealogies; article author may also want to consider moving the content to his user page. If Duggan's role with MSF was important, smerge to MSF. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 22:36Z
Keep... She was part of the team when they won the Nobel Peace Prize and is very well known to the Organization. Article seems fine to me. Anakinskywalker 02:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very respectable past, but doesn't quite meet notability levels. Regaring Anakinskywalker: Looking at her bio, she doesn't seem to have a leadership role in the organization to make the Nobel connection - do correct me if I'm wrong about this. -Joshuapaquin 02:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ardenn 23:35, 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 Speedily deleted for nonsense/nn-bio/whatever. enochlau (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do it for Hank[edit]

Totally pointless. Skyscrap27 18:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your delete and raise you a speedy delete. In-jokes like this are close enough to nonsense for me.Bjones 18:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. PJM 18:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I call your Speedy delete. --kingboyk 18:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about an "inside joke" that was, the article tells us, made up by two schoolchildren one day. They have come to Wikipedia to tell the world about it and to ask people to spread it around. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. This article is unverifiable and original research, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Delete. Uncle G 19:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the editor. This is not pointless because this is a real thing. Madness Combat is part of our lives. We spread the word around and it's almost like advertising. Don't - author of the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.51.2 (talk • contribs)
You guys don't understand ways of life it is Hank who is part of Madness Combat. Just a real life version of supporting Madness Combat - author of the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.51.2 (talk • contribs)
Speedy delete, for reasons stated above. Pure laziness on the part of the authors. If you really want to get your joke noticed, make a hoax website, like Bonsai Kitten.--Mitsukai 19:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable, non-notable. Classic Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 22:31Z
Delete as yet more complete bollocks Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 02:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definition of everything that does not belong on Wikipedia. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 05:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN this junk. Stifle 14:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no need for BJAODN. Is there an admin in the house? Turnstep 00:20, 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. – Alphax ^τεχ 14:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orange chicken[edit]

This page was created as a plug for Panda Express. It has since lost the mention to that restaraunt but I believe it to be innacurate none the less as it contradicts the General Tso's Chicken article. My suggestion is that it be deleted then replaced as a redirect to General Tso's Jasongetsdown 19:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup/Rewrite. I've seen enough places that treat Orange Chicken and General Tso's Chicken as seperate menu items, and none of them were Panda Express. Regardless of the original intention of the article, I think it does have enough merit to stand on its own, if it were rewritten.--Mitsukai 19:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup, rewrite. They are seperate dishes. Youngamerican 20:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-known dish. Rhobite 01:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I eat orange chicken at least once every week and I never eat it at Panda Express. I've eaten it at restaurants like China Lily, Applebees and a few others. I've eaten Panda Express orange chicken only once, and I didn't like it compared to the orange chicken I've eaten elsewhere. - Gilgamesh 03:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Anyone who's eaten at any Chinese restaurant in America knows this is a real food. Certainly doesn't deserve deletion! Cyde Weys _vote^talk 05:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although the version they serve on-campus at KU just tastes like orange-scented cleaner... (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- notable Chinese-American dish, and probably the single most popular dish in the nation's mall Chinese joints. Haikupoet 21:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those watching this AfD should check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orange flavor chicken for a similar discussion. Youngamerican 01:31, 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. Punkmorten 11:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Military[edit]

Page looks like it was created for propaganda purposes, rather than for educational or information. The opening statement is loaded (and could be changed to a NPOV), and all editors to date have been anonymous ISPs. If anyone can change this to fit a neutral standard or merge this into a more relevant topic, I'm all for it, but aside from that, it looks like someone with an axe to grind and a book of statistics. Mitsukai 19:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't cite sources. Also, there is already List of countries by military expenditures, Category:Military equipment by country, etc. squell 19:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information in the article isn't specific enough nor are any sources cited for an interested researcher to pursue. Janes covers this in far more detail. -- (aeropagitica) 21:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic and per above Paul 22:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Squell. Stifle 14:15, 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. Punkmorten 11:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vondruke[edit]

Neologism from Saturday Night Live. 96 unique hits on google. Seems not to have hit the big time. Delete. bikeable (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, beat me to it. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 19:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems non-notable -Drdisque 20:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no currency. Stifle 14:01, 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 merge and redirect to Orange chicken. – Alphax ^τεχ 14:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orange flavor chicken[edit]

This article was started by the same anon who started the recently deleted Nullaby [39]. In its original form it duplicated the info in Orange chicken but with the addition of coagulated pig's blood and something called a Xu bird. Jasongetsdown 19:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Orange chicken.--Mitsukai 19:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the reason for the proposed deletion? If there are duplicate articles, just merge them using the merge procedure. If there's some other reason, please state it. Tedernst | talk 19:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason is that I think it is made up. Although the use of blood is not unknown in chinese cooking (and elsewhere) I can find no evidence that this dish actually exists. The page originally appeared like this. You'll notice the nonsense I removed. I have no reason to think that the pig's blood is not nonsense as well. Jasongetsdown 00:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Orange chicken. Youngamerican 20:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Youngamerican. Stifle 14:01, 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 No consensus WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 02:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human security[edit]

One-line substub that appears to have no room for expansion Stifle 19:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand (no kidding.). Appears to be an active area of human rights research. Not everyone uses the exact same definition, but Googling for "human security" turns up several significant national and global commissions, task forces etc. dedicated to it. FreplySpang (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I expanded it to a two-line stub right after leaving the above vote. FreplySpang (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wictionary or Merge into Foreign policy. At least for now. Vegaswikian 00:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a valid encyclopedic topic with plenty of room for expansion. Certainly not a deletion candidate. Turnstep 00:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is a very real, developing paradigm. It's not just a foreign policy concept, either: this (international law) blog entry gives a good idea of its breadth and development.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 11:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta E-Future Centre[edit]

Minor government entity. Not Notable. JamesTeterenko 19:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom.Obina 23:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert. Stifle 14:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising. Atrian 00:54, 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 17:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Unplugged Plus 3[edit]

Not notable enough to ever be expanded beyond stubbiness. If concensus is to keep, it'll need to be wikified and renamed to MTV Unplugged + 3. If to delete, I'll remove links to it. Delete. Jeandré 19:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I read the article and have no idea what it's about. --kingboyk 19:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The contents of the article have little bearing on the title. Who performed the songs, why is it notable? -- (aeropagitica) 21:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kingboyk. Stifle 14:01, 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 Babajobu 01:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates and the Nazis[edit]

This article is a POV fork from Nazi Party

Merge/Delete. Robert McClenon
Delete as POV fork. Stifle 14:00, 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 keep (nomination withdrawn). howch e ng {chat} 00:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mepsipax[edit]

merge with Conker's Bad Fur Day - not notable enough to be a standalone article NJ 19:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is Articles for deletion. Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage. Uncle G 20:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge has been suggested, sorry for the confusion NJ 22:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as the author's intention was for a merde. Stifle 13:59, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue_Juice[edit]

Seems nothing short of a commercial advertisement (branded oil for a brass instrument). Only link to the article is due to the sharing of a title from a 1995 movie (movie doesn't have an article yet). Stumbled on page through Dead-end pages project. —akghetto ^talk 19:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one sentence and an external link, so it's borderline speedy. FreplySpang (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertising. -- (aeropagitica) 22:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertizing substub. Stifle 13:58, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CAFTA Software[edit]

This is advertisement James084 19:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertisement. FreplySpang (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable software, advertising. Somewhat copyvio of http://www.saic.com/products/software/cafta/. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 22:22Z
Delete. Promotional. Daniel Case 02:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert. Stifle 13:59, 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 Speedy deleted by Leithp (Only contributor wants deleted and nn band) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-07 22:53Z

Supermarine (band)[edit]

does not meet WP:MUSIC as no listing on allmusic and google search turned up nothing related to band.-- Syrthiss 20:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Should've been speedied, no? --Wknight94 (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well, it could go under CSD A7...but I assumed the article creator would dispute their notability. This also brings up a point in that the article creator left a note on my main page (moved to talk now) that he didn't know about the WP:MUSIC guidelines and its his brother's band. He says "feel free to delete my post", which is then a CSD G7. --Syrthiss 22:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Assuming this goes away, please go after Image:Sm pic (58).JPG too since it's only a picture of this guy's brother's band. --Wknight94 (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nn-band. Stifle 13:57, 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 keep. howch e ng {chat} 00:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Catholicism[edit]

Dictionary Definition. Spanish "Neo-Catholic" label not verifiable, Looked up Barzan, and others of that period never saw the use of that term. Was originally created as part of traditionalist debate.Dominick ^(TALK) 20:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Googling for "neocatholicism" shows that it is a significant term in contemporary discourse. If the part about Spanish history is wrong, it should be corrected or deleted, but that's a content dispute. FreplySpang (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a Move then? It is a dicdef. Dominick ^(TALK) 21:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to be more than a dic def - could use expansion (forgot to sign) TMS63112 16:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, quite all right. Stifle 13:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is expanded and contains more explanation than a simple dic def. --70.92.166.8 01:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Relevant and more than a dicdef. It was originally created with the Spanish label only, was edited significantly in new sections to update to contemporary usage among Roman Catholic conservatives and traditionalists. DominusTecum 02:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Babajobu 18:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus_Mayo[edit]

This page is a hoax, made by someone as a joke. The real Marcus Mayo, as far as I'm aware, is alive and well at the moment! Thanks. PaulGorman 20:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax. The bit at the end about "despite the lack of copies of his poems" is a tipoff. FreplySpang (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. No google results for '"marcus mayo" seamonkey '. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 22:19Z
Delete as unverifiable. In fact, speedy as vandalism if you can. Stifle 13:54, 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. howch e ng {chat} 00:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All-America Football Conference Scores[edit]

Not sure it's a speedy. :( r3m0t ^talk 20:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. FreplySpang (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per FreplySpang. The AAFC was notable but a collection of its game scores isn't encyclopedic. I'm impressed that the article claims to contain scores from all four years of the AAFC's operation, then lists results from two years' games. No need to merge into main AAFC article. Barno 20:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous comments. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 22:16Z
Delete for reasons stated above. -- Mwalcoff 01:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--The Monday Night Football page has a link to the scores of all 36 years worth of games. Since no web site currently has scores of AAFC games, this provides Wikipedia with the opportunity to be a unique source. I was told by the creator of this page that the other two years will be added today--with game summaries of each contest next on the agenda. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 66.213.16.180 (talk • contribs)
Comment: "this provides Wikipedia with the opportunity to be a unique source" - this is exactly what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia only includes verifiable information from outside sources and never original research. Stifle 13:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What original research? It's been available from hard copy football ENCYCLOPEDIA'S for years, so the publishers of these books obviously believe it belongs in one. You want to go ahead and verify it, go ahead, but please don't tell me that it doesn't belong. What shouldn't be on Wikipedia is the number of god-awful writeups of countless subjects. Worry about fixing those instead of dictating what doesn't belong. User:Histmaven 12:22, January 7, 2006.
It would be helpful if you actually cited your source. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All four years are now listed. Since the NFL refuses to recognize what went on during these four years of play, it is imperative that a web surfer be able to learn as much about the AAFC as possible. In conjunction with the regular AAFC page, I plan on including not only game summaries, but pages specific to each year, in order to include highlights and pertinent statistics. Deleting this page will only continue the myopia/ignorance about the AAFC. User:Histmaven 12:35, January 6, 2006.
- Instead of creating a short article for every single AAFC game, I would prefer that you merge them into only a handful of pages just like National League Division One in 2005, 2005 English cricket season (15-30 June) and some of the other cricket articles. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia is not a free wiki host. If you would like a web surfer to be able to learn as much about the AAFC as possible, post it on your own website. Stifle 13:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate colletion of information, or a sports magazine. Stifle 13:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Indiscriminate would mean that a hodgepodge of material exists--each year's worth of scores is separated. If Wikipedia really doesn't want to include sports, then they should delete any of the thousands of references to it. User:Histmaven 12:25, January 7, 2006.
Comment: Please refer to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Sports results and its talk page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It now has all four years and a reference, and seems no different than Monday Night Football: Year-by-Year History (1970-89). Verifiable, referenced, not an indiscriminate collection of information, not original research, AAFC itself is notable, so no reason left for deletion. Turnstep 00:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In an attempt at compromise, perhaps one page for each year such as "1946 AAFC Season" or "San Francisco 49ers 1946 Season", etc., with an analysis and week-by-week summaries would help quell the complaints. That way, instead of 56 different pages, you would have a limited number of pages. I do think, regardless, that the score page should stay--with no further updates. Feel free to comment. User:Histmaven 1:52, January 8, 2006.
Delete. A summary might be suitable, but doesn't really seem necessary. Also delete two newly-created articles: 9/6/46: CLEVELAND BROWNS 44, Miami Seahawks 0 and 9/8/46: Brooklyn Dodgers 27, BUFFALO BISONS 14. --Wrathchild (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Guy Brummel[edit]

Doesn't seem to be very notable. Google returns nothing for Gerald Brummel that isn't us or a Wikipedia mirror, even though the article claims he did significant things for a major corporation. FreplySpang (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No case for notability made in the text of the article. -- (aeropagitica) 22:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable biography. Recommend the article author see WikiMe for writing biographies and/or WikiTree for writing genealogies; article author may also want to consider moving the content to his user page. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 22:16Z
Delete per nom. YUL89YYZ 10:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nn-bio. Stifle 13:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We need to keep information on corporate lawyers as public reference so the public can track their activities. These are powerful people who sometimes act in ways that damage society. T_g7
keep as per T_g7 -- Geo Swan 16:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - but we have no sources to show that this guy even exists! FreplySpang (talk) 19:20, 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. howch e ng {chat} 00:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of LSTs[edit]

I question the importance and usefulness of a 38kb list of ships. The US ones at least have pretty obvious names anyway and I think that about 14 of this first section of 1070 links are blue at present. If anyone is interested in these vessels, I find it unlikely that they will search for this list specifically, as they will probably know the number of the vessel they are looking for. As such I am posting this on AfD, whilst myself Abstaining (I am not an expert on list policies etc. and I'd rather let more experienced persons than myself decide.) Dan 20:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this may be a list for a project, to "fill in" missing articles. If so, it should be kept or at least userfied. I have left a query on the page creators talk page concerning the purpose of this list. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may be 'obvious' with the USN LSTs, but it certainly is not so with Royal Navy LSTs, and that doesn't even consider LSTs that other nations had which could perfectly well be put on the list. There might be a case for making it a disambig page with links to national LST lists, but certainly not for deleting it completely. The list is structured list so far as I can see so it does not come under WP:NOT in that respect, or in any other respect. AFD is used for those articles that come under the terms of WP:NOT or for those articles that are thought to come under those terms. I cannot see which term of WP:NOT applies to this list. David Newton 22:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have removed the redlinks from the US list, because that info really doesn't tell us anything useful (unlike on the UK list), but this page is a handy jumping off point for the articles that do exist. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 23:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What is a "Landing Ship Tank" anyway?! Cyde Weys _vote^talk 05:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A ship used to deliver tanks (and other things) to a shore somewhere. Think of the famous Normandy Beach footage of soldiers poring out of those ships onto the beach. The military loves to be heirarchial and precise, so this is really a landing ship, tank which puts the most important noun first, followed by a qualifier. In a rational world, there would also be things like landing ship, artillery and landing ship, troop Turnstep 00:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Landing Ship, Infantry (LSI) GraemeLeggett 13:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LST-357 loading.jpg may help clarify what an LST is - it's a bit larger than "landing ship" might be interpreted as. Shimgray | talk | 20:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Jinian 13:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oldfarm 14:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list as amended very sensibly by GeorgeStepanek Dlyons493 Talk 19:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is consistent with the other ship lists. Sheesh. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well, unlike other lists this one is verifiable and maintainable (though possibly deprecatable when we're ready to redirect elsewhere). RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 21:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid, verifiable list. Turnstep 00:36, 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, Babajobu 06:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tourette Syndrome Plus[edit]

Not notable term. Most google hits are irrelevant. r3m0t ^talk 20:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the author may have got confused, maybe he meant Tourrette's Syndrome plus OCD etc. but even then, it'd still be pointless in the extreme. Dan 20:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Quick! Get your Tourettes Plus! Now with more curse words! Yours for only 50 $9.99 payments! Sceptr e ^(Talk) 20:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now and get your free Ginsu. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per r3m0t. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 22:18Z
Redirect to Tourette's Syndrome. I have heard it in education a couple of times and probably it exists more frequently in psych, but it's essentially just a slang/abbreviation of the obvious dicdef listed here (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into tourette's --Chadamir 08:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think it's a neologism springing from the name of the website Tourette Syndrome "Plus". Tearlach 10:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per anyone you like. Stifle 13:50, 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 MERGE and redirect to Lycoming, Babajobu 05:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lycoming IO-320[edit]

An engine. Not sure if it is notable. r3m0t ^talk 20:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No indication of what aircraft models use(d) this engine, or why it might be significant, except an unsourced claim of reputation for reliability. Merge into Lycoming article unless evidence of notability for this model is shown by end of AfD period. Barno 20:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. If you look at the google hits it seems to be real and in use and maybe quite common. Unless someone knows enough to say it should not be kept, I'd lean towards leaving it. If merged, we would need a redirect since it will likely be recreated in the future. Vegaswikian 00:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified, currently. I will accept a merge and redirect. Stifle 13:50, 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. howch e ng {chat} 00:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blood and Guts Forever[edit]

Non-notable show. Eeee 20:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This article is about an art show which was reviewed in the local newspapers and has about 26 relevant Google hits excluding Wikipedia mirrors [40], some of which appear to be duplicates of each other. The participating artists are a list of redlinks, except that one of them was Miranda July, who went on to win prizes at the Sundance Film Festival and Cannes Film Festival as director of the film Me and You and Everyone We Know. While her artwork from "Blood and Guts Forever" appears on her web site, there is no reference to the overall show on her site (i.e. while Miranda July is notable, this particular show doesn't seem to be that notable to her). --Metropolitan90 05:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete barely notable and full of redlinks, which invite further bad articles. Stifle 13:45, 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 keep. Ichiro 05:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scalar-Tensor[edit]

"The scalar-tensor theory of gravitation is one of the most popular alternatives to Einstein’s theory of gravitation." (Cambridge University Press have a book about it) I can't decide whether this is crackpot or just a pleasant alternative. r3m0t ^talk 20:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as nonsense as written. That wasn't my field of physics admittedly, but casual inspection seems to indicate it would be more easily rewritten if nuked from orbit for a fresh start. --Syrthiss 20:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure if this is nonsense, but it certainly isn't patent nonsense which would be the speedy deletion requirement. Patent nonsense is a random collection of characters or words. Stifle 13:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first three paragraphs make sense, but really need to be rewritten to be more accessible. The remaining paragraphs make some sense to me, enough that I feel that this does not qualify for deletion as original research or nonsense, but really require expert input and may be too specialized for Wikipedia. The article probably should be renamed to Scalar-Tensor theories of gravitation. ManoaChild 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite The author really needs to determine the audience for whom the article is to be written. It doesn't look like there is a detailed-enough discussion for theoretical physicists to engage with and there is not enough popular science exposition of the topic for interested amateurs. -- (aeropagitica) 23:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm only a casual observer of physics, but the material seems to be legitimate, and Googling a couple of terms matches. I think the suggestion to Rename is good, but I'd suggest "Scalar-Tensor gravitation" as shorter and just as valid, since everything in physics is a theory. Some combination of adding and rewriting would help make an introduction that would make it more acessible. Hu 23:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, "theory" distinguishes it from "experiments" and "empirical models", but it's probably not a useful distinction here. The shorter name would be fine. ManoaChild 23:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be legitimate. Guess it could be sent to cleanup (or a physicist who is also a teacher). Cyde Weys _vote^talk 05:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely makes sense. I've tagged with {{expert}} and {{context}}. Stifle 13:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page was changed in format and information. It now possesses more information and better context. Might only need more work of more people on it, as it may be a stub now. the information in it is verified in physical journals and should not be deleted.Nbez 17:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This vote was added on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Dee page; I moved it here and fixed both AfD pages. bikeable (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The format and information in the page was changed by now, so that it is more comprehensible than at the beginning. Moreover, the name scalar-tensor theory (maybe scalar-tensor theories of gravitation) should be the right one (such theories are found under that name in physical journals). The name describes a wide amount of different theoretical models that use these scalar fields along with tensor fields. I think, other kind of scalar-tensor theories, should come here, too.

This theories (as models for nature) are surely used mainly on gravitation, but it might not have to be like that, although I don't know any Lagrangian of that form in other fields of physics. However, such Lagrangians (the basic of the theory) could certainly be used on other non-gravitational fields (I know, tensor calculus and metrica of General Relativity are used to work on sand and things like that), as part of phenomenological models (what would not say they are gravitational). However, it would be good if it is worked on the article... 141.70.111.178 15:40, 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 delete. howch e ng {chat} 00:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gao[edit]

Bio page of a non-notable producer. Eeee 20:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable biography. Galapagos 4 seems to a non-notable musical group Galapagos4 is a record label not a music group.- no results on allmusic.com (but there is an unrelated Galapagos band). Recommend the article author see WikiMe for writing biographies and/or WikiTree for writing genealogies; article author may also want to consider moving the content to his user page. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 22:14Z
Speedy delete non-notable musician, CSD:A7. Stifle 13:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A review of Gao's album can befound here. Search Google for 'blindfaith mike gao' to find other reviews.

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, default action is keep. Babajobu 05:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crash My Model Car[edit]

Potentially non-notable band. Was speedied, but undeleted and placed here by request of original contributor. —BorgHunter (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain as nominator. I don't deal with music or WP:MUSIC enough to really tell. —BorgHunter (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suggest that the band are left in, due to their prominent featuring on major UK radio and TV networks - a la BBC, Beat 106 (now XFM), having played at large UK music festivals such as T in The Park - voted best UK festival last year, having supported notable artist Mark Owen on UK tour, having been signed worldwide with Universal Publishing, and V2 records, having played notable venues all across the UK, having been signed to Electric Honey Records - notable indie; having large fanbase before signed to any form of label; notable due to combining folk music in a unique sound; having been featured in many online and paper publications... and all of this for an indie band. Getting signed to Universal Worldwide and V2 is no small achievement. - BoorishBehaviour - 10.46GMT - 6th January 2006
Delete I'm sure I put this on speedy deletion, or agreed with it in any case. Delete as they do not meet WP:MUSIC. Come back when you have two or more albums. Stifle 13:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record - "come back when you have two or more albums." - This is not my band, and so I'd appreciate not being referred to as part of it ;) Second: The next album will be released on V2 in less than three months, and so if that is the concensus - then it shall merely be re-added in its entirety come that point. A bit of a frutiless exercise really.

Delete As stated, they do not meet WP:MUSIC.
Keep V2 is a very notable record label. I believe that's enough to meet WP:MUSIC. howch e ng {chat} 00:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE and redirect to Progresso, Babajobu 05:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chickarina soup[edit]

Non-notable soup stock brand. 200 Google hits. r3m0t ^talk 20:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge & redirect to Progresso. Youngamerican 20:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Youngamerican. Stifle 13:39, 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 MERGE to Crash Bandicoot, Babajobu 05:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Papaguma/Bearminator, Chick Gizzard Lips[edit]

Characters in Crash Bandicoot. nn? r3m0t ^talk 20:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Crash Bandicoot. Stifle 13:39, 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 as nonsense. r3m0t ^talk 21:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mattus[edit]

I think it's a hoax. "Mattus prostitute" on Google turns up not much. r3m0t ^talk 20:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not in the OED Dlyons493 Talk 21:33, 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. Mo0[talk] 04:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thiel design[edit]

Somebody should make these companies speedies. Graphic design firm. ~300 Google hits. r3m0t ^talk 20:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn; Alexa rank: 1,755,796. --Muchness 19:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete 12 employees? My local fish and chip shop has more than that.Obina 23:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert. Stifle 23:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI to Commons and Wikisource. Mo0[talk] 06:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cirdingis[edit]

Someone worked very hard on this photo-essay, but I don't think photo-essays are appropriate for Wikipedia. Not sure what the right resolution for this article is - no vote from me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If only the original author had put the images on the Wikimedia Commons. This step-by-step preparation guide in pictures could have gone straight into our Cookbook. Uncle G 19:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the photo-essay, but assuming it really is a "traditional chechen meal", expand and keep article itself. --Quarl 02:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides, that food looks vile. --Agamemnon2 09:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to move to cookbooks? Renata3 16:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting for more discussion. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 20:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to somewhere more appropriate. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to commons. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Place the images in Commons and the recipe in Cookbook, when expanded upon. -- (aeropagitica) 22:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see what use it is on Transwiki, as it doesn't explain very well how the dish is made. Plus the verifiability worries me: no Google hits for "cirdingis", and I can't find it at Chechen Cuisine. Tearlach 11:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki the photos to Commons and the recipe to WikiBooks. Then delete. Stifle 13:20, 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. --Golbez 21:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jocker City[edit]

Suspected hoax, probable vandal creation. Sunfazer 20:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted, recreation of speedied material. --Golbez 21:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is here, if anyone wants it. -Colin Kimbrell 21:07, 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 sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Punkmorten 11:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roadkill Records[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable record shop. Wrathchild 20:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Road) Kill - delete. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cut and pasted from [41], no claim of notability. - Bobet 00:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert, copyvio, etc. Stifle 13:18, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etensive[edit]

Vanity. Web design company, not launched. r3m0t ^talk 21:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable corporation or non-notable website, vanity. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 22:11Z
Delete per nom J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 22:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "The company will launch in 2006". So will lots of companies, why is this more notable than any of the others? If this belongs anywhere it is on the company's own website. -- (aeropagitica) 22:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert. Stifle 13:17, 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 sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Punkmorten 11:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity (album)[edit]

Is just a direct copy from http://www.yanni.com/media/ethnicity.asp and is unlikely to be expanded anytime soon (none of Yanni's albums have articles). Wknight94 (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wknight94 (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List on WP:CP Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 21:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It is done. I've never done that and the copyvio page is so scary that I got nervous! :) --Wknight94 (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I had already listed it. I guess I'll delete the duplicate. Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:23, 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 02:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TechOCP[edit]

NN webzine founded in 2006. r3m0t ^talk 21:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quickly. Extremely non-notable (founded in 2006?!) and unverifiable. No Google hits for "technology overclocked with power". TechOCP is a column from Oracle magazine. Author removed AFD notice and changed article to claim "founded in 1996". —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 22:07Z
Delete per nom J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 22:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks like they're trying to trick people into thinking they're HardOCP JZig 10:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Quarl. Stifle 13:17, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual Patterns[edit]

Delete what appears to be original research. Mind matrix 21:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable and/or original research. Couldn't find relevant Google hits. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 22:10Z
Delete Subjective, probably original research. -- (aeropagitica) 22:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle 13:17, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GPS waypoints[edit]

A list of GPS waypoints of places in Wikipedia. Not encyclopaedic. r3m0t ^talk 21:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as useless/unencyclopedic. The individual articles can have the geographic locations. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 22:03Z
Delete as per above. Sliggy 22:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we couldn't possibly list the coordinates of everything interesting. Rhobite 00:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per noms above - also, sounds like we have a geocaching fanatic editing Wikipedia. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 05:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. Agree it is not encyclopediatic in current form (just a list). Perhaps content about GPS waypoints may make a worthy article. At least one of these waypoint was added to an existing article (Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural National Historic Site) -- I moved it to the "reference" section -- but (as I know nothing about GPS waypoints as a phenomenon) I don't know how encyclopediatic the GPS info is even within an article. — Eoghanacht ^talk 14:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and then see per Eoghanacht. I was about to rewrite it myself, but the best I could come up with was a dicdef so I didn't bother. Someone with more GPS expertise than I might be able to do something with it. Haikupoet 21:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we have templates such as {{coor d}} to add lat/long to articles. There is no need for this. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hopeless listcruft. Stifle 13:17, 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 keep. Ichiro 06:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Long Goodbye (film)[edit]

Text was taken from The Long Goodbye, but I restored it to that article. The book & movie are similar enough that they should remain one article, and the movie isn't notable enough on its own to merit its own article or to be anything more than a stub. Klaw ¡digame! 21:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no point in having two seperate articles about the same subject using the same text. Researchers gain nothing from this. -- (aeropagitica) 21:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has now been changed sufficiently to warrant a separate page from the novel. -- (aeropagitica) 22:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 21:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 22:01Z

Comment. The content in this article is already in The Long Goodbye, so a merge vote is tantamount to a delete. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- But we're left with the edit history for both, plus a nice, shiny redirect. ~~The material is the same in both articles, so either way, something is going to have to be 'deleted'.~~ Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's also an Erasure song by that name, so possibly a disambig might make sense. No vote for now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who seperated it, and removed the movie info from the book page. The movie info has since been returned to the main page. It should be seperate pages, IMO, because the book and movie have almost nothing to do with each other. Robert Altman was attempting to make an Anti-noir film. Either way, it's two seperate things. Otherwise, why not just combine all books with movies, which it appears we aren't doing. This isn't a case of a book made into a movie, like say, the Big Sleep which was written for the film or the Postman Always Rings Twice, which follows the book closly. It would be like having the animated Lord of the Rings movies tacked onto the end of the LOTR book pages. Either way works for me. Just don't flame my talk page.Steve-O 03:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A book and movie typically go in one article if either (or both) lacks the notability to stand on its own, or if they're too closely linked to be separated. In this case, the movie isn't notable on its own, and its plot is extremely close to the book's. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —If that was the case, then why does The Big Sleep have two seperate entries for the film versions? An interesting argument. I would like to know what people think that have read the book and seen the film. I've added to the article today. Steve-O 16:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — both articles have sufficient content to keep them separate. Movie productions are rarely if ever exact duplicates of the novels on which they are based. So I don't have an issue with separate articles, as long as they are well-developed. — RJH 18:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As long as the film article is well-developed (i.e. not a stub), it should stand on its own. I think Steve has sufficiently expanded the film information to merit its own article. I think the precedent was set long ago that film versions can be separate from their novel's articles. They should only remain attached when the film is an integral part of explaining the novel (not the case here by a long shot) or if neither article can stand alone (two stubs combined to form a decent-sized article). Volatile 00:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The book is one thing and the film is another. Both versions are cultural and artistic artifacts on their own merits. I've read the book and seen the film; Chandler does his 1950's L.A. literary thing, and Altman takes it and runs with it in a purely 1970's L.A. cinematic way. Perhaps some editing and clean-up is warranted, but outright deletion is not.
Strong Keep -- The book and movie differ in notable ways. I can't imagine merging them into a single article. Andrew Levine 07:52, 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 02:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metallion promotions[edit]

nn company, <100 Google hits. r3m0t ^talk 21:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable corporation. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 22:01Z
Delete per Quarl. Stifle 13:17, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 06:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Butler[edit]

Looks like he does nice work, but not sure he is prominent enough at this point in his career to be listed in Wikipediia

Comment The author needs to demonstrate the influence the artist has had on his peers and/or the critical appraisal that has made him notable. -- (aeropagitica) 22:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim to notability. JoaoRicardo^talk 20:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mike Butler is a notable artist. He is a main contributor to global cyber culture and a valuable active member of the "Webism Movement" [42]. For more details visit Pygoya. Please also have a look here: [43] ~~Artingrid~~ 00:44, 6 January 2006 (CET)
The above comment was actually posted by 84.156.118.195 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Stifle 13:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's all very well. Do you, however, have any third-party sources (i.e. not associated with yourself, Mr. Butler, or Mrs. Kamerbeek) which provide verifiable evidence that Mr. Butler is notable and meets the consensus for inclusion of biographical articles? Specifically, is his work "recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field"? Stifle 13:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as no claim to notability. Stifle 13:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Strong delete as part a ring of three articles created by the same people, the only references to each one are the other two. Stifle 13:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares. It looks like Wikipedia is becoming just another elitist organization. Go ahead and cook in the stew of your own self-importance. Delete me. Mike Butler.

Delete Even M. Butler concurs as to his non-notability. Atrian 00:25, 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 02:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minute diet[edit]

WP is not the place for Original Research delete J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 21:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

or a vehicle for advertising J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 22:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 21:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sceptr e ^(Talk) 21:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable commercial diet, advertising ("order the audio CD today!"). I don't believe it is original research, see http://www.minutediet.com/. Non-notable because the website was eclipsed by results such as "thirteen minute diet" when searching for "minute diet" on Google, and the website has no Alexa rank. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 22:00Z
Delete Advertising, non-notable diet. -- (aeropagitica) 22:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Advertising, non-notable. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 05:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert, non-notable, and all that. Stifle 13:15, 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. The article was very short anyway. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of topics about the economics of corruption[edit]

"Economics of corruption" is not a field within the discipline of Economics, so this list will never be populated, except perhaps by a bit of Original Research. Please delete. The Land 21:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are several books at Amazon with the title "Economics of corruption", plus an article in a OECD journal from 2000. Still might be too fringe to include, but not nonexistent. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list unlikely to be completed, and probably a POV magnet. Stifle 13:13, 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 TRANSWIKI to Wikisource. Mo0[talk] 06:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, Sources, & Revision History[edit]

This article is a copy+paste of http://www.vectorsite.net/twuav19.html, however it is not a copyvio because the original was placed in the public domain. It appears to be the closing section for the History of UAV FAQ. Obviously this article is misnamed and nobody will ever search for this name. Any useful source links should be merged to the appropriate pages needing them and this article deleted. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 21:50Z

Transwiki to Wikisource with some more meaningful name, then delete from here. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete per Zoe. Stifle 13:13, 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 we don't need to delete to redirect, so redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 06:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Higure, The Still Wind[edit]

A card of Magic:The Gathering. r3m0t ^talk 21:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the appropriate card set, to discourage recreation. We generally haven't kept specific MTG cards in the past (see [44] and [45] for examples). -Colin Kimbrell 22:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedents. The Power Nine together receive a combined article, so a minor card from the Kamigawa arc doesn't stand a chance. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Saberwyn. -- Grev 03:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Betrayers of Kamigawa. Stifle 13:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Declared interest: I am an associate and contractor of Wizards of the Coast. Stifle 13:12, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 06:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helvis → Elvis Elliot[edit]

Wrestler. NN? r3m0t ^talk 21:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 January 2006 (UTC)Why is this getting deleted? He's a real wrestler, he wrestles for TNA.

--Aguilafan 00:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Yeah, why is this getting deleted, I published it? Im willing to make any necessary changes.[reply]

He's been on TV< that's enough to convince me to keep. However, please rename to his actual name, this is Wikipedia convention. Stifle 13:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Aguilafan 21:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)How do I change the title at the top?[reply]

Comment: Page moved to correct name per WP:RM. —Nightstallion (?) 09:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supercapitalism[edit]

This is an apparent neologism, with 672 google hits. WP:NOT Original Research, so Delete. The Land 21:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless references are added.--Samuel J. Howard 22:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism. Hits in Google indicate that this word is used in a diferent sense, namely as a strong version of capitalism. JoaoRicardo^talk 05:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established. Stifle 13:07, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quickchat[edit]

NN firefox extension r3m0t ^talk 21:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge into Firefox Extensions. It doesnt need its own article J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 22:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. JoaoRicardo^talk 05:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thousands of users are using, worth keeping for their benefit, and the benefit of others... 04:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.144.21 (talk • contribs)
Delete as non-notable. Stifle 13:06, 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 speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guertin[edit]

"Guertin is a family surname held by many Americans." (whole article) r3m0t ^talk 21:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as no-content, and also under new CSD A7 Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 22:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A7 is for people, not names. r3m0t ^talk 22:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A1. PJM 22:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The context is America. I don't think it qualifies. r3m0t ^talk 22:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with all reasonable haste, for being a single sentance genealogy article. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted based on WP:CSD A1 and possibly A7. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 06:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lego NXT[edit]

Can't find the copyvio, but this is just an advertisement for an upcoming (Aug) product. r3m0t ^talk 22:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Lego Mindstorms, where Lego NXT is already mentioned. This is just the next version of a notable product for which we already have an article. Summarising the info should remove any copyvio issues. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 22:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a completely new version.
- It works completely differently and it's parts are different.
- Lego NXT needs its own page. It is a totally different kit with different functionality. JettaMann 16:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I started with the press release, planning to edit it down.
Merge per GeorgeStepanek. Stifle 13:03, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Wolf (NX-75984)[edit]

this is a single sentence about a little known ship from star trek. this should not be in wikipedia as there are no references or actual notes about the article.Random articles 21:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this should be mentioned anywhere then it should be on Memory Alpha. -- (aeropagitica) 22:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about MA, a brief Google gives no results for a starship of that name and rego, and a google for "USS Wolf" seems to only hit a 4-digit NCC rego, or references to the battle of Wolf 359. I'm suspecting fanfiction or extremely high level fancruft. Either waydelete. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks content or any reason to believe content exists. --Ajdz 05:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the verifiability issues by Saberwyn are concerning. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete starships which are so fictional they aren't even really in their own fictional universe. (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one-line substub with no real possibility to expand. Stifle 13:03, 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 Babajobu 07:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fortress Forever[edit]

Non-notable Half-Life 2 mod that is still in development. Doesn't deserve its own article. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 22:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't exist yet.--Samuel J. Howard 22:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Neither does TeamFortress 2, but it still has an article. An the term "non-notable" is highly debatable.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Team Fortress 2 is being developed by a reputable game studio and has been anticipated for some time (many years). This mod, on the other hand, is just being made by fans. Big difference. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 23:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertising, crystal ball. At best this will someday be worth an entry on a list. (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and welcome back when it's actually released - unreleased mods aren't notable, IMO, but released mods of some good scope usually would be. (Also reverted some not-very-intricate-or-clever vandalism on this page by 203.214.44.106 and 203.206.43.175.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Black Mesa Source getting the boot too? Or is this just bias? Hardly non-notable when it's in the top 5 of most wanted HL2 mods.

Will be a kick-ass mod for Source!

Delete does not exist yet, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and no established notability. Stifle 13:03, 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 Redirect to Bluetooth WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 02:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blooth[edit]

Neologism. <500 Google hits for "Blooth bluetooth" r3m0t ^talk 22:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is my first article so still learning =) In fact, after people asked me about 'blooth', I did first do some google research. All instances were some form of typo, and therefore there was no directly citable source. Should I cite a specific usage? google? or general typo? Since there were so many indpendent 'mis'-usages, it would seem to be a relatively stable neologism. On the other hand, perhaps is doesn't belong in -pedia anyway, and should be in dictionary or urban-dictionary.
I don't mind deletion, but a more verbose explanation would allow me to be a better contributor! Thanks! ektoric
- More verbose it is:
  1. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Articles in Wikipedia are about the people/concepts/places/things/events denoted by their titles, not about the words in their titles. An article entitled Blooth would be about Blooth, or Blooths, whatever they are.
  2. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We don't have multiple articles just because there are multiple words for the same thing. See theatre/theater, color/colour, squash/marrow, chav/charva, and gasoline/petrol. If Blooth is the same thing as Bluetooth, then we have one article about the one thing, with the alternative titles as redirects.
  3. Having individual articles for individual words is what a dictionary does. See theatre/theater, color/colour, squash/marrow, chav/charva, and gasoline/petrol.
  4. For a redirect from an alternative name in the encyclopaedia, reliable evidence has to exist that that really is a widely accepted, or an authoritatively documented, alternative name. A handful of people making a typing mistake does not constitute a credible alternative name. Our Wikipedia:No original research official policy prevents us from proposing new names for things, moreover.
  5. For an alternative spelling to be listed in the dictionary, the word has to satisfy the dictionary's attestation criteria.
- If people ask you about the word again, point them to blooth in the dictionary. ☺ Uncle G 01:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not a neologism. But this isn't what the word means. See the Wiktionary article for where the redirect should point. ☺ Uncle G 01:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bluetooth if it's got currency. Stifle 13:02, 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 - Izehar 18:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EStudio TaskTracker[edit]

Delete. Blatant spam, refers to "our" software and a solicitation for a free 30 day trial. Obviously lifted from some promotional text for the product itself. This page was likely created to establish supposed notability to include external links elsewhere in Wikipedia. Renesis13 22:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertising, they can use their own website for this copy it they want to. No notable research value. -- (aeropagitica) 22:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this ad. JoaoRicardo^talk 05:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be an advert, although without the usual external links. Probably a copyvio. Stifle 12:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it's a copyvio from [46]. It's been around since November so it's not a candidate for speedy deletion, however. Stifle 12:56, 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 - Izehar 18:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AncGRFull[edit]

A song from Civilization III. (art then continues to review and "recommend" the song) r3m0t ^talk 22:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.--Samuel J. Howard 22:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, the game probably has lots of songs. JoaoRicardo^talk 05:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-encyclopedic. If there is any useful content here not already included at Civilization III then merge and redirect. Stifle 12:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article poses information about a song in a video game, completly innappropriate in my opinion! Empty2005 12:56, 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 - Izehar 18:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz4Life[edit]

NN organization. r3m0t ^talk 22:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no claim for notability for this organisation. -- (aeropagitica) 23:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. JoaoRicardo^talk 05:05, 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 Speedy delete. --D e ath phoenix 14:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kandifloss[edit]

Fictional band set up by Celebrity Big Brother. nn. r3m0t ^talk 22:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With the Celebrity BB page, after correcting the spelling. -- (aeropagitica) 22:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete for lack of context. We shouldn't have guesse which channel 4 and which Big Brother it is. Yes, I know it's probably the UK version, but this page clearly meets speedy delete criterion in my opinion. There are many channel fours in the world, and there are a number of Big Brother shows as well. --Rob 07:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Celebrity Big Brother article. -- Mikeblas 11:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Not only is this a non-notable band, but it's fictional to boot! I'm speedy deleting this article. --D e ath phoenix 14:07, 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 articlus deleteo DS 13:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hogwarts University[edit]

Roleplaying forum, 500 players. r3m0t ^talk 22:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. bikeable (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 23:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've stated my case regarding this sort of thing before. Daniel Case 02:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. __earth 02:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable online gaming group. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-06 04:50Z
Delete. Forum vanity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a copy-paste dump of something else too, but it'll be gone soon so I'm not going to waste time tracking it down. (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity, non-notable. Encyclopedias are not for some roleplaying forums. --Terence Ong ^Talk 14:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost definitely a copy-paste job from some other wiki (see the "edit" links before each section?) In fact, make that a speedy as nn-club. Stifle 12:40, 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 copyvio, send to WP:CP. - Mailer Diablo 02:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Product Based Planner[edit]

Delete. Obviously ad copy. Phrasing like "contains all you need to get started..." and the non-convential external links section are giveaways that this is a vanity page and shows obvious non-notability. Renesis13 22:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Software advertising. -- (aeropagitica) 22:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
copyvio listed on WP:CP Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 02:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let the copyvio crowd handle it. Stifle 12:39, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CreativeTrack[edit]

Delete. Obvious vanity page. See history, was created and only edited by the developer of the product. Renesis13 22:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, Alexa ranking of 4,442,092. JoaoRicardo^talk 04:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TheRingess 04:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert and proper capitalization thing mentioned by WP:BALLS. Stifle 12:38, 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 every firstborn son speedy deleted as WP:CSD#A7. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 05:00, Jan. 6, 2006

Bisesi[edit]

Unlinked, unsourced article about a particular family's name (whose members mostly reside in Akron, Ohio); no claim to notability Paul 22:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yet again, the author needs to assert a claim to notability for the name, otherwise it may as well live in the Akron telephone directory and nowhere else. -- (aeropagitica) 22:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No claim of notability.Obina 23:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a non-notable family under A7? Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable biography. Recommend the article author see WikiMe for writing biographies and/or WikiTree for writing genealogies; article author may also want to consider moving the content to his user page. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-06 04:51Z

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 06:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metronome (disambiguation)[edit]

A dab page with two entries, one of which is a redlink. What's the point? —Wahoofive (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Renesis13 23:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is use for a disambig like this. Suppose someone came looking for information on that videogame console. He goes to metronome, than to this disambig, and sees the red link with the description. This is like saying: "we don't yet have an article on that, but we would welcome one". As long as the alternatives are article-worth and the disambig title is marked as "(disambig)", I don't see a problem. JoaoRicardo^talk 04:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JoaoRicardo. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 05:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Disambigs with two pages aren't usually worth keeping even if they are both blue links. The preferred method is a short note on the top of each article referring to the other one. Stifle 12:38, 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 No consensus Babajobu 07:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal Revolution[edit]

This appears to be a non-notable blog. Delete The Land 23:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has a BlogPulse rank of 88, making it the number one economics blog rated. It is ranked 5th among economics blogs by another blog ranker, The Truth Laid Bare, which is used by media sources such as the Washington Post.[47]--Nectar
Delete currently does not appear to have any notability. Stifle 12:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A very popular blog if you are an economist and it has been gaining in popularity. --MShonle 01:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just to point out that neither of those reasons to include it is included in the draft guideline at WP:WEB. The Land 13:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: Actually, both #2 and #3 apply to the site. --MShonle 04:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 02:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shrek's (not Donkey's)[edit]

A brief promotional cereal. r3m0t ^talk 23:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pn. Lovely name though Sceptr e ^(Talk) 23:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. JoaoRicardo^talk 04:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can't make up my mind. A cereal that is distributed to supermarkets across the country could be notable. I just don't get any sense of it from the (very short) article text. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 05:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the other General Mills cereal products have extensive entries. This one just needs expanding. Atrian 06:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that it just needs to be expanded. --Renesis13 17:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is just promotional. Or merge to Shrek. Stifle 12:35, 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 MERGE and redirect, Babajobu 06:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dhupadhola[edit]

Dhopadhola language already exists Kodecharlie 00:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this with Dhopadhola language and Dhopadhola. And keep the redirects so people won't create more articles about the same thing. - Bobet 00:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is Articles for deletion. Wikipedia:Duplicate articles is along the hall, third door on the left. Uncle G 00:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-06 04:57Z
Merge, as per Bobet - NickelShoe 14:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dhupadhola and redirect to Dhopadhola. I have merged Dhopadhola language to Dhopadhola. --Ezeu 19:12, 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.