Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 24

< December 23	December 25 >

Purge server cache

December 24[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 Speedy deleted. The text of the article makes it clear that it's a speedy, really. Hedley 03:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chippy the Whittler[edit]

Tagged for speedy delete as "nonsense, but does not IMO fit WP:PN. However, this seems to be an entirely non-notable work. It mentions no publicationn for the story, and the "movie" seems to be a self-pub, and the article mentions no distribution or sales, cites no reviews, etc. There are no google hits that I can find on this topic. It seems to be neither verifiable nor notable, and thus not encyclopedic. Delete unless relaible sources are cited for bi=oth the existance and the notability of this work. DES ^(talk) 00:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 00:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A movie with a budget of $8, and "most of the funding was spent on canvas leggings" sounds pretty nonsensical to me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero Google hits. Hoax. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of WP:V and WP:NOT. Crotalus horridus (TALK ● CONTRIBS) 02:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Eight dollars would buy one pair of canvas leggings. Endomion 02:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. —Cleared as filed. 17:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The C word and related articles linked below[edit]

See also the related redirects C word, C word. By the way, I must apologize that I can't get the links to work correctly. They work here. I would appreciate it if someone can fix the links. In the meantime, this redirect will still take you to the page in question. links now repaired. please note that format required to make them work is highly non-standard.

Foogol created this "disambiguation" page and a string of redirect pages. Nothing links to them but more importantly, I can find no evidence that anything ever will link to them. This is in my opinion a thinly veiled attempt to create dictionary definitions for a series of off-color euphemisms. Several of them have already been speedy-deleted. Foogol recreated them rather than contesting the deletions. I personally think that they are patently obvious deletes but couldn't find a specific speedy deletion criterion which applied. (Note: I had originally made this as a bulk nomination but have decided to move most of the others to Redirects for deletion.) Rossami (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In case the nomination was ambiguous, delete all. Rossami (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
D-word per nom-word. Flyboy Will 01:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have n word as a redirect to nigger and f word as a redirect to fuck, so should have these redirects as well. Robot32 01:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- new user. see contribution history
Comment Just to be absolutely clear, I believe the nomination is for the following 37 articles created by User:Foogol ([1]):

The S word; H word; The h word; The h word; C word; C word; S word; The S word; The P word; The P word; The D word; D word; C word; C word; The C word; C word; The C word; H word; The h word; The h word; The P word; The P word; S word; The S word; The S word; The D word; D word; D word; The D word; The A word; A word; The A word; A word; The B word; The B word; B word; B word

Which is, frankly, the worst thing I've ever seen anyone do at wikipedia. Flyboy Will 02:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these on the basis of WP:NOT. Crotalus horridus (TALK ● CONTRIBS) 02:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, redirects are cheap.Gateman1997 02:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There are times when redirects should be deleted (I seem to recall a kerfuffle involving you over a redirect once). Those times are described at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, where this should have been made (and for all I know, has been). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What, is Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion broken? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: does not seem encyclopædic to me at all.—Stombs 04:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Slang words using one letter -- Astrokey44|talk 06:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Astrokey44. Blackcats 07:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. While there are plenty of references available to show that "the N word" has historically referred to "nigger," and "the F word" has always unequivocally been in reference to "fuck," "the D word" is "damnation"? These are just arbitrary one-letter acronymizations of profane words. This is problematic because society does not actually use any of these phrases, and so to have them on Wikipedia is misleading and non-representational of, well, reality. Rather unhealthy for an aspiring reliable reference, eh? (Oh, and btw, if "The C word" is "cunt," "cock," and "crap," none of them is the definitive "C word," is it?) JDoorjam 16:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per gateman. 205.188.116.201 20:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot of them. Scoo 11:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. 64.12.116.195 16:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of them I believe the B word and the A word is notable as they are definitive with the former being a lot more notable. SandBoxer 06:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The D word (i.e. delete). But yes it should be Redirects not Articles for deletion Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Pointless. OwenBlacker 19:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I agree, pointless, not notable. Seems more like they were created to bother people as they aren't defended by the creator. Lotusduck 07:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Many of these redirects were deleted as a consequence of the discussion at WP:RFD. A few were not deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 21:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the ones not yet deleted. Excessive and pointless. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per CSD A7--Alhutch 01:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Krishnamoorthy[edit]

No assertion of notability, reeks of vanity. Aecis ^praatpaal 00:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, no assertion of notability. Flyboy Will 00:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Popcorn (instrumental). howch e ng {chat} 19:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popcorn (Crazy Frog song)[edit]

Little or no content, unremarkable person/information. If Kraftwerk doesn't have a page for a remix of this song, Crazy Frog certainly shouldn't. Also note that it is mentioned on the page Popcorn (song) and as such, this page is completely unremarkable and unnecessary --Originally posted by 24.126.30.46, reposted by Shawnc 01:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful content into Popcorn (song). Crotalus horridus (TALK ● CONTRIBS) 02:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on general principle. Although, on the other hand, we do have separate articles for bilirubin, mucus, protein, bacteria, fats, salts, and other components of shit. Flyboy Will 02:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. However, I would vote strong keep if this couldn't be merged - Songs that are released as singles should all be kept, as albums are. Hedley 03:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Popcorn (song) for reasons cited above.—Stombs 05:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Hedley. DarthVader 08:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Popcorn (song) as above. — JIP | Talk 09:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Hedley Sceptre ^(Talk) 13:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Dnavarro 17:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per other users. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No votes. This is such an obvious merge that I cannot believe that it was actually nominated for deletion rather than just merged. Incidentally, the musical piece Popcorn is an instrumental piece reminiscent of Joe Meek's Telstar, so I find the designation Popcorn (song) somewhat questionable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Its actually got a lot of info here, more than many other articles. Just because it is a piece of commericalised rubbish pop, doesn't mean it should be deleted. Astrotrain 22:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free-Trade Socialism[edit]

Article is original research, neologism and/or hoax. A google search on "Free-Trade Socialism" turns up a grand total of 131 hits, and none of them (other than the two linking to the wiki article) actually talk about any concept called "free trade socialism". Delete. Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. "Free-Trade Socialism is a new political concept, and no country has adopted it yet". What a surprise. «LordViD» 01:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Crotalus horridus (TALK ● CONTRIBS) 02:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and Crotalus. Flyboy Will 02:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Free trade socialism is an oxymoron, sort of like "Reagan Communism". Endomion 02:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 06:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably trying to promote an nn idea.--Bkwillwm 06:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Krich (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's all been said. -- Jbamb 14:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, joke. Pavel Vozenilek 08:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - NeoJustin 05:22, December 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 19:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angelique (model)[edit]

This is just some small porn star. She's hardly noteworthy, and this article just seems like an advertisement. --pielover87 01:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AfD was originally listed under Angelique instead of Angelique (model). Angelique is not an article about a porn star; it's about a Japanese dating sim (i.e. not an actual person). The porn star article would be Angelique (model). Since the reason for this AfD is not clearly indicated by the nomination, I recommend that the nominator clarify it before we actually try to submit our votes. --Metropolitan90 01:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- From the nominator's contribution history, I see that this was supposed to be a nomination for Angelique (model). I'll fix it accordingly. No vote. --Metropolitan90 01:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep although stubby and fairly trivial. Draeco 06:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No vote. Gets quite a few Google hits [2], but I've been told that porn-bios are difficult to find verifiable information for... Blackcats 08:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Effectively advertising. Calsicol 09:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, she's made 19 films and has done a fair amount of magazine work. -- Kjkolb 11:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete adspam. Durova 13:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep, large number of google hits, 19 films, magazine work, demonstrate she has an audience. Not advertising. Kappa 14:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is working in the commercial sex trade alone sufficient to constitute notability? How many women offering to perform in such films are rejected? Numbers of Google hits are misleading; otherwise those hot teenage cheerleaders who so often email me offering me a low-rate home mortgage to finance my Viagra purchase would be notable, too. Monicasdude 15:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete.NN Model. NN small business. Whole point of this is to promote the business.Obina 21:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If we keep almost actor/actress with an IMDb entry, I don't know why a porn star of medium fame should be excluded. If the link is a problem, just delete it. -- Kjkolb 11:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The major problem is that porn people tend not to release verifiable accurate personal bio data, so much of what exists in IMDB and the porn equivalents is either speculation or self-promotional fiction. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If something cannot be verified. It is just left out of the article. We don't need a complete biography or even any personal bio data. You can just have the performer's name and the work that they have done. Also, when a star claims something that cannot be verified, you can just say, "X claims that..." -- Kjkolb 10:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And Britannica is full of entries about people along the lines of "X is the stagename of a person whose real name and date of birth is unknown; they claim to be Y and Z, fans describe them as prety good." :-) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They do have entries for some people whose real names aren't known, like the Man in the Iron Mask [3]. The question then becomes whether this particular person is notable enough for our standards, which aren't as restrictive as Britannica's. I'd lean toward Keep on this one, in part because it's not bad as stubs go (written with decent grammar and formatted properly), and in part because there's an affiliation with Score, a relatively large presence in the industry. -Colin Kimbrell 15:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apparent promotion, no encyclopaedic content, porncruft and fails the "who cares?" test. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertizing. Lotusduck 07:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Angelique's posting is valid and the information posted is correct. She has been a major model in her field for over 10 years. Has many magazine covers & pictorials to her credit and at least 10 films.

Comment I have removed advertising, does not change the fact that this was probably written as advertising.

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

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

The result of the debate was keep Renata3 06:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jason Dominus[edit]

Perhaps a Merge into PERL or Kibology. Otherwise, Delete. karmafist 01:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Mr Dominus seems to be well respected enough in his field (e.g. conference speaking, authorship).—Stombs 05:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Dominus enjoys a similar status as Randal L. Schwartz or Larry Wall (and unlike them is in fact a direct participant in communities beyond Perl's). If those are not eligible for deletion, then this one isn't either. (Not that I'd expect someone who spells Perl as PERL to know much about the community or who are its cornerstones…) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotle Pagaltzis (talk • contribs)
- Comment Of course not. The Community of PERL isn't particularly notable. It would be like saying members of our community are encyclopedic enough to be notable just because of Wikipedia. The only person that would work for is Jimbo. karmafist 19:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Right. Now imagine Wikipedia was 20 years old and had a board that consisted of more like 20-30 members, a handful of which had contributed significantly to all of the code running Wikipedia, its direction as a community, and its actual content. Aristotle 23:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, founder of Kibology, author, and programmer of common Perl modules. Together sufficient reason for notability and separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per anon user above (sign your posts!). rodii 16:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MML_City_Information_Page[edit]

WikiPedia is not a FAQ repository Endomion 01:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional and not encyclopædic.—Stombs 05:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 06:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This would only be appropriate for WikiTravelGuide. Draeco 07:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
LOL & delete (I suppose it's too long for BJODN). Blackcats 08:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopædic. DarthVader 08:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Deserves a humorous deletion stamenent, but I can't be bothered. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. The final tally was 12/8 in favor of deletion (60%), but many of the keep votes were only for process (because the renomination came too soon) and not related to the content. I say give RoySmith, Bcordes and others time to find references and check again in a month or two. howch e ng {chat} 19:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yak shaving[edit]

The article begins with the statement that this is a neologism. Neologisms fit squarely into Delete territory. karmafist 01:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the same reasons as the first time around. What's changed in the past couple of weeks to make it worth bringing up again? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the article cites a 1992 source. If a phrase invented in 1992 deserves to be deleted as a neologism, then perhaps Wikipedia deserves the same fate? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - This reminds of me that old saying "If a tree fell in the forest with nobody there, would it make a sound?" If something is a neologism in 1992, and nobody knows or cares about it for over a decade, does that make it neological in the etymological sense? Absolutely. karmafist 19:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't agree that nobody knows or cares about the word; I hear it used commonly in the engineering and IT industries. I can't point you at a source that defines its origins or claims that it's a word in the common parlance, but is that a reasonable standard to hold any word to? Bcordes 15:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It also states "there is little relation between that episode and the current meaning of the word", making the date of said reference a non-factor. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:47, Dec. 24, 2005
Speedy Keep - Otherwise what's the point of getting a consensus in the AfD process? Endomion 02:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not enough people were there in the last afd to get a strong enough consensus, given the non-notability of this subject. karmafist 19:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - not enough time has past since the previous debate. Blackcats 07:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it only got two keep votes last time. Delete as a neologism. -- Kjkolb 11:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Movementarian 13:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 1992 reference to Ren and Stimpy is completely unrelated. The article's only external link is to a private e-mail dated 2000. I won't go against a two-week-old keep, but I fail to see how this merits more than a move to Wikitionary. Durova 13:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely delete. This is beyond meritless. It was nominated for deletion two weeks ago... does that mean it's not fair to AfD it now because it's been weakened and isn't up to fighting strength? This article is about a made-up term and will never develop beyond the point it is at right now. JDoorjam 16:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Positively delete this clear and present neologism. The subject's greatest potential claim to notability is Ren & Stimpy, which it even admits is not relevant. First AFD should have been kept open re-listed to gain a more thorough consensus. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:47, Dec. 24, 2005
Delete. The previous AfD had too few voters to consider it consensus. There are no verifiable sources for this neologism. Carbonite | Talk 19:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete. per nom.Obina 21:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. It's a dic def. Can't become an article. If they don't want it, just delete. Even if a word is used in an episode of a tv show once, doesn't mean it warrants a separate entry. It still needs to be verifiably in use by a large group of people and even then it's just a dictionary definition. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: it was submitted to Wikitionary last time. I don't know if they wanted it, though. -- Kjkolb 08:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at best this is a dicdef and at worst it is non-notable. Andrew Levine 01:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn-dicdef. --Daveb 04:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. -- JJay 05:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn-dicdef. KillerChihuahua^?!? 07:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Apostrophe 08:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep amusing. KI 16:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should have been relisted last time for lack of input. It's either a dicdef (i.e. not for WP) or a self-consciously coined neologism (i.e. not for WP). Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --NaconKantari 18:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There seems to be a feeling here that neologisms are inherently not wikipedia material. I suspect people who are thinking that way are mis-interpreting Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. That policy rejects Original research (including the coining of neologisms). Note the use of the word coining. If I were to create hyperdeletionism, that would be coining a neologism, because I would be creating a new word. Yak shaving is not that; the phrase already existed, the article is simply documenting its history and use. Shall we bring to AfD all 57 entries in Category:Neologisms? I've added a few references to the article, selected from the 68,000 google hits. Most of them are blogs and random webzines; they may not be the OED, but it should be sufficient to satisfy the verifiability argument. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- For me, the problem is the neo part. A newly coined phrase (i.e. neologism) is of unknown and unproven significance. Once it is widely used, assuming it is not a dicdef, there is no real problem with inclusion in, say, the list of Internet slang. The number of neologisms which are independently encyclopaedic is, in my view, small; Wikipedia is not as far as I can tell a mirror of either the urban dictionary or FOLDOC. Also remember that verifiability in Wikipedia terms means verifiable from reputable sources (explicitly not blogs).- Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see not trusting a blog to verify facts, but what we're trying to verify is that the phrase is in common use. If it's being used on blogs, it's being used. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP! - almost 40,000 google hits; mentioned in Jargon file. If this expression is spread only on the internet, why not add it to the category of computer jargon. --Anthony Ivanoff 03:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - NeoJustin 05:21, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
Provisional Keep. I'd rather not see this phrase completely disappear from Wikipedia. If it belongs on a list of slang somewhere, then let's figure out which one it belongs on and move it. I agree that the article will probably not expand significantly beyond its current form. I do not agree that it is a neologism which was coined by the creation of this article; this phrase has been around and in usage for a significant amount of time. Bcordes 15:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 karmafist 20:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Centreville, Lennox and Addington County, Ontario[edit]

Village of 80 people. Gas station. Public school of 150 students. NN. r3m0t ^talk 01:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Strong precedent is to keep any verifiable place/settlement. Dlyons493 Talk 03:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cities themselves are notable, regardless of size - WP:AFDP Lbbzman 04:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme keep. All real places are notable. We should encourage creation of an article on every place in the world. See List of places with fewer than ten residents. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I would qualify that to say, all real legal jurisdications, current and former, (e.g. municipalities, states, provinces, etc...). Maybe every census unit (whatever the proper term is). But are all places notable? What about neighborhoods? Is every hamlet notable? Also, the list you gave is (I think) based on census data, so its all verifiable information. Do we have any census data on Centreville, or any other reliable source? --Rob 12:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Maybe the AFD can have a positive effect though if it brings these pages to people's attention so that the articles are expanded. Blackcats 07:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. as discussed above --Enfiladissa 08:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep all places. Please do not list villages for deletion again. QQ 09:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- While the stated nominators reason is invalid (villages can't be deleted as "nn"), *anything* in Wikipedia can be deleted as non-verifiable. Discussing notability is an unfortunate (though common) distraction from the single issue we should discuss: verifiability. If I find an article on a village, that no amount of effort can verify, I'll certainly list it for AFD. At this point, I suspect the problems of the article can be addressed, and the article kept, but that's not been determined yet. --Rob 13:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lbbzman. — JIP | Talk 09:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Calsicol 09:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What type of legal entity are we talking about here? Based on reading this, I gather its an unicorporated village in the Camden Township (which doesn't have it's own article). It sounds like it was once incorporated based on the sentence "The Town Hall in Centreville, the current Municipal Offices for the Township of Camden East was erected in 1905.". Anyway, I would likely support keeping this, but I would like to know what we're keeping first. Sorry in advance, if my question sounds dumb. ~~One option would be to move this article to Camden, Ontario and convert it into an article about the township, which mentions this, and any other village inside it.~~ Also, can anybody find any official mention of this place? --Rob 12:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Added: If Camden did exist, it doesn't seem to anymore. --Rob 12:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a very valid question - has anyone local knowledge? Note my keep vote was predicated on this place being verifiable. Dlyons493 Talk 12:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think an unfortunate result of RAMBOT, is it's given the impression we can write articles about every little place on Earth, with no decent sources. We can't. Some places have no verifiable information. RAMBOT is based on verifiable census data, and will update articles as needed. Based on reading the Centreville Public School I now get the impression that Camden (and East Camden) are gone, and that Centreville is part of the Township of Stone Mills . No mention of Camden exists on the county web site. This is concerning, since our *only* source for this article is so out-of-date, it refers to a Township (Camden) that might not exist anymore. I think the article has to state what, if any township the village is part of, and it has to state if the village is incorporated (e.g. if it has its own government). I'm 100% for keeping this article *if* there's sufficient verifiable information. --Rob 12:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added: While I hope somebody does have local knowledge to contribute, that won't be sufficient. We have to answer the relevant questions from verifiable sources. I won't accept somebody just telling me they know the place exists, with a certain status, because they've been there. --Rob 12:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... Centreville is mentioned on the County-Homepage, there is a map here: [4] .... --Enfiladissa 13:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the map is helpful. But, it's just a dot on a map. It doesn't tell us enough, like the incorporation status, or what (if any) township its part of. We have to verify more then existence, but also status. --Rob 13:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well: here: [5] - on the county side - it is said, that "Centreville, the centre of Camden Township, is a small village located at the intersection of County Road 4 and Centreville Road. We are a 10 minute drive from Hwy 401, a 25 minute drive to the City of Kingston and a 20 minute drive to the Town of Napanee.", if that helps ... --Enfiladissa 13:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The county site you pointed to contradicts itself. Go to here then click on the list for "Stone Mills Township" and you'll see "Centreville". Select it, and you'll see this (the only source of our article). Her's the catch: Stone Mills isn't mentioned on this page at all. Instead Camden is (in fact Centreville is in the centre of Camden). It even refers to "the current Municipal Offices for the Township of Camden East". So we know the first sentence, and last sentence of that page are no longer accurate. What else is no longer accurate? What benefit does a Wikipedia article have, unless we tell people things we've verified to be accurate. --Rob 13:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - well, I agree, partly. I mean, these people seems to have contests in constructing cabbage-throwing-machines ([6]), I do not expect them to be accurate in giving details a small 80-person village. I saw the contradictions, but I posted it because of the links being some kind of verification of the existence of the place itself ... --Enfiladissa 13:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Carr[edit]

Originally tagged this as nn-bio, which it probably isn't. The guy's claim to notability is that he is head of Superior Wealth Creation, a small, dubious property investment outfit. That article was deleted recently; this one ought to go, too. Pilatus 02:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Flyboy Will 03:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find any independent items on him via Google. All pages seem to be affiliated to Mr Carr (search for "Superior Wealth Creation" "Andrew Carr"). Delete, unless someone can show me otherwise.—Stombs 04:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Draeco 07:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. DarthVader 08:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nom Jakiah 10:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nuseatingly self-congratulatory "article" about someone whose firm was not deemed fit for inclusion. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as nn-band

Science Knows No Sin[edit]

Band vanity. Notability not established. No indication they pass WP:MUSIC, Google hits are low. [7] CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 02:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied under CSD A7. Deltabeignet 03:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was obvious keep Renata3 06:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zakuro Fujiwara[edit]

nn anime character r3m0t ^talk 02:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Main character in a notable anime as well as a manga. Zakuro +mew brings some 13,000 Google hits, and even more than that for her English name, Renee. Renee +mew is 47,500+. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Starblind ×Meegs 06:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Lenahan and rewrite. Movementarian 10:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Starblind. Kappa 14:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Starblind. Tokyo Mew Mew is a notable anime/manga and WP:FICT says major characters in such works can have their own article. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kiwi-chan If we delete this, we have to delete all the other Mew Mew profiles, too.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Gone per below (it's a hoax). Hedley 03:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heated Betty[edit]

No Google hits for "Heated Betty" Norfolk. Keeping in mind that the article creator has a history of hoaxes, this really ought to go, in fact it ought to be speedy deleted as hoax vandalism. Pilatus 03:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Google for "Heated Betty" orange gets one non-relevant result, and "Heated Betty" scotch gets zip. Clearly a hoax. -- Vary 03:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, hoax. Flyboy Will 03:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was AfD withdrawn by nominator. Hedley 03:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The dailyness[edit]

~~Website vanity that fails WP:WEB. Pilatus 03:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn Pilatus 03:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Renata3 06:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone Still Loves You Boris Yeltsin[edit]

"Unsigned indie band" suggests instant speedy, but they get 76,500 Google hits, most of which are relevant. I'm unsure so I'm going to place it here. I'm going to go for Delete because it still says "Unsigned indie band". Hedley 03:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep looks to be a very popular unsigned indie band, with over ten thousand google hits on their album titled Broom. Flyboy Will 03:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More info would be needed, and is unlikely to come and be relevant. Google searchs must be taken with a grain of salt, as anything with Boris Yeltsin or Broom in the field is going to pull in unrelated stuff. Have they got a website? If not, this is definitely a garage band. Harro5 03:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that my 76,500 search was with their name in quotes. It's unlikely to pull up Yeltsin stuff. They probably have a site, but I'd bet it's on Myspace. :p Hedley 03:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Their album is on amazon [[8]], and here's their official page [[9]] with what appears to be a respectable touring schedule. Flyboy Will 04:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd note that the Amazon page doesn't include the usual offical Amazon review, which suggests this is nowhere near a mainstream release and that the website is little more than a blog. But I'll allow others to vote as they please. Harro5 06:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Make that 76,600 references in Google. Some independent press coverage as well, noting the oldest member is 22. Seems notable enough, with tours in the US and Canada. Keep.—Stombs 04:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

S Club 8 was famous and notable when still under 16. Please don't judge bands based on the age of its members. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, hopefully. Draeco 07:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Normally, I don't vote to keep unsigned indie bands, but given the number and relevance of the Google hits, I'd say that while it fails the letter of WP:MUSIC, there is enough notability to keep them here. Hell, having that many hits without a label deal is an achievement. --Thephotoman 07:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like they have managed to be somewhat notable without a label. --Krich (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep huge number of google hits. Their debut album "broom" has reviews all over the place (pretty good ones too from what Ive seen) -- Astrokey44|talk 08:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand --Closedmouth 08:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like 280 unique results, actually.
Keep Sceptre ^(Talk) 13:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I would say they they're notable enough, even if it's just barely. More info would be nice though. I say expand the article. I would like to see links.--TaeKwonTimmy 02:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 2004 American League Championship Series. Please note that merge/delete is not a valid course of action. howch e ng {chat} 19:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Base"[edit]

Keep, or possibly merge into the ALCS article. It was the most pivotal play of the greatest baseball series of all time, and has become lore. It deserves to be told. Whether or not it needs its own page for that...

The event definetly happened, but I don't personally think that it's encyclopedic. Seems a bit crufty to me. Maybe could be merged someone, if it really was important. Hedley 03:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research, unverifiable. Flyboy Will 04:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an individual sports play would have to be really, really, really super mega uber ultra extra beyond notable to get its own encyclopedia article. While this one does seem to be pivotal to how the series turned out, it isn't something that needs its own article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This event is worthy of an entry for two reasons. Firstly, it was - arguably - the most pivotal play of the most exciting series in baseball history. In fact, it may go down as the most memorable stolen base in baseball history. Secondly, the phrase has started to acquire its own etymological significance. Just as the annual Harvard / Yale football game is understood to be The Game, Dave Roberts' base will always be The Base. Regarding verifiability, one need only read the game's box score available here [10]
Delete, nn sports happening. Red Sox and Yankees fans have a much higher opinion of their teams' importance. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for two reasons: neologism (Google search "the base" "dave roberts" doesn't give anything in top 100 describing the play this way), and not significant enough for its own article anyway. Belongs in 2004 American League Championship Series. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 06:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2004 American League Championship Series. If it can be verified that non-local media refer to it as "The Base," then and only then should the name be used. B.Wind 06:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Al Qaeda (literally "The Base") Endomion 06:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2004 ALC as above, and no redirect -- nobody would search for al-Qa'eda by typing "The Base." Draeco 07:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly expand. It's a very notable thing, as it refers to an event in a championship game/series (okay, so it wasn't the World Series, but the pennant is still a big deal), and does get thrown about by baseball fans. --Thephotoman 08:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to something like "The Base" (2004 American League Championship Series). 'The base' should be a disambig, if anything, because there have probably been many things referred to as 'the base' -- Astrokey44|talk 08:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sportscruft. — JIP | Talk 09:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per VT hawkeye. -- Kjkolb 11:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect unless someone finds evidence that the play was called this outside of NY/Boston. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the ALCS page. As an avid Sox fan and one who consumes more sports media in the Boston area, I don't recall ever seeing it referred to as "The Base," but rather "The Steal." Go figure. --badlydrawnjeff 16:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a commonly used name for that particular play, and all relevant content is already present within 2004 American League Championship Series. Since it's not a commonly used term, there's no real point in a redirect to the ALCS article. No strong opinion on the Al Qaeda proposal, though I wouldn't stand in anyone's way if they wanted to go ahead..-Colin Kimbrell 15:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Harro5 06:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Spears[edit]

Just found this while searching for something on Wikipedia. It's an article with no inbound links, and has gone under the radar since June. It's a guy still in college who, while if you read the external links got extremely good grades in high school (a Presidential Scholar in 2001), hasn't actually done anything in his career. If he becomes a Senator or something, then he can rightfully have an article, and won't be ashamed to link to it from other pages. Harro5 03:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy or slow delete. Either way... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on the links to USA Today and Bush's speech. National attention I suppose, but the article should highlight the reasons better - he did something for some nursing home or what not. Flyboy Will 04:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Getting his name and face into the paper (albeit important ones) a few times in 2001 for good grades doesn't warrant inclusion if he has done nothing major since.—Stombs 04:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied, nn-bio. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Webumentary[edit]

This is a self-promotion for a webumentary production company , see User:Ravenswood Media the source of this article. The user has been spamming a variety of pages with links to its webumentaries. Vsmith 03:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 170 unique Google hits out of 700 total. Not a widely used term, even on the web. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for Starblind's reason above. Have never heard of the term; 'webumentarian' even less.—Stombs 04:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Save It is quite a notible term. It is a term much like 'bloging' and 'podcast'. It's roots come from what it does. Some are abstract like 'bloging' while others make sense such as 'podcast'. 'podcast' comes from ipod and broadcast. This article is a legitiment entree. It would hurt Wikipedia's extensive knowledge if it was deleted. Furthermore, despite you allugations that this is spaming 'webumentaries', it is actually showing examples, much like to show an example of a fast-food restaurant you might show an example of Waffle House. It would be considered spamming the Waffle Houses but implimenting them to serve a purpose as to enlighten people as to what an actually 'webumentary' is. Also these three 'webumentaries' are all of different organizations.-Kyle 1:39, 24/12/05(eastern/pacific)
- Kyle, how is it 'notible' and why is it a 'legitiment entree' (sic)? I assume you mean 'blogging', which comes from 'web log' and 'logging', so it is certainly not 'abstract', and has a similar derivation as 'Podcast'. When you search Google, you find these words mentioned in abundance. You do not for webumentary. Could you give us a reason this article is 'notible'? If it's because the word is made up of two others, then anyone can concoct a variety of words, so that is not a compelling reason. Without reasons for the article's legitimacy, my objection remains.—Stombs 08:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply To put that comparison to the test, "Blog" gets 506,000,000 Google hits, "blogging" gets 87,000,000 hits, and "podcast" gets 84,900,000. "webumentary" gets at most 700, and that's including all the duplicates. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Starblind. --Krich (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It sounds like a neogism that may some day become notable, but hasn't happened yet - just around 700 google. Blackcats 10:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn neol. Zzzzz 15:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vsmith and Starblind. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind. It may exist and be real. But notable means it's in wide use or at least well-known (in this case). Starblind's research proofs this doesn't compare to blogging or podcasting. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - FrancisTyers 23:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 08:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Ravenswood Media- I won't debate whether the term "webumentary" is ready for Wikipedia. I'll leave that to the experts and defer to their decision. However, I do take exception to the characterization that www.midwestfrogs.com and www.cavebiota.com are spam or self promotion. Both sites are free, offer objective educational points of view and neither site has ads or banners. They are not personal websites, they are sponsored by not-for-profit organizations; Indiana Karst Conservancy, Hoosier National Forest and the Chicago Herpetological Society. The sites provide both information and entertainment and extend the value of Wikipedia beyond text and still images. I offered the sites in good faith and did it in a transparent manner.
- Comment only: this is a fair comment on the part of Ravenswood Media, though I still think the term hasn't become commonplace. —Stombs 12:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as 50% non-notable neologism and 50% promotion of non-notable enterprises. Worthy, but not notable. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Save: Among the documentary community the term "webumentary" is becoming commonplace - and the phenomenon if not the word has been around at least since the turn of the 21st century (see for eg. www.littledove.org/frameset.html for a pioneering version by Australian filmaker Marcus Gillezau). It is an apt and useful neologism which is rapidly gaining acceptance as the technology for streaming video is taken up by documentary filmmakers who want to reach a broad non-commercial audience and to have regular upgrades of their work. The fact that Ravenswood Media use their own links as one of several examples is irrelevant - as they point out, the sites are free and have no ads or banners and have important environmental concerns as their primary motive. The internet is rapidly transforming the whole documentary game and webumentaries are leading the way in terms of developing radical, socially useful outlets for actuality filmmakers' work and for a growing audience. It is already happening in terms of sourcing archival footage (see for example www.archive.org, www.absolutelywildvisuals.com). The number of numerical Google hits compared to "blogging" is irrelevant - you might as well compare it to the number of hits for "books". It would seem absurd to delete "webumentary' from Wikipedia just as the phenomenon is about to take off, and Ravenswood Media are to be congratulated for bringing the term to a wider (and one would hope more enlightened) public.Mozofilms 06:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment only: perhaps if it is 'becoming commonplace' we might wait till it is before inclusion? JMO: I don't feel we should be preempting the future here. —Stombs 12:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Save - Since the self-promotion charge has been reasonably nullified, the only remaining objection appears to focus on whether or not the term is "commonplace". In response, I respectfully suggest that readers consult the Wikipedia entry for "commonplace" - ironically, "webumentary" would be concisely defined by the etymological root of this term. How disappointing it would be if Wikipedia and its users impede the wonderful dynamic of human language by limiting the validity of new terms according to their google ratings! 70.224.66.146 19:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Laurie How many unique Google hits did "wikipedia" have on this date five years ago? 70.224.66.146 20:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Laurie[reply]

Additional comment: a perfunctory search of EBSCO Host produced these 3 citations referring to "webumentary":Frontline to create "Webumentary", Tedesco, Richard. Broadcasting & Cable. New York: Nov 11, 1996.Vol.126, Iss. 47; pg. 66, 1 pgs This week's Web Winners: Smoking out tobacco sites , Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA), Oct 15, 2002 Database: Newspaper Source Boulder, Colo.-based publisher tracks people's journeys online, By: Toland, Sarah, Daily Camera (Boulder, CO), Jul 14, 2005 Database: Newspaper Source

70.224.66.146 22:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Laurie[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleTicket[edit]

Looks like an advertisement. Very little context here. James084 03:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and what the hell? "...released the program in early 2006...". Am I reading wikipedia from the FUTURE? Flyboy Will 04:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—the time-travel aspect alone suggests it's an ad.—Stombs 04:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Flyboy Will. --Krich (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Flyboy Will. DarthVader 08:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nom Jakiah 10:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SimpleSpam Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete? How can I make it a better article? SimpleTicket is free software so I am not sure why it looks like an ad. Anyway, delete if you wish, but I did notice lots of other open source projects listed - alexmuse

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howch e ng {chat} 19:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translating "law" to other European languages[edit]

Maybe appropriate for Wiktionary, but not for Wikipedia. Why stop here? Let's have thousands of articles, Translating "xxx" to other European languages. And why only European languages? User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Translate this. P.S. Original research. Flyboy Will 04:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is more suited to a law review. Daniel Case 07:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Poistettava. This belongs to Wiktionary or a multi-language dictionary, not here. It should be deleted. — JIP | Talk 09:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to law at wiktionary. Unless there is some evidence that this is a significant problem/issue -- Astrokey44|talk 09:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant content into Legal systems of the world or some such article... Blackcats 09:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. The article shouldn't be deleted since (1) it is not a dictionary entry, (2) it concerns an argument used by (English speaking) legal positivists and their opponents, and (3) it is as relevant an article on language comparison as any other (there is even a category named "language comparison"). Velho 05:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you guys didn't take the time to read the article... This is an article on (1) language comparison (see the category), not on translation, it has a direct (2) relation to legal translation and (3) it has an obvious relation to the debate between legal positivism and, say, natural law: the thesis that law has no necessary connection to morality fits well the word "law" but is hard to accept if you look at "ius"; so, if legal positivism doesn't want to be a parochial theory, it has to deal with other languages / words that suggest different intuitions. Moreover, there are recent discussions on the matter (see the Further Reading section) and Julie Dickson's articles on line: for instance, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Velho 22:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Zoe's questions, (1) it is indeed important to have articles on translation problems when the words to be translated are culturally shaped and refer to institutional facts or social constructions: in these cases, language comparison is also a comparison between cultures (since social constructions exist only through language); (2) regarding "law", the first comparison to be made is between English and other European languages, precisely because this case ("law" vs "ius"/"lex") is a strange phenomenon within a common philosophical, religious and otherwise cultural background. Velho 22:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Flyboy Willy's opinion, this is not original research, because it is all about a translating problem and its consequences to philosophy of law; I'm not going to do anything more than to say what people has said about it. And the translation issue in itself is more or less a "matter of fact".
For instance, you could take a look at Michael Roumeliotis' article "On the one right answer" (Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy, vol. 87, 2001, pp. 72-96: see p. 74) and see that he uses precisely this argument on the translation of "law".
If you read Robert Alexy's argument on the "claim to correctness", you will see that the concept of "ius" (as possibly opposed to "law") is essential to the question whether law has or has not a necessary relation to morality.
Are there still some doubts? Please let me know.
By the way, could someone please tell me when and how does this debate end? Thank you in advance. Velho 04:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that one week after the date this article was nominated for deletion an admin will review the votes for and against and decide whether or not to delete. -Seth Mahoney 00:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About Daveb's vote: isn't it usual to give arguments (reasons, motives, justifications, etc.) in this kind of discussions? Velho 04:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
About Blackcats' vote: this article cannot be merged into Legal systems of the world because the issue around "law" vs "ius"/"lex" concerns mainly philosophy of law, not law itself. The different legal systems or families are individuated by their traditions and their most important "sources of law" (with decisive effects on the legal procedures). Not by their concepts of "law". Velho 02:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for giving the following ad hominem argument, but it seems to be relevant: I've been reading your user pages and it looks that you don't have the slightest information about law or philosophy of law. So, why are you voting here? Velho 10:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
About Just that guy's vote: he seems not to have read any of the articles ("law" and "translating..."); nor this page. Velho 18:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do me a favour: get to Google and search for "ius and lex" (between high quotes). See how many "encyclopaedic" articles you find. Velho 02:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. This seems a valid, informative and interesting article about a real translation problem in Law. Why would anyone want to delete it? The Ogre 18:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't "droit" mean right (as in opposite to left)? - Mgm|^(talk) 22:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC); almost: la droite is the right-hand side; à la droite means "on the right"; Anyway, the relation between "right" (v. "wrong") and "right" (v. "left") is common to several languages. Velho 04:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encyclopaedic. --Daveb 04:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR which appears to add nothing to Law Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the following happen: More explicit sources (it would be nice to have a side-by-side comparison for the bit on Kant) the current content and add content describing specific arguments used and the wider implications of these positions. -Seth Mahoney 00:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to something better. Looks like a valid topic, bibliography and everything. --BadSeed 00:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought of renaming it to Ius and lex, but it gets hard to understand... Velho 04:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename per BadSeed's suggestion above. Neutrality^talk 02:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! It wasn't BadSeed's suggestion, it was my suggestion!... ;-) Velho 03:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted Renata3 06:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Marsha[edit]

AfD: Appears to not meet criteria in WP:MUSIC Lbbzman 04:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When your main link is a MySpace page, that's a red flag to be sure. (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, nn band. --Thephotoman 08:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Quarl 12:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete band vanity --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 17:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Tis speedied. Deltabeignet 17:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Kronrod[edit]

Seems like a non-notable entry, also iffy because author appears to be a relation Akamad ^{Merry Christmas to all!} 04:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable.—Stombs 04:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless proved notable. The article feels as pure vanity in current form. Pavel Vozenilek 08:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Not really notable enough. I'll be happy to change my vote if he did something that made him notable. DarthVader 08:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it appears that the author has also made an autobiographical article at Yakov Kronrod. On the other hand, it seems that we should have an article on Aleksandr Semenovich Kronrod (1921-1986), who as far as I can understand is Vladimir's father and Yakov's grandfather. On Google Books I also find mention of a Soviet economist, Iakov Abramovich Kronrod (1912-1984), who I suppose may be some kind of relative (see Oscar J Bandelin, Return to the Nep: The False Promise of Leninism and the Failure of Perestroika). Yakov (if you are reading this), it is usually frowned upon to write articles about yourself or people or things very close to you - which is not to say that it never happens - but I am sure an article on your grandfather would be fine, as long as you reference sources available to others for verification purposes (such as obituaries in math journals, for instance, preferrably in English, but Russian sources are also fine if they add additional information or a different perspective). Forget your personal knowledge and connection for a while, and look at the task as if you were writing a biographical entry about any stranger who may deserve an article. If you want to emphasize his importance, do so only by quoting the evaluation by others. Read up on neutral point of view, citing sources on Wikipedia and Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Here is an article on ASK: [11]. I suppose it may be identical to E M Landis , I M Yaglom, "About Aleksandr Semenovich Kronrod", Russian mathematical surveys, 2001, 56 (5), 993-1007. u p p l a n d 08:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have moved Yakov's autobiography to User:Yakovkronrod, and suggest speedy deleting the remaining redirect. u p p l a n d 09:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. I also left a message on his talkpage. u p p l a n d 22:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. -- Walt Pohl 17:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Media Drive[edit]

Cannot verify the existence of company, probably a hoax. Bumm13 04:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable and promotional.—Stombs 04:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Stombs. DarthVader 08:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Quarl 12:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparent spam Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Renata3 07:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semiconscious[edit]

dic def of a sort. —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to consciousness, like conscious does. It would help if the article (consciousness) mentioned the actual definition, though. -- Kjkolb 11:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kjkolb Compu ter Joe 21:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (if it can be made to fit in), else redirect. -Mgm|^(talk) 22:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect per Mgm. - FrancisTyers 23:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polterghost[edit]

Delete: Appears to be promotion of a personal project and the significance is not explained. Hu 04:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If every teenager's fictional character was included, we'd be in trouble. The omission, as Hu states, is that the significance is not explained, and there is nothing backing up the claim of Polterghost having a small following.—Stombs 04:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not significant. What is with that "Copyright, 2001 Polterghost - Super Hero" at the bottom? DarthVader 08:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nn fictional character Zzzzz 15:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Please here us out, my friends and I are honestly trying to promote our idea. This was simply a work in progess, we were not aware that so many people would want to or for that matter care enough about endevor to want to see it deleted. To answer Vader's question, the Copyright at the bottom was just a way to make sure that no one would steal our idea. Since we're not that familar with Wikipedia, we put super hero at the bottom as a way to have it appear in a "Super Hero" search. Please do not delete us, thank you.If your gonna delete us, then just do it. It's getting cruel to just drag this on like this.Brianzerox 02:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD discussions are usually not resolved until at least five days have passed, to make sure people have time to think about the issue, or to see if new points come to light. However, this seems like a fairly straightforward case of just an honest misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose, so if you are now agreeable to a deletion, I'm sure an admin would be willing to close it early. Best of luck with your endeavors. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia isn't here to help you promote your idea. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Feldspar. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Flyboy Will 02:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Brianzerox's admission and per WP:ISNOT. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Online Gaming League[edit]

This is pretty blatant spam for a non-notable website. The formatting also hints that it was copied and pasted from some promo piece, but even given that it doesn't really float on its merits. Delete. JDoorjam 04:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV.—Stombs 05:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. OGL was one of the pioneers of Online Gaming. There are entries for CAL, CPL, Clanbase, and other online gaming related leagues and I see no reason why OGL should not be included. MooMilk 06:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "There are similar entries" has never struck me as particularly compelling. The existence of other similar entries does not prove their merit (much like the huge quantity of porn-star articles which are mostly spam... but I digress), and so I feel it's not entirely persuasive to say "X got away with it; why shouldn't Y?" JDoorjam 07:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Quarl 12:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Zzzzz 15:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Compu ter Joe 21:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - FrancisTyers 23:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to vote Keep due to this site's prominence back in the heyday of Counterstrike (2003 or so), but it looks like it's fallen quite a bit in importance since then, compared to CAL and other league sites. Also the article sucks. JZig 05:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being of no obvious importance. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as bollocks. -Doc ^ask? 10:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of low standards[edit]

Was tagged as G1 speedy, which I don't think it is, so I fixed that and sent to afd-- -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Complete bollocks --Quarl 04:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Hoax. And the "theory" it promotes is basically a tautology. Endomion 05:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No links in Google at all, and reads like a hoax.—Stombs 05:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quarl is definitely correct. DarthVader 08:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 both. Merges don't need an AFD. —Cleared as filed. 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editha McCormick and John Rockefeller McCormick[edit]

These two members of the Rockefeller family died in childhood from natural causes. If it weren't for the fact that the Rockefeller family is so notable, that Wikipedia has a category for the individual members, I'd have just been bold and made these two into redirects without bothering AFD, but as it is I feel, it's best to put this one to a vote. Merge into Edith Rockefeller McCormick. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merges don't require an AfD. Go ahead and do it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although this is votes for deletion, I really think nominations like this illustrate a need for a "things I don't know what to do with but something should be done" discussion center... (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I like ESkog's idea. I have often found such pages and wished for way to nominate such pages for discussion before proposing for deletion. •DanMS 15:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Come to think of it, I suppose we do have an answer to this already at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --Quarl 12:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If the McCormicks are so rich, then why are Kenny's parents so poor? - Mgm|^(talk) 22:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 final tally was 17/8 in favor of deletion. howch e ng {chat} 20:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valérie Gignac[edit]

Wikipedia is not a memorial. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a lot of Google references, but being the eighth cop to die this year in Canada doesn't seem to merit its own Wikipedia page, unless Constable Gignac did something notable as a police officer.—Stombs 05:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Stombs. DarthVader 08:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or expand. Current content does not support notability for an encyclopedia article. If anyone can support notability with expanded content, please do so. — Eoghanacht ^talk 10:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment although Wikipedia is not a memorial, there are actual memorials that are themselves eligible for Wikipedia articles. In Washington, D.C. there is a National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial [12], I presume Canada has (or its Provinces have) something similar. I would suggest developing that article as an alternative to creating articles for individual officers who do not meet the Wikipedia notability standard. — Eoghanacht ^talk 19:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and the insensitivity to the need to acknowledge those that give their lives to service is of great concern. Admittedly, these articles need to be expanded, which is a task that will be done over the coming days. Please respect the notion that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit but not everyone has the time to immediately update. These pages were created out of respect for both living and fallen warriors and the desire to delete them post-haste concerns me You have made this a political issue, which it is clearly not. As you can clearly see by this category here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Canadian_law_enforcement_officers , there are others who are working to provide information on both living and deceased police officers. Please do not delete pages before you are aware of the full political implications of such an action. CelebritySecurity 17:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial, as Zoe correctly notes, and CelebritySecurity, just because "there are others who are working to provide information on both living and deceased police officers" does not make them any less misguided. As for "the full political implications" of abiding by our well-established precedents on these matters, there aren't any. You might not like the fact that Wikipedia doesn't consider someone's death to automatically make them notable, but if dying in the 9/11 attacks doesn't make one encyclopedically notable, it is not sufficient to be a law enforcement officer killed in the line of duty either. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - FrancisTyers 23:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ Despite Wikipedia being the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", a group of rogue vandalizing admins is now going to be given the editing power of deciding who is "valid enough" to recieve their own biography? I hope those that feel these entries should be deleted also begin the process of deleting the biographies of all law enforcement officers on this website. Clearly, the open-source foundations of the Wikipedia project are starting to crumble based upon the very clear bias and inconsistent editing/deletion policies that are emerging here. If this page is deleted, the Wikipedia foundation will be making a very public statement that the contributions of law enforcement officers across the English-speaking world are not welcome here. If these pages and these pages alone are deleted, the credibility of this project will be seriously undermined. CelebritySecurity 00:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep to your one vote, CelebritySecurity. --Andrew Levine 01:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ To those that suggest these articles and infobox be deleted, Should the process of deleting all entries of all law enforcement officers from this website also be undertaken in order to ensure fairness? Also, please note that the infobox has been written with proper code designating whether or not the officer is deceased or not. It is not intended as a memorial, merely something written to acknowledge the contributions of law enforcement officers, much in the same way celebrities and politicians are listed on this same website. (this unsigned comment was made by CelebritySecurity)
- of all law-enforcement officers? no. of law-enforcement officers who, like Valérie Gignac, fail to be encyclopedically notable? Yes, actually. ... I hasten to add, because the kind of person who tries to vote three times in the same discussion seems like the kind of person who needs this warning, this is not encouragement to go on a vandalistic rampage slapping deletion tags on all articles you can find on English-speaking law enforcement officers, no matter how notable, to avenge what you misperceive as a bias against law-enforcement officers who speak other languages. That would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a POINT. You'll note that neither Houston McCoy nor Ramiro Martinez has their own page, despite the notability of their actions. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep to your one vote, CelebritySecurity. --Tokle 01:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If one person finds someone interesting enough to write an article about (excepting, of course, writing about yourself) then it is likely that there will be others interested in reading about it. --Tokle 01:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial and this article makes no claim to the subject's notability. Andrew Levine 01:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PC Gignac's death is a tragedy, but Wikipedia isn't a memorial, particularly a police memorial. --Calton | Talk 01:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The personal tragedy recorded has no notable encyclopedic significance MNewnham 02:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but it's not as clear-cut as some make out. See for example Keith Blakelock, a policeman killed in the line of duty who is included, mainly for the notoriety of the associated trials of Winston Silcott and others. This was a cause celebre in the UK for some time. All this highlights again the fac t that WP is not well suited for covering current events (hence Wikinews) - we will not really know for at least a couple of years whether this case is in fact notable, based on future developments. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 00:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep There are plenty of articles in Wikipedia that are borderline as to been noteworthy. I'm thinking politicians that have no portfolio and have only served a term or two. The article is about a police office that certainly warrants some merit of consideration to stay. It's all good; even those lackluster politicians that only fill an empty chair when parliament sits. IMHO... HJKeats 04:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep her death received widespread media coverage, which establish more notoriety than someelement included in Wikipedia. Death of police officers in theline of duty is much more unusual in Quebec than in the US, an caused a renewed fear among the constabulary. For that she's at least as notable as the officers involved in the Rochfort Bridge massacre, I believe. Circeus 04:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides, did anybody bother to make a Google test? She does get over 90,000 hits. Circeus 18:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if she's "at least as notable" as the officers involved in the Rochfort Bridge massacre, none of those officers have their own articles, either. If the manner of her death was so notable, why hasn't anyone -- even those arguing that it justifies keeping the article -- added a word about it to the article? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would it be feasible to move the information on Gignac and other law officers killed in the line of duty to a separate page specifically for law officers killed in the line of duty? The Bearded One 04:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Her death was big news in Canada, and her funeral was on national TV. Also, she was the very first to be killed in the Laval police force. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for substantial national press coverage and importance well beyond family/friends. --Rob 08:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Rob and Circeus. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic for her own article. Definitely news worthy. --YUL89YYZ 18:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily verifiable. - SimonP 18:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's unfortunate that Constable Gignac died, but there was nothing about her police career or the manner in which she died that makes her particularily notable. There was a lot of media attention surrounding her death, but there always is for cops. --NormanEinstein 15:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Horrible reference citation, non-notable. -- Natalinasmpf 01:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable except for the fact she died, in an apparently non-notable incident. It happens. Cops die. Sorry. On the point of "substantial national press coverage", when an American cop dies there's no such coverage. Why should it be different just because Canadian cops apparently die less often? --Golbez 15:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds very amerocentric to me. "Why should it be different just because Canadian cops apparently die less often?" That is exactly the whole difference. Circeus 09:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, quite the opposite - if we only have Canadian cops, doesn't that make Wikipedia Canad...can.... how do you say Canadaocentric? Anyway, yeah. It makes it seem that they're more important than American ones. --Golbez 08:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Just Zis Guy.--SarekOfVulcan 19:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M C Puri and Talk:Jean-Jacques_Le_Chenadec. Circeus 09:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On one side it's the first policewoman to be killed in the Province of Quebec, on the other side wikipedia is not a memorial, and if we'd start listing the "first" for every misc events this would become a mess. QBorg
Delete per nom--Jiang 10:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Hamilton College following some merging. —Cleared as filed. 04:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We Never Will Forget Thee[edit]

Either the lyrics are copyrighted, and can't be here, or they aren't, and this should be moved to Wikisource. Without the lyrics, this is a one-line stub which can be moved to the Hamilton College article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Author just did a cut and paste from [13], even if the lyrics are public domain the author of that website is the source of the three footnotes so this might be a copyvio. Endomion 06:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 20:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect stub info into Hamilton College (doesn't that need a dab?). Lyrics are copyrighted. So keep that out. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mgm, persuasive as ever. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Robert Colton[edit]

Delete Vice President at a company (Application Security, Inc.) for which Wikipedia doesn't have an article on, tho it probably should if the company press releases are taken at face value. However, even his bio on the company website taken at face value isn't enough to make me think he is notable, which means one of two things: either he isn't notable or they need to hire a better writer in their marketing department. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem notable. His company's page on him is here[14] and even that doesn't talk him up as having done anything major vis-à-vis his contemporaries.—Stombs 06:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 08:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete person of no obvious importance Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Creator has found other place to put it. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Northisc[edit]

Insignificant artificial language. Google search gives only one relevant hit, a Yahoo Groups discussions archive of the creator talking about what alphabet he'd like to use. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 06:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would be better off as a page on Alecsandri himself, who seems to have dabbled in Unicode fonts (e.g. this page[15]). The language itself is not notable, so delete.—Stombs 06:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason for lack of relevant hits on this language is most likely the spelling of the name, which started out as tsœxisca, and has gone through a range of orthographies (norðısca, northisc, norðisc, etc.) depending on the context it was being used in and the stage of its development. I've never created an article on wikipedia before, and I'm sorry if it's insignificant. I'm still learning. I'll remove it if you'd like. BPJohnson 06:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've made other arrangements for the information on this page. Please feel free to delete at will. - BPJohnson 16:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Good luck with the language. Hopefully it will come into common use and deserve an article one day. :) - Mgm|^(talk) 22:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prodos Marinakis[edit]

Basically, Prodos is an objectivist with a blog and some other exposure. Prodos Marinakis turns up only 396 hits on Google. However, Prodos objectivism turns up more than 10K, but only 150 results are included (suggesting the rest of the hits are from a handful of sites?). The articles is also very short and not very informative. Bkwillwm 06:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 08:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, if Prodos objectivism is notable, we should have an article :) - FrancisTyers 23:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand; I think Prodos is somewhat popular in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.122.84 (talk • contribs)
Keep. It exists, doesn't it? Also, being "very short" is not a valid reason for deletion. AfD is for consideration of the worthiness of the subject itself, not the content of the article. Kurt Weber 00:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Kurt, please give an example of an unworthy subject, for the record. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:35, Dec. 26, 2005
  - Something that does not actually exist (whether for real, as a hoax (in which case the article should be ABOUT the hoax), as part of a fictional universe (in which case the article should state WHICH fictional universe it belongs to), etc.--you get the idea) or for which there is no verifiable information. Kurt Weber 13:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable blogger, internet DJ. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:34, Dec. 26, 2005
Delete apparently minor blogger and internet (i.e. non-broadcast) DJ Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Hedley 14:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Dodds-Eden[edit]

Non-notable. Google searches turn up few results. Delete if not speedy _└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 06:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable vanityesque. -+- Blackcats 07:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity.—Stombs 07:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Article was previously deleted 2005-12-23 16:31:28 (6 hours before recreation). Both times created by User:Frank Eden who has now cleared the article content. --Quarl 12:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feces[edit]

It's disgusting to say the very least. Also, this is not a dictionary. Mahalia56 06:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This is a crappy nomination. Endomion 06:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Life is disgusting. This is much more than a dicdef. -SCEhard T 06:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This article has a long history, and is on topic. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 06:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment as the latter article already exists. howch e ng {chat} 20:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. 504th Parachute Infantry Battalion[edit]

No claimed importance. ~~Delete~~ --Quarl 07:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Few Google hits, so delete per nom. Would be nice though if there were a more general article about U.S. Parachute Infantry Battalions that this could be redirected to, but I couldn't find one... Blackcats 08:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is misnamed anyway. It should be the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment. Movementarian 10:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move Move to 504th Parachute Infantry Battalion, thats brings up over 30k Google results ComputerJoe 18:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 30K??? - My search only got 309 [16]. Blackcats 19:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I wasn't searching in quotes. The below was the majority of the hits. --Compu ter Joe 21:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"504th Parachute Infantry Regiment" gets around 22K Google hits [17], so maybe it can be moved there... Blackcats 19:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. -- JJay 21:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, expand --Quarl 21:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, it is a fact that - prior to the activation of the 504th PIR - the 504th Parachute Infantry Battalion did exist, and its structure and personnel became the Cadre for the Regiment when it was activated.

CORNELIUSSEON 04:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Obviously, I'm ignoring all the forgeries by the anon, after which things are pretty clear. -Splash^talk 22:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Crabtree[edit]

The article said he gained fame regarding his writings about Iraq, but the Google test seems to say otherwise. [18] (Note - there are quite a few hts for just "James Crabtree," but I think that refers to a number of people with that name.) I can't seen to discern anything at all noteworthy about this guy - he's a Marine captian who's posted on a few political blogs... I discovered this article when I was checking the user contributions of Algore2008, who had been making some blatantly orginal-research and potentially slanderous edits to the Alex Jones (journalist) article. But at any rate, since this person doesn't seem in any way notable, I say Delete. Blackcats 23:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - it's a tough bordeline case. I am voting keep because the article is quite clean. Renata3 04:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how it's borderline. 618 Google hits is pitifully low for a blogger! I get more than that for my own name and I don't even have a blog. Blackcats 04:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note - relisting for more feedback. Blackcats 07:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC) and Blackcats 09:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the more significant content into Politics1.com, the web site where his writings were posted. --Metropolitan90 08:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable blogger, Guardian contributor [19]. -- JJay 21:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change to weak delete. Blackcats makes some good points about the Guardian article + the guy's blog is lame. However, I do think his dispatches from Iraq got some attention at the time, although the radio coverage is impossible to assess. -- JJay 22:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- How do you know that the Guardian author is even the same guy??? The Guardian article was about bloggers, but nowhere do I see the author identify himself as a blogger. Crabtree is a very common last name, and James is one of the most common first names. His supposed claim to fame is that he's written about Iraq, so the relevant Google hits should mention "Iraq" along with his name - but only around 600 do. Hmmm...well maybe some list his writing about "anbar" provence but not "Iraq," (Only 2 do [20]) or perhaps the city of "Fallujah" (Only 7 do [21]) or even his home town of "Austin" Texas (Only a little over 300 do [22], and I'm not even sure all of these are about the same guy). (Note - I excluded "Iraq" for all of those searches to avoid duplicates of hits from the original search.) But at any rate, even a non-noteworthy blogger would be likely to have a whole lot more relevant Google hits than this Crabtree guy does - given the nature of blogs and their ability to create a lot of redundant Google hits. So I have yet to see anyone give any evidence that this blogger's inclusion here is anything but vanity! Blackcats 22:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update - A few more links here - This is his blog. This is his blog profile (it matches with his Wikipedia article), and it doesn't say anything about writing for the Guardian. Here are the sites which link to his supposedly noteworthy blog [23]. I hope this will clear up any ambiguity and confusion. Blackcats 22:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "James Crabtree" iraq gets fewer Google hits than "Guy Chapman" cyclist. The guy is apparently less notable in his chosen sphere than I am in mine. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
deleteNon notable.Obina 10:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.--nixie 14:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like lots of good info. Heard him on the radio a lot here in TX.~~--Creelcreal 11:10, 28 December 2005~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.209.254 (talk • contribs)

I've been on the radio, too. Not just local radio, BBC Radio 4. And I score more Google hits than he does. And if anyone created an article about me I will laugh heartily before AfDing it :-D - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And I might be the Pope. Since we can't verify your statement above, can you create an article on yourself and then nominate it please? We need to debate this...although if your statement is true, I might very well vote Keep. -- JJay 19:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I work on Capitol Hill and his updates via politics1 were well read. Lots of folks, and not just the damn GOPers. I work for a very liberal CA Dem, and we read it a lot. ~~--TeresaC 13:49, 28 December 2005~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.209.254 (talk • contribs)
Keep I have taken the libo to merge this piece into the politics1 piece. Still, I rather think it should remain. It seems clean enough. Not sure if that blog was one he used or not. The poli1 link is good though. Lots of writing and photos. ~~Fitzmaurice 13:52, 28 December 2005~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.209.254 (talk • contribs)
Weak keep Not bad. Some good info. Maybe a re-write? This is no place for grudge matches or whatever is going on here. Not sure. I'm open to debate. ~~--figgy4fight 15:54, 28 December 2005~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.209.254 (talk • contribs)
Strong delete, non-notable blogger. Was inclined to vote weak delete or weak keep, but this obvious, blatant sock puppetry by an anonymous user reaks of vanity bio and is extremely bad faith. (Is it even called sock puppetry if the comments are all made by the same account, or just lying?) --Quarl 02:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, of 204.65.209.254 (talk · contribs)'s contributions that I looked at (there are many), I classify all of them as simple vandalism, sneaky vandalism, or blatant POV (example: [24] - repeated 3 times). I suggest something be done about this user and all articles he edited be checked for vandalism and POV. --Quarl 02:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good job catching that. The IP's vandalism to the Karan English page is much the same as this edit by User:Algore2008 (contributions), the same editor who started the James Crabtree article, so it looks like they're probably the same person. Blackcats 05:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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} 20:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diaf[edit]

Neologism by user who has created only this page doesn't show up on Google Daniel Case 07:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary. I hadn't heard of it before, but with a lil over 2000 Google hits [25] it's somewhat notable. I can't see the article expanding into more than a dicdef though. Blackcats 07:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki. Shouldn't it be changed to "DIAF?" - Lucky 6.9 07:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Add this acronym to the List of internet slang. Endomion 14:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this ends up on the list of internet slang, I would prefer this to redirect there, so it can be found by hitting Go in the search box. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsubstantiated. I suspect "used in web forumes" in this case means "used in one web forum once by the person who created this article" but I could of course be wrong. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete unsourced and probably unsourcable, not even said to be in multiple forums or games or given context. Most likely will never get any of these things changed. Lotusduck 07:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 20:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Douchebag of Liberty[edit]

An article about a nasty name for Robert Novak. Should either be deleted or redirected to the Robert Novak article. Firebug 07:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Blackcats 07:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A redirect to Robert Novak would be tantamount to an attack page, and dealing with it on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart seems subtrivial. (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Blackcats. Movementarian 10:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ESkog. Durova 14:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's already mentioned on The Daily Show. This is just one of several Stewart-cruft pages that really oughta be scrubbed down or erased entirely (and I'm a huge Daily Show fan, for the record). JDoorjam 17:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eskog. Andrew Levine 18:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Robert Novak or The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. It isn't an attack page if it actually notable and it's WP:NPOV. karmafist 20:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eskog. Zookman12 23:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no redirect. -- JJay 05:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete preferably speedy as attack. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --NaconKantari 17:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG delete. --OneTopJob6 01:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as utter nonsense /vandalism. -Doc ^ask? 10:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poo Productions[edit]

DeleteThis is obviously a vandal or something of the like. The other Poo Productions mentioned does exist, but this one has no factual backing and just seems to be a weird page created by a little kid.

BJODN. -+- Blackcats 07:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.—Stombs 07:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN this. --Thephotoman 08:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN this. It isn't very funny though so I'm a little disappointed. DarthVader 08:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not funny. — JIP | Talk 09:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't BJAODN, not funny at all. «LordViD» 09:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not funny, not notable, not verifiable. Movementarian 10:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 20:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadovision[edit]

Vanity, although there's enough confabulation & untruths around this article that one might be able to argue Hoax. Let's start with the article:

Article about an invention by one Mary deSade, submitted by Mary deSade. I'm already suspicious at this point.

So the fact that Mary DeSade submitted an article about her own Trademarked invention, means that's that is doesn't exist?

"Sadovision" is a modification of Apple QuickTime for use on a specific website, Pillow Fight Bood-Bath. I have selflessly devoted the time to investigate this webiste, & yes, it exists. From what I can tell, "Sadovision" is just bog-standard Apple QuickTime.

Amazon patented "One Click" and Apple (and others) accepted that based simply on the concept.

Now for the project:

"Pillow Fight Bood-Bath" is a performance art project funded by the "International Performance Arts Forum" (Google search turns up nothing); no wait -- on the website, the funding came from the "International Society for the Advancement of Performance Art" (another unsuccessful Google search).
No wait, it's not a performance art project, it's a documentary about a performance art project by Tamara Cruz, director of the documentary "Gulf War Syndrome". Only both Goodle & Internet Movie Database have never heard of either. And the profile about Cruz on the website doesn't provide much credibility that this person actually exists.
On the Pillow Fight Bood-Bath website, you can listen to Mary deSade discuss her work in leather, or in the nude. And yo can buy all sorts of stuff from Cafepress to support Pillow Fight Bood-Bath. I guess she's spent that entire grant by now, & is looking for any way she can to keep her website afloat.
By this point, I'm surprised to discover that the three actresses in this project do exist: Regina Russell, Zoe Paul, & Aysia Lee. One's clearly mired in supporting roles in B-movies, another is a British page 3 girl, & the third is an unknown young starlet. However, their biographies on this website mix fact & fantasy in different amounts -- & I have serious doubts that the "Regina Russell" who played "Mint" in this project is the same "Regina Russell" with an entry at IMDB & whose website at reginarussell.com is linked from Pillow Fight Bood-Bath. But I'm not surprised that only Aysia Lee mentions that she took part in this project.

By this point, I'm convinced that this is a soft-porn website, distinguished by an odd sense of humor & some web design skills. But otherwise unnotable, or am I just showing how out of touch I am with the latest internet experiences? -- llywrch 07:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - bravo on going to the trouble to write such an in depth nomination. Not much more to say. Blackcats 07:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the tl;dr nomination. --Thephotoman 08:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Blackcats. Delete.—Stombs 08:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and kudos to llywrch for the in depth investigation. Movementarian 10:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Sounds like the homework has been done to me. Musser 20:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If sadovision is ever notable then we'll make an article based on that, not opinion and original research. Lotusduck 07:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mary DeSade. Delete it if you want. I don't give a rat's **s. But a Google search of Sadovision comes up with 274 entries. And that was before my site started video podcasting.

Sadovisions is Trademarked. Yes it relies on Quicktime VR, though I could easily use flash or some other technology to dupllicate it. But no one (to my knowledge) has ever done what I have done with Quicktime VR. That is, tell a story.

Yes, naked breasts are shown! But it's hardly soft porn. There is no sex or even hints of sex. I guess showing nipples is a crime.

In Europe, the nudity would barely rate a glance. But I guess in America it's porn.

Someone show me where an artist has used VR photography to tell any kind of story before. It has never been done. I believe VR photography is at the beginning of it's art form. It's like movies when audiences were amazed simply by a train coming at them. Then characters were created, stories were told, dramas unfolded.

Sadovison is the first example of story telling through VR photography.

Yes, my website has a lot of comedy on it. But I didn't submit the comedy to Wikipedia. I stuck to the facts. Obviously I made up the actresses (Zoe, Asyia, Regina) bios. (Tamara is a real person, she just isn't very well known. She's a Latino commie and isn't interested in pushing herself onto iMBD.)

But Sadovision is real. I trademarked it, and others will copy it and are already copying it.

Delete this if you want. I don't care. But Sadovision isn't going away.

Mary DeSade

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dandanaka[edit]

Claims to be obscure slang word somewhere in India, but article gives no references. Google search [26] comes up with only a few usages of this word (in sentences I don't understand) but most of the hits are some guy's username. Adunar 08:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - not notable. Blackcats 08:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verified. Movementarian 10:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing encyclopedic - no references. Comments are invited from persons who may be aware of this matter. --Bhadani 13:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested Sundar, an administrator who knows Tamil to please comment on the matter. --Bhadani 16:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. A trivial slang. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 17:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it singnificant enough to go in Madras bashai ? Tintin 17:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a significant slang. - Ganeshk 00:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Biffeche and delete Biffeche anthem. Kudos to Dylons493 for the excellent research. howch e ng {chat} 20:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biffeche and Biffeche anthem[edit]

Though this is a three-year-old (!) article, the more I look at it, the more I smell a hoax. I can't find a reference to the kingdom of Biffeche anywhere on Google but our mirror sites, nor is it in JSTOR or Academic Search Premier. Its website strikes me as highly suspicious--why only an English language version for a Wolof/Arabic/Frenchspeaking kingdom? why the references to selling titles? Why does it provide American and European contact info but none within Senegal or Mauritania itself? I suspect that this article is either an elaborate hoax by an American who visited Senegal (the pictures look suspiciously like those a Peace Corps Volunteer or some such would have) or by someone interested in profiting from a micronation. Of course, I'd be very happy to be proved wrong, and maybe 24 hours from now I'm going to feel really stupid for posting this--but until we can verify some of this independent of the website, I'm recommending ~~delete~~ delete the anthem and keep the island. Dvyost 08:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nomination. I've added the anthem article to this AFD too. Can't find any evidence that this place actually exists, let alone that it's a kingdom. Few Google non-Wikipedia links [27], and they don't seem to show much either. Of course there's information that's not on Google, but I would think that a functioning kingdom would get at least a few hits from repuatlbe sources. I'm also thinking that a kingdom would have at least a somewhat more professional looking website... Blackcats 08:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote - see below... Blackcats 04:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've been in Saint-Louis and the geography and ethnography are plausible. The history seems roughly OK - see e.g. [28]. The contemporary micronation is more dubious and I suggest tagging any of that as requiring verification or disputed. Dlyons493 Talk 09:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The link you posted mentions in passing (in French) an "island of Bifche." But the article isn't about an island at all (doesn't even mention the word). Also, effective hoaxes do tend to sound plausible - generally because the hoaxter has some background knowlege of the over-arching subject. And there's a good chance he's laughing his ass off that he was able to have his hoax remain on Wikipedia for three years with all the resulting mirrors and everything. But at any rate, plausible is not the same thing as verifiable, and if a kingdom does in fact exist, then its existance shouldn't be too hard to verify. Blackcats 09:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: whois gives the following info on the domain name

Registrant: LEXIDIGITAL INC
  6152 115TH PLACE NORTH
  SEMINOLE, FL 33772
  US
 Administrative Contact:
     HINDS, PAM                phinds@tampabay.rr.com
     6152 115TH PLACE NORTH
     SEMINOLE, FL 33772
     US
     727-392-5636
 Record expires on 05-Feb-2009.
 Record created on 05-Feb-2002.

Maybe someone should call them. ×Meegs 10:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (pending further evidence). I find it suspicious that in their help the people page, they request only money (not volunteers, not supplies), and that they haven't registered as a tax-exempt charity in the US, where their office is located. Maybe someone should call the Attorney General in Florida. ×Meegs 11:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very strong delete as almost certainly a complete fabrication~~ - By Googling I've found this notation on some personal home page (scroll down) - "LEFT - Ed Schaffer was a bit of a paradox... He claimed to be king of a Senegalese Christian tribe known as Biffeche, although his only trip to that part of the world consisted of having his ashes buried there." This seems to certify its hoaxdom, as Ed Schaffer is the person mentioned in the article as the alleged "King Edward I." Of course, it's scattered all over teh Intarweb now :sigh:. Awesome job by Dvyost in digging this out and exposing it. Simply awesome. FCYTravis 11:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC) - Great job in rewriting legit version. Keep as rewritten. FCYTravis 20:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The site has shut down due to traffic. Here's the Google cache ×Meegs 11:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks! I'd feel a lot prouder if I hadn't edited this page twice before without catching on. It's a good lesson in why we all need to be more ruthless with those {{unreferenced}} tags. --Dvyost 17:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as per Dvyost. -- Kjkolb 12:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to abstain. I am not convinced that it is not a hoax, but I'm not sure that it isn't either. If this turns out to be a keep, it should not prevent a renomination in the future. -- Kjkolb 11:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From their site: "As long as you are driving or walking in Biffeche, keep your eyes open to see a Biffeche Dragon, Great Baboon, Monkey, Crocodile or Wart-Hog alongside our roads and marigots". Hedley 14:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Looks very much like an elaborate hoax. ^N_i^g_h^t_s^t_a^l_lⁱ_oⁿ ✉ 15:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC) changed per 18:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless somebody can find a reliable reference. It smells like a hoax, though a clever one. 84.69.64.186 18:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with a comment: this is a disturbing example of how wikipedia can inadvertently lower the total amount of knowledge in the world, due to all the echoes and scrapers that come zooming through. Googling "Biffeche" finds so many listings based on this hoax that many people would find it persuasive. Without wikipedia, Googling would quickly see through the hoax.- DavidWBrooks 18:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Delete~~ and second the comment. I frequently wish Google had a special setting: "don't return any results from pages that identify as getting their information from Wikipedia." -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Abstain given the referenced rewrite. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and edit the page to note that this is a hoax. References to this "kingdom" are widespread, and it'd be best to tackle this head-on. Flyboy Will 19:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - All those references are Wikipedia mirrors because this article has been around forever. This is a non-notable "hoax." FCYTravis 19:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it would be a good idea to report these people for charity fraud. Their "Help the people" page tells people to send money to an address in Florida (you'd think an African Kingdom would have an actual address in Africa that people could mail stuff to). At first I thought this was just a hoax for the purpose of humor, but now it seems like it's a more sinister fraud - designed to profit from the poverty in West Africa. This con artist motive would also explain why the hoaxsters went to the trouble and expense of having an official looking sign made [29] (and probably paying some locals to pose by it). Blackcats 19:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's hard to tell if the kingdom stuff is a hoax or a fantasist with pretensions of setting up a micronation (it all rather resembles Sealand). Either way, there's no independent verification, even of it as a mere claim. Tearlach 23:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tracing this further, the abovementioned Lexidigital Inc is a web design and print services bureau at www.lexidigital.com, and the Biffeche site appears to be one they maintain. As Meegs says, someone ought to call them.

Another modest proposal: see the Official web site of Saint-Louis, Senegal, where there's a page and e-mail address for the Office de Tourisme (sltourisme@sentoo.sn). Anyone here know French? The alleged Biffeche being only 20km away, they might have a few thoughts on the matter.

Here also is an ident on King Ronald, based on the Epic Song of Biffeche: one Ronald Reisinger of Pinellas Park, FL. There has been some Usenet discussion of the matter. Tearlach 06:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax Jakiah 10:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've done a complete rewrite. Biffeche anthem should be deleted. I've done some cleaning of articles referring to this kingdom. Re Mboubène I can't really verify the details but it looks plausible so I've only taken the kingdom reference out. Indigenous cultures, kingdoms and ethnic groups of Senegal and Axim need some thought - anyone like to look them over? Dlyons493 Talk 16:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I pulled the references to Biffeche's kingdom from both articles--the Axim one seemed pretty clearcut ("the foreignborn king") while the "Indigenous etc." article seemed more harmless, but I'd like to hold off on including that until someone confirms that there was once an independent polity known as Biffeche. Terrific work, Dlyons... --Dvyost 17:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of its reference in Economic Community of West African States too. Am I correct that Biffeche Dinar-Haut and the entry on BDH were part of the hoax and need to be deleted and removed, respectively? ×Meegs 21:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good! Biffeche Dinar-Haut and the entry on BDH are I think redirects - I found a few and decided to leave them since the underlying article now seems OK. But it might be preferable to delete them??? Dlyons493 Talk 23:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Biffeche Dinar-Haut / BDH is part of the hoax, then they should be deleted, because even their existence as redirects propagates misinformation. Have you found anything to suggest the currency is real? ×Meegs 02:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like total fabrication to me. The area uses Senegalese currency (maybe a bit of the historical region spills over into Mauritania). I've replaced BDH with the AMEX code for ML BRDBND HLDR12/40 to give something valid in the disambig. Suggest we put Biffeche Dinar-Haut up for deletion (is the process the same for redirects?) Dlyons493 Talk 11:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The process is the same for redirects; check it out at WP:RfD or the Biffeche Dinar-Haut page where I put up a link. --Dvyost 16:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to keep for one article ... There has now been a complete rewrite that seems to make this a legitimate article. I would change my vote to Keep for Biffeche - the anthem still seems a hoax. - DavidWBrooks 16:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ unverifiable. Any supposedly real country which has escaped inclusion in any reputable source (e.g. CIA world factbook) has to be highly suspect. I could not verify it as genuinely existing. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Biffeche, Delete anthem, per excellent work by DLyons - which neatly explains the few tantalising hints at verifiability on Google. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ --NaconKantari 17:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with rewrite --NaconKantari 07:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Biffeche / Delete anthem - changed vote following excellent revision by Dlyons493. Anthem still fails verifiability. Tearlach 17:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Biffeche after the rewrite. u p p l a n d 18:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Article should be kept, anthem deleted. ^N_i^g_h^t_s^t_a^l_lⁱ_oⁿ ✉ 18:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually changing my vote to Delete. Even after the changes, the article remains unverifiable. I can't find anything named Biffeche on any links or maps listed there, or anywhere on google, searching for Maka, maps of Senegal, Petit Brak, etc. Still seems like a hoax to me, and in any case remains completely 100% unverifiable. By the way, this is apparently the king of Beffeche [30]. Flyboy Will 18:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't assume that something doesn't exist becuae it's not on the Internet. There are a handful of references: e.g. the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs site [31] shows aid going to "Savoigne Biffeche" (use pulldown menus for Zone = Afrique, Pays = Senegal). Tearlach 19:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted -[32] says they are twinned. Dlyons493 Talk 20:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a bit more - a website for a mission based there (see Talk:Biffeche. Tearlach 03:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Biffeche with rewrite. Delete Anthem. (crossed-off my vote above) ×Meegs 21:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Congrats to the people who worked on this. I've added a few links to early-18th century maps that show Bifeche, both the island and the region. -- JJay 02:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my vote to Abstain for the main article (still Strong Delete for the anthem). I really have mixed feelings here. On the one hand, I appreciate all the work that Dlyons493 and others have put in to research and re-write the article. I also think the en.Wikipedia's coverage of African geography and culture really needs to be expanded. But I'm still not quite comfortable giving this article an official "Keep" vote for a number of reasons. 1. My comment above seems to have been largely ignored. I think it's quite likely that the hoaxsters are perpetrating this whole Biffeche scheme as a charity-scam to profit off the poverty in West Africa. Assuming this article is kept, it should note that the Biffeche website is a hoax/scam (but without actually hyper-linking to that site). 2. I clicked on several of the maps that the article now links to, but I couldn't see any of them actually including the word Biffeche. A couple of the old ones were really low resolution, so maybe I just couldn't see... 3. Even assuming that Biffeche has been verified, I'm not sure that its notablity has been established. If this is the historic name of an island, then couldn't that just be mentioned in an article with the island's current name? Or maybe the river's course changed over time and the island no longer exists - so then couldn't it just be mentioned in an article about one of the towns in the vicinity?... At any rate - I'm just not sure that this deserves its own article - so with this and the concerns above, I'm abstaining with regard to the main article. Thank you for listening. Blackcats 04:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For 1, nearly all of the bad info on the web is limited to the hoax web site and WP derivatives. I'm open to possibly mentioning the self-proclaimed king hoax in the article, but I don't think it's necessary since the WP mirrors should die-out now that we've gotten our act together. Without WP the hoax notable? I really don't know. For 2, check out JJay's antique maps from the BNF. For 3, I agree that given the poor coverage of West Africa, this article sticks-out like a sore thumb, and also that much of the information would ideally go into an article about a population-center, but the island is pretty big, and (I think) notable enough for an article. ×Meegs 06:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that unfortunately, as we're the only people who seem to have written about this hoax, to try to expose it here would be original research. Pity... but it's not really our place to address it until someone else does. --Dvyost 07:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - I guess that's true that we probably shouldn't include about the hoax. I was just wanting to make sure that if anyone Googled to see if the website was legit then they would know for sure that it wasn't. I may see about contacting the FL attorney general's office like Meegs suggested above and ask them to investigate this as potential charity fraud... Blackcats 07:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or just point it out on a very basic web page of your own, tossed up on Geocities. Once the wikipedia mirrors start dropping this article, it won't take long to become the number two ranking for "Kingdom of Biffeche"... --Dvyost 07:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re the valid notability question raised - the area in question is where Arab North Africa starts to merge into black Sub-Saharan Africa. It was also an early locus of competition with the Dutch, English and French trying to expand. It was one of the early slave areas a bit north of the famous island of Gorée and the Gambia (of Alex Haley and Roots fame). So there's a lot of interesting history. There's also a stong Wiki tradition that places/settlements are intrinsically notable. Dlyons493 Talk 10:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - I wasn't disputing that tradition - I just wasn't sure if this was the current name of a place, or just a historic name - in which case it could maybe redirect to and be mentioned in an article with the current name for its title... Blackcats 10:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Quite a bit of effort was made to fix this article, but I'm not following what it's saying. Some of the maps don't have any names on them and others don't have the names of what is supposed to be on them. I looked at the online sources, but I can't read French and only one of them is in English. From the English source, I am unable to verify the article's claims. I'll think about changing my vote. -- Kjkolb 04:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all good points. I just want to say that the three map links from the BNF that I added all show and name the island/and or region with good resolution. If you can find the Senegal river on the maps, scroll upstream a bit and you should see the island. I don't know if the area was important, so far I have just tried to locate it on old French maps. -- JJay 04:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those are very helpful. Bifiche is one of five big islands in the river's delta. The first map is the easiest to find the island on, but the second map (on which East is up and Bifiche is written in light & thin script) shows the most detail, including a number of locations on the island. I'm not as happy with the modern maps – as Blackcats suggested, the island's size and shape may have changed a bit. ×Meegs 05:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting topic to look into. Based on some of the maps, the name seems to refer to the region as well. I added the reference in the first paragraph that describes the island, but we need better primary sources. The area has to have some interest because the French maintained a fort at St. Louis for centuries. The BNF has many first-hand accounts but they are not searchable. In any case, I hope to expand a bit on Dlyons493 excellent work. -- JJay 05:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re the difference between maps - that's to be expected as all the area is very flat and low-lying. The river is slow-moving and silty and much of the delta is mangrove swamp. So the peripheries of the islands would naturally change quite a lot over time. Dlyons493 Talk 10:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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} 20:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angels Wake[edit]

Do not meet WP:MUSIC. Has released one EP, and speculations of future tours is crystal ball-ish. Punkmorten 08:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. There are several bands listed that don't even HAVE anything else or HAVE any media coverage or airplay at ALL, they only have a one sentence description of their local bands. Have you clicked any of the links? Everything is legit and completely checks out. It doesn't make any sense to only add bands that have won grammys or been in the top ten. It completely precludes bands and artists with a decent following that happen to be independant and up and coming artists. TaeKwonTimmy 09:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Of TaeKwonTimmy (talk · contribs)'s twenty-one edits, all achieved within a twelve-hour timespan, eleven are to Angels Wake, one to List of Christian alternative bands, two to Wikipedia:Requested articles/music, one to his user talk page, and the rest to this AfD.[reply]

Keep itI dont see the point of deleting information for an up and coming band when that kind of information is what people search for the most. I dont follow why it should be deleted. Even with popular bands, tours are 'crystal ballish'. This site is becoming more and more popular by the day and I think the more you allow people to submit information, the more visits this will get. People always search for new music, and what helps them search for it are websites with information. All the links given are very helpful. Theres no reason at all this page should be deleted because it is very informative and it doesnt just give you the same biography you'll find anywhere else. I vote stay.--Deadb0lt 10:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Deadb0lt (talk · contribs) has five edits, all to this AfD.[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not a place to find new music. Punkmorten 10:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I used the word several times, information information information. quote:

             "what helps them search for it are websites with information"

--Deadb0lt 10:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You still have no valid claim as to why it should be deleted. It's not exactly a seedy, local band and the WP Music Guidelines are not policy.--TaeKwonTimmy 10:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:MUSIC is not policy because notability for musicians is strechable in certain cases. This is not one of them. Without a label or a contract, EP releases and tour dates are pretty much crystal-balled, and we are WP:NOT in the business of predicting if or when a small band will make it big time. Also, don't think that Wikipedia's music articles are solely big bands — my personal favorite, Floater (band) is here despite being unheard of outside of Oregon. Good luck to the band, but they're simply not notable enough for inclusion. - CorbinSimpson 10:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Without a label or a contract, EP releases and tour dates are pretty much crystal-balled" Then you should delete all of your indy bands from your database.If you check out the christian music news link, Angels Wake is listed among big artists like Skillet and Switchfoot.--TaeKwonTimmy 10:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC) The article by the way, has been edited to only include factual information. No daydreams involved.--TaeKwonTimmy 10:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand how Floater can be notable enough and not Angels Wake. I understand that yes they may only be on the east coast, but Floater is only heard in Oregon? Being on a label, or having a contract shouldnt be a factor in whether or not they should be on an informative website. The links are there, theyll take you to sites where the music is up, where itll show you what theyre involved in, and whats coming up. None of their information has been 'crystal ballish', its all pretty legit and will happen. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I just dont get how someone not hearing of the band is a good enough reason not to keep this up.--Deadb0lt 10:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Floater probably passes one of the other criteria set in WP:MUSIC, not having a label isn't the end of it. As long as they cover at least one of the criteria. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Floater released 8 albums, Angels Wake one EP. B.Wind 01:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep cos.....heck I just WANNA! (and Wiki is not paper if you want a "valid" reason) Jcuk 11:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~cos.....heck I just WANNA!~~ because there is no evidence that the band meets WP:MUSIC, and none of the people who complain about those guidelines ever seem to come up with a more practical standard of notability for musical artists. Some of the people who complain don't even seem to understand the current standard. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some of us think that a band being verifiable is good enough. Chances are "The Beatles" are going to be verifiable, whereas "Freddie and the Flintstones" who've practiced in Fred's dad's garage three times aren't. Jcuk 23:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Punkmorten and CorbinSimpson. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Google search the band. 2. They meet the varificatin qualifications. 3. Nobody has yet to address my question as to why even less known bands are on here. Gnarly-skull ???? --TaeKwonTimmy 23:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Apparently Gnarly-skull has been speedy deleted. How about that? If you see other less known bands, you are more than welcome to nominate them for deletion. Punkmorten 16:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's cool, I'm not into fascism. :) TaeKwonTimmy 00:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Deadb0lt (talk • contribs) has five edits, all to this AfD."

Additionally, if you mean to imply that I am either user:Jcuk or user:Deadb0lt, I'm certain the admins can provide you with ample evidence (Including IPs) to the contrary. Although you appear to be more interested in smearing people with opinions which differ from your own. Cheers! :) -Tim --TaeKwonTimmy 03:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Huh, my last comment seems to have vanished. Eh. Anyways, stop the flaming. TaeKwonTimmy, two things:

First, you claim that this article meets WP:MUSIC. I would like to see how it does. I'll gladly change my vote right here and now if it meets requirements that I somehow overlooked.
Second, please don't call us fascists. We are not restricting information. We are merely trying to expediently use the available bandwidth to best serve visitors of Wikipedia. From the number of speedy deletes and AfD requests made daily, I can safely say that bandwidth must be horrendously expensive for the owners of Wikipedia. Thus, they don't want articles that can't satisfy certain encyclopaedic requirements to be taking up server space and wasting bandwidth. Just because the server is in the USA, that does not make it a fascist website.

Thanks! - CorbinSimpson 07:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I was not intending to be rude towards you, so if you took anything personally, I apologize. Secondly, I wasn't flaming, I was defending myself. Somone posted anonymously trying to mar my character and I reacted as most people would have. Secondly: "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, dj etc) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" (emphasis mine) "Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network." Netwavz radio (an internet station with a national and international audience) has done an hour interview with Angels Wake which will be broadcast on their website the 29th of this month. You can check out the radio station @ www.netwavzradio.com. I apologize if I reacted harshly to you, you've been polite, respectful and reasonable. --TaeKwonTimmy 08:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TaeKwonTimmy, you are blatant violation of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility policies. You are also greatly in error on a number of points:

I did not feel the "need to be anonymous" when I, as per well-established AfD tradition, posted notes concerning your contributions and the fact that they came nowhere near Wikipedia's traditionally-held "voting age". Such notations are traditionally unsigned because they discourage the useless but still frequently-seen practice of ignoring the facts presented and attacking the messenger -- as you have indeed done -- but anyone who knows what they're doing on Wikipedia knows that they can check who left what comment just by reading the history of the article.
"You also apparently didn't read ALL my contributions (see boomslang)." If you mean this edit, that edit was made by IP address 151.197.30.149 (talk · contribs). Someone sharp-eyed might indeed have spotted that 30.149's first contribution (one of two) was signed "TaeKwonTimmy" and thus assumed that you could be credited with all that anon address's two contributions. However, you cannot reasonably expect that when checking edit histories, we should look for all anon addresses that you could have been using prior and count their contributions as your own. (By the way, what is the difference between stating that the boomslang's fangs are located at the rear of the mouth and stating that the boomslang is rear-fanged?)
There was no attempt made to "mar your character", only to evaluate realistically your ability to fulfill your responsibilities in this discussion. Even if all the contributions you have now were added to all the contributions of that anon address, they'd still fall short of the above-mentioned "voting age". The purpose of an AfD discussion is to tap the judgement of experienced Wikipedians who understand both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia's policy and understand how they are applied; new editors, no matter how well-intentioned, very rarely have the needed understanding, and I'm afraid that your apparent ignorance of simple matters such as how easy it is to check the edit history of an article -- not to mention your idea that calling people "Captain Jellyfish", telling them to "kindly get stuffed!", accusing them of "degenerate behavior", and promising "a verbal spanking" is acceptable behavior in an AfD discussion -- shows that you do not have that experience. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not on Amazon, not on Allmusic. No evidence of meeting WP:NMG, and editor comments indicate this is not (yet) a well-known band. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry then, if I have misunderstood anything that was done here. As you have pointed out, I am new and I'm not familiar with how EVERYTHING works. I apologize for the hostility. Also the boomslang thing was an oversight, thanks for pointing it out, I went back and fixed it. I also deleted my comments that were in violation. It just seems like most of the people here have it in for me because I'm new.

Also see my above comments. They do meet WK: Music guidelines.--TaeKwonTimmy 20:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "but anyone who knows what they're doing on Wikipedia knows that they can check who left what comment just by reading the history of the article. " I wasn't aware it was a standard practice. If I HAD know (I.e. had you signed it and explained it) I would never have said what I said.). Also I did know you can check edits and history, but I still wasn't able to check the edits because my computer kept refreshing automatically for some reason. I have since fixed this problem. Anyway, sorry. Also, what is the "voting age" of which you speak? I have made a number of contributions including a rather large one to seahorse and the addition of an article on Shaded Red. Anyway, sorry again.

--TaeKwonTimmy 21:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ps. I did create the article, and thus have a stake in it. --TaeKwonTimmy 02:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Subtle Mantra[edit]

Minor blog, does not meet WP:WEB Q Q 08:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "ASM's readership is perceived as consisting of friends and acquaintances of John" = clearly non-notable. Adunar 10:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable --Quarl 11:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just some random guy and his blog. Does not deserve to be documented. --User: Anon 02:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn blog. - Bobet 15:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantix[edit]

According to the article and their official discography this group has released one song. Punkmorten 10:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (They're not even close to the most popular meaning for the word "Atlantix".) Adunar 10:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Quarl 11:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it sounds un-notable. However, one song is enough to be included, if it's a proper release. Hedley 14:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy under the expanded C7.--nixie 08:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bahamalouie[edit]

Website with an Alexa ranking of 2,625,798. 210 Google hits (23 for "Bahama Louie") indicate that Bahamalouie is not an important or popular site. Punkmorten 10:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Adunar 10:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Quarl 11:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unexceptional website.--nixie 09:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sachem giant[edit]

Apparent hoax about an urban legend that is not really an urban legend. It shows up several times on Google [33] because Wikipedia's Urban Legend page used to mention the "sachem giant", but a Google search to exclude derivatives of this page [34] finds just one Geocities page[35] ripping on another high-school: "Although Sachem has the biggest, meanest linebackers, they still lose games. That is because they are very stupid, and have poor quarterbacks." Adunar 10:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. Movementarian 12:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not necessarily a hoax, but definitely not something that belongs here, either. -Colin Kimbrell 16:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Violetriga. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:AristotlePagaltzis[edit]

This page was a boneheaded mistake. I had just come from a CamelCase UserName wiki so I created a user page for myself without the space that I do have in my Wikipedia username. Aristotle 11:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirected to User:Aristotle Pagaltzis. Punkmorten 12:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was (not-so) speedy delete as a re-creation of Farassoo (AfD discussion). —Cryptic (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FARASSOO International[edit]

Merging of Sony and info about Farassoo. Farassoo is a real company, I guess, but the article is WP:BALLS and copyvio as is. Dunno what User:Kaskou's intent is. --Quarl 12:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is copyright infringement from the website [36] and it is previously removed from FARASSOO. Should it not be a speedy delete? -localzuk 13:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wasn't sure how much of it was copyvio. He was editing too fast. Most of the Sony stuff has been removed now. As of now it is mostly copyvio. I think Kaskou is just a newbie --Quarl 13:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will add a db-repost as it is a repost of a previously speedied page and is copyvio... -localzuk 13:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joshlk beat me to it. -localzuk 13:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're dealing with an enthusiastic newbie. Asked the guy not to do the "adspeak" thing, but I guess he couldn't resist. :) Restored page to my last edit if there are no objections. - Lucky 6.9 17:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (1) pure ad in current form, (2) possible copyvio mentioned above, (3) removal of {{subst:afd1}} tag. Also delete pictures named "Notebook", "Case", etc from image system. They are copyvio as well. Pavel Vozenilek 09:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment re removing afd tag: it wasn't by Kaskou; User:Joshlk replaced afd with csd, which was replaced with pre-copyvio version that had no afd or csd tags. diff --Quarl 09:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - So w/o point (3) but still the same conclusion. Pavel Vozenilek 10:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, I'm almost sorry I unblocked that user. I told him emphatically not to add copyvio'd material. What a freaking mess. I may have fixed it once, but I won't do it again. Delete and protect from recreation. - Lucky 6.9 05:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, copyvio with a ton of linkspam. It's not an encyclopedia article, it's just a copied and pasted ad from the company's website. - Bobet 12:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Victims of Child Welfare Memorial Day[edit]

Doesn't seem noteworthy for anything. Article is only one sentence, and doesn't seem much more to say about it. -- Jbamb 12:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless the article is expanded to at least provide a description of what exactly this day is commemorating. Endomion 14:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete holiday apparently only celebrated by one group. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Foster Care Council of Canada doesn't have a page, and it seems unlikely that this holiday will ever be widely observed. If it ever does, they probably need a clearer name, since I initially expected this to be about the victims of some sort of monument collapse. -Colin Kimbrell 16:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as completely non-notable - Lucky 6.9 18:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slacker Softball League[edit]

Googled. 17 hits, none of which are notable, most of which are duplications of content found on this page. Seems eminently non-notable - at best an informal amateur association - and not really useful for any other than a couple of buddies. jglc | t | c 12:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete --Quarl 14:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is the same as creating a "league" from people who play softball at company picnics. Endomion 14:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gone. Sounds fun, fellas, but not here. Nothing personal. - Lucky 6.9 18:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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} 20:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WinCustomize[edit]

Written mostly by the board operator themselves (check the User page of User:GreenReaper), and has since denigrated into people arguing about how could the forum mods are. Doesn't seem noteworthy. -- Jbamb 13:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ad w/o hint of notability, but on very grand scale. It feels as if they moved their website here :-) Pavel Vozenilek
Keep - needs extensive cleanup but is a notable website. Alexa rank of 3,799. --Quarl 14:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite significantly — I don't like the article all that much, either, but just deleting it isn't likely to solve anything.

I have tried not to be biased in my edits, but I can accept that it would be better if others had a go at rewriting it. (I'm not an operator on there, BTW, just a journeyman - I write software and make the occasional skin, I don't patrol boards, else I'd never get anything done :-).

It is possible that the criticism section was written by a disgruntled forum user to make a point, which is unfortunate, but as I mentioned on the talk page, the forums are a very small part of the site itself. The main portion of the article should be about the skinning site, not the attached forums, as that is what is notable. There are plenty of forums around, but there is only one site that comes up first when you google for windows skin, and that is WinCustomize. GreenReaper 18:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable site. I suggest a clean-up, to make it more neutral Compu ter Joe 21:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. AfD is not cleanup. -- JJay 21:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but let a neutral party do a total rewrite. Konfab user 01:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I change my vote to Delete --Konfab user 05:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-encyclopaedic, not sufficiently notable.--Daveb 04:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see how this article could be considered not sufficiently notable since skinning or the use of skins is done by a minority of computer users. Would this mean all articles about skinning, skinning sites, or skinning programs should be deleted? Konfab user 05:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, notable website but article needs a NPOV rewrite. Cchan199206 06:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article with its rampant product linking is little more than a marketing blurb for Stardock - albeit with an unwanted negative spin with the addition of the 'Forum Criticisms' which has inspired the contestation over neutrality in the first place. If a 'clean-up' simply follows the focus of this argument and removes only the criticisms then the point is still being missed. As it stands not only does the article exemplify the commodification of information but, with its purported 'neutrality', it also seeks to represent its commercial imperative as natural and unbiased setting an unwelcome precedent in the process. Confuchsia 20:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think it's not neutral, fix the neutrality. As you appear to be new to Wikipedia, I would suggest checking out Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines for help in doing so. Note also that edits to the article are not forbidden during the AfD process, as you seem to believe. GreenReaper 05:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- but i have already addressed my concerns about the article's lack of neutrality Greenreaper. It is true i could edit the page however running through endless reversions seems to achieve very little. Discussion in order to reach a concensus would seem to be the way forward at this point. My edit comment does not deny the process of further editing. That assumption is entirely yours, but thank you for your advice. My reversion does help to contextualise this debate however, which not only includes the subjectivity of the forum criticisms but the excess of advertising as well. A third of the article page is taken up with product links. One can hardly complain about the subjective bias of the Forum Criticism when the page is so overtly an advertisement for Stardock products,no? Confuchsia 07:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article really needs to go because WinCustomize is only notable enough to have a paragraph in the Stardock article. --Konfab user 03:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- On what grounds? Where are you drawing the line of non-notability, and why? It's possibly the biggest skinning site in the world, and certainly within the Alexa top 5000 - is that truly insufficient? GreenReaper 05:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but a major cleanup is needed -anabus_maximus (Talk to me) 21:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Jungle: The Very Best of Guns N' Roses[edit]

Subject has proven to be non-existant. Official Guns N Roses site doesn't mention it, and the only references I can find to it are from obscure newsmessages. Delete. SoothingR^(pour) 13:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Possible hoax (release date 2025?) Endomion 14:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not on Amazon. I was going to speedy, but its been around since mid-October, and so it may of been planned but pulled at the last minute. Hedley 14:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete highly unlikely that any band would release two best of/greatest hits compilations within a year of each other. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Compu ter Joe 21:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The album won't come out anytime soon. --Snkcube 02:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 whole lot. - Mailer Diablo 02:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to tha chuuch mixtape vol.1 and others[edit]

Also note Snoop Dogg minor albums, bootlegs and mixtapes, where the material under discussion here has now been coped to Pilatus 18:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above are unofficial Snoop Dogg mixtape releases. For the uninitiated, mixtapes are unofficial underground releases, usually featuring hip hop music, R&B, reggae, etc, which are hand-made and distributed through the underground scene without the use of a major label (see http://www.hiphopspot.com/index.php for a mixtape retail site). Most mixtapes are used to promote material that is either available on actual studio releases or will be at some future date. For the purposes of this encyclopedia, I don't think mixtapes can or should be given their own articles, primarily because anyone can make a mixtape that features the music of any artist (even the artist themself). Notice that Welcome to tha Chuuch - Da Album is not listed; it is an actual official release. --FuriousFreddy 13:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom --Quarl 14:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom -- Jbamb 14:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Fails test for notability. Next we'll be having iPod playlists for articles.Endomion 14:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, I see the first one is listed at amazon.com, mtv.com and yahoo online, which seems to refute the idea that they are distributed 'underground'. This appears to be a block nomination which hasn't examined the details of each item. Kappa 14:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The first is available from an Amazon.com marketplace seller, not by Amazon. Amazon cannot legally carry the album. The listings at MTV.com and Yahoo online may be because of confusion: this is not an official and actual album, and neither are the rest. I examined each and every item, and I guarantee I know what I am doing, so do not ass. These are mixtapes, not actual albums. I wouldn't mind a (that is, one) scholarly article on the Welcome to the Chuuch mixtape series, but the articles as they stand are not only uninformative, they are poorly written and formatted as well. The other mixtape articles, however, should be deleted on site. Otherwise, I should have 50 mixtapes for various music artists printed up and distributed, and force their inclusion here as articles. --FuriousFreddy 15:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You know that sellers like HMW merely republish catalogues. 81.193.185.151 16:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - HMV is a reputable source. If it says that the item was produced by Snoop Dogg, then it is unreasonable to deny without good evidence that the item was produced by Snoop Dogg. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wish! They slap the catalogues they receive on their website, and when you actually go and try to buy the thing after eight weeks they tell you that they can't get their hands on the thing. What this say is that someone said that that is by Snoop Dogg. No one denies that that bootleg tape has Snoop Dogg on it. What people say (if you have read the AfD page) is that tons of bootlegs - with and without Snoop Dogg - exist and that no one cares about this particular one. Tony, we are tired of your campaign against WP:V! Pilatus 20:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - The mixtapes verifiably exist; I'm sure if you order one, they'll send it to you. However, the point is is that they are all unnofficial and are not produced by Snoop's record labels, but by any odd number of DJs looking to make money for themselves. Official, professional quality studio albums these are not. Any DJ can make a Snoop Doog mixtape and sell it. --FuriousFreddy 21:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry for being unclear. What I meant is that sellers like HMV don't vet the catalogues they receive from their suppliers for accuracy or update their own listing for availability. If a record publisher runs out of a low-volume item the article will remain in the HMV listing until someone tries to order the item through HMV and they are informed that the recording is no longer available. Pilatus 02:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The question of whether the albums are "official" (whatever that means) is immaterial, completely and utterly immaterial. Wikipedia doesn't exist to act as an official copy of the catalogs of record companies. If the albums verifiably exist (and existence on a HMV catalog is ample evidence of this, then their existence should be recorded as part of the encyclopedic work concerning the artists involved. I regard this mass AfD listing as ill-conceived because of that misunderstanding. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I Don't know what's going on here. User FuriousFreddy has just tagged all of Snoop Dogg album entries, that I have created, as articles for deletion. And when I say all I mean ALL. Including The Welcome to tha chuuch series, which are as official as Doggystyle so to say, They are released under Doggystyle Records and I think that the mesure of right to exist can't be nothing else that the artist released it under his own name, his own label, with fully new tracks, that he has worked with many other artists, and you say "Okay, off with them, they didn't reach platinum" (from that point of view 5 albums would remain in total...). We could delete every page containing albums about all the not-so-commonly-known rappers. Or does he have to reach a higher standard because he's popular? That's what you call free artistry? Is it some kind of vengeance against a newcomer, who dares to edit and collect every minor album an artist has recorded. I thought an encylopedia gathers every information possible about persons, facts, and related material. For example there are some entries already on Snoop page that reached the number one search spot on Google when looked up (it doesn't mean it doesn't exist on several search results on the later pages). Wikipedia is not just a travel guidebook or a pocket dictionary of some sort. And I would like to ask those persons who never listened to Snoop Dogg in their lifetime to decide carefully, because It is some kind of incompetency to just read about his tracks but not to listen to them. Please consider this. Lajbi 16:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The Welcome to tha Chuuch releases (save for the last one) are all mixtapes. They are not official albums, and they are not released by Doggystyle records; they're released by other companies. It appears that Snoop may endorse them, in the sense that he allows them as long as he gets payment, but there are literally thousands of mixtapes out there that do the same. Any and every DJ in the industry can and probably does make mixtapes, all of which are illegal, and many of which bounce the same songs back and forth across dozens of releases. Encyclopedias don't gather every bit of information on everything. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We only need articles on official legal studio releases, not underground mixtapes (because there are, as you see, dozens of them). And even if we did cover them (which we don't; Wikipedia is not hiphopmixtapez.com), we'd need more than a tracklisting and a spam commercial link for purchasing to warrant their inclusion. All of Snoop's studio albums, compilation albums, and official soundtracks can stay, the mixtapes must go.--FuriousFreddy 16:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

to FuriousFreddy : I do not deny that these are Mixtapes. I 've never done so. But for example their importance can be seen on examples like :

1. they contain several EXCLUSIVES, for instance the only cooperation between Usher and Snoop Dogg (not just their voices mixed together!!!) and Sean Paul and Snoop (not just their voices mixed together!!!) can be found on them.

2. They indicate that Snoop didn't disappear between Doggystyle and R&G (according to your high level expectations only these two album are "listened" enough)

3. That Snoop doesn't exist only in the U.S.A. Welcome to tha chuuch is distributed mostly in Japan (as indicated from the Google search scoring), Street Dance releases are from Denmark and can be bought in Europe (I got mine in a FNAC shop, France) just to name a few

4. They ARE released by Doggystyle (the older Doggystyle page mentioned them, the new is not yet ready), and there's the Doggystyle trade mark on all of them (If it wasn't so, there will be some sort of charges against their release, that you would hear about, and they couldn't be sold on Virgin Megastore, Paris for example)

And the reason why you can't fund much reference and reviews about them is because they aren't popular enough. Is this music-section about pop-music or what? Please don't be so narrow-minded (that is for all of you)

Challenge: if you find those tracks that you said just bouncing around the music industry, then go on and find some other source for those songs, if not, they are only released HERE. (none of the tracks from the "solo studio albums" as you call it, are included in them)Lajbi 16:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Buddy...any collaboration (not "cooperation") between two artists is nothing but their voices mixed together. Heck, most of the time, the artists aren't in the same studio or even the same city. --FuriousFreddy 21:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And Pleeease do not question sources like MTV ("they are confused...") because if you do so, there is no more thing to argue about... Lajbi 16:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And you've already deleted them? Shouldn't we wait until the end of discussion? Lajbi 16:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This whole thing started when OGTV2 got back. Please control yourself!!! You've been voted down there. Lajbi 16:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all (or merge if someone really wants to). It's bad enough that pointless official compilations and greatest hits albums get articles, we don't need unofficial pointless compilations as well. Tuf-Kat 16:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raw N Uncut is on Billboard.com. Ooh come on!! You select them by your own taste of music. And Tuf-Kat please read the whole list, you say no for twenty-some albumsLajbi 16:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's sort out the films too! Those that have not been watched by a million people, or just an underground release, or being released by Snoopadelic films need to be deleted. What about that?? Lajbi 17:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand what you're saying. I read the whole list and voted to delete. Billboard.com is not relevant, and I don't know or care what Snoopadelic films are. Tuf-Kat 17:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - That wasn't a nice one. Don't know- then why are you voting?. Don't care - now that's a good attitude. Did you visited any of the links? Older Doggystyle.com enlisted the chuuch series and there's reference to Snoopadelic films too.Lajbi 18:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you feel that Snoopadelic films are somehow relevant, please explain your reasoning. I shouldn't have to guess at your reasons for voting to keep an article. What does "Older Doggystyle.com enlisted the chuuch series"? Tuf-Kat 05:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Lajbi: I haven't been voted down anywhere; you control yourself, please. I put off this cleanup task for a long time because I needed assistance in doing so (which I haven't gotten, but that's another story). So I am taking care of it myself. MTV gets soem of its album data from AMG, which is hardly a flawless source of info, and is highly confused at times. Mixtapes are illegal. I never said Doggystyle and R&G are his only important albums, nor did I ever imply such. Ever album Snoop ever released on an official major label should indeed be included, and I have cleaned up his article and the discography to reflect such. I don't know what mixtape rules are like overseas, but in the USA, they are illegal, and would never be on sale in any major retail store (only mom-and-pop and underground stores...and, of course, on the street and on the internet). And when I said "bouncing around", I mean that (and several of your articles specifically state this) that many of the mixtapes include songs from other mixtapes. Mixtapes by default aren't popular because you have to go through special circumstances to try and find them, because they are, indeed, illegal. If you want to help make Wikipedia a better, professional, product, I would strongly suggest you take some time out to learn more about the scope of what is and is not included here, how to format pages, how to write stub articles that assert notablility (and not just existence), and how to not give four frantic replies to a user when one calm one will do.

In addition, I enjoy Snoop's music, and have not selected anything by "my own taste in music". Simply put, if it was obviously unofficial and not released by a label Snoop has released material through (Death Row, Priority -- Snoop was technically signed to Priority when he was releasing through No Limit, Star Trek, and Koch) or a soundtrack to an official film release, I listed it here. Just becasue it exists doesn't mean it needs an article. I'm sorry.

In closing, Several of the Snoop Dogg singles articles need heavy cleanup: Gin and Juice, Let's Get Blown, Signs (song), What Would You Do (single), Who Am I, 2 of Amerikaz Most Wanted, Lil Ghetto Boy, Let Me Ride, Dre Day. I would strongly appreciate assistance in improving these entries.

As far as films go, it's probably best not to write entries on each and every direct-to-video release Snoop has ever put out (for example, the Welcome to the Chuuch DVD has already been listed in the above group). Now, if you're asking for me to sort through them for notability verification, I will most certainly do so. A million people aren't required to have seen or bought a movie to warrant its inclusion, but at the same time every $3 DVD that Snoop appears in doesn't need an article here. We don't run a fansite.--FuriousFreddy 17:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Either in their current form or merged with redirect. We don't delete articles about Snoop Dogg productions, even bootlegs. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not even if Snoop had nothing to do with them? So you want Wikipedia articles on every bootleg and every mixtape that features a major label rapper in hip hop history? (because, otherwise, it doesn't make sense to keep these) --FuriousFreddy 18:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't even proof that Snoop has had any hand in any of these tapes. Man, get a grip on WP:V! Pilatus 18:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - For Pilatus.Are you reading an other article simultaneously? Do you really want to write this one at this discuss? Hey, Snoop drop the rapverses on the tracks. There's nothing to argue about that. As I said you should really hear them. I will check some site where you can play samples of them. Or you can do it yourself before writing such nonsense.Lajbi 20:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to FuriousFreddy:The major problem is, you did it your way. You want people to vote about a bunch of albums, not letting them to decide one-by-one, so if one agrees with OGTV2 for example, but not the DJ Jam stuff, he could indicate it but he won't (as Tuf-Kat did). They will just see the list and vote. They see one wrong edit and they vote "no". So don't hurry the process. I'm sorry that you didn't find assisstance for months, but that's not my problem. Sorry about my style too, but how would you feel, if someone deleted all your entries done. And finally I don't know why are you trying to make an example of Snoop there are way too many sites that are stubby but could stay. And it's okay like that, they will improve with enough time. About the single : some of them are made in my earlier edit and I came round that they are badly-edited, but I have no assisstance neither to clean them up, so I decided to do them sometime (as I remember I asked you to assist me...). The newer one are not "that bad", are they? They are made copying non-stubby single articles' style. But this debate is not about them. Don't take it personal! I did take it, because of your manner of "deletion-madness". You could leave a message on my talk page before doing such a huge step (step back?). So please, change method in reaching your goal. Just because you have more rights, it doesn't mean you just take a bunch of edits, and throw it into the dustbin (without information gathered from them). Lajbi 17:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't speculate about me. I looked at the entire list and voted to delete them all because that's what I wanted to do. If there's something special to know about DJ Jam - WBALLZ 187.4 FM Vol.1, then please note it in the article and I may change my vote, but probably not. Tuf-Kat 17:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - That wasn't a nice one. Don't know- then why are you voting?. Don't care - now that's a good attitude. Did you visited any of the links? Older Doggystyle.com enlisted the chuuch series and there's reference to Snoopadelic films too.Lajbi 18:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - The question isn't if they exist or not. The question is if they are of significant importance to have Wikipedia articles, which they are not. --FuriousFreddy 18:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I left a message on your talk page a month ago. You didn't do anything about it. If all of the articles have the same problem, there's no point in listing each and every one seperately. --FuriousFreddy 18:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And we could start a new dispute about the "clean-up" (I mean "clean-down") you've made with the Snoop page. You are just deleting all the time. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, no? You deleted the half page. Without summarizing the content information lost. Lajbi 17:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been tagged for cleanup for quite some time. I removed unneccessary trivia that wasn't all that relevant to Snoop, moved factual information into the main body of the article, and organized what was left. If you would like to help, the table of singles is highly incomplete, and I can't sort through the list of Snoop videos you provided to determine the years of release and chart information. Help make Snoop's coverage on Wikipedia more accurate by expandign that table with the relevant information. --FuriousFreddy 18:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is unnecessary trivia. I need a definition. But not a one that you make up...Lajbi 18:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Anything that isn't important or relevant to a large group of people. In general, trivia for any article should be kept ot a low miniuum. I do not believe I deleted anything that was important to this article, and would graciously ask for some of the other users to give their opions as well. --FuriousFreddy 18:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And if mixtapes are illegal, and G-Uint has an official mixtape DJ (DJ Whoo Kid) then how can that happen? And if it's legal in Europe, then it is nothing? It is a worldwide page, isn't it? Open your mind, I say once more. Lajbi 17:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Maybe G-Unit mixtapes are actual endorsed albums that are made to sound like mixtapes~~. Then again, maybe not, since I tried to look for DJ Whoo Kid mixtapes and found I had to go to specialized websited to do such. Even if they are legal overseas (which, as international copyright violations, they shouldn't be), we don't need articles on them. The articles had no content as it was; only tracklistings. --FuriousFreddy 18:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't know the law as it is written to state the mixtapes are illegal and neither do I. And you shouldn't delete something because YOU think it is a bootleg, or because it is labelled chuuch mixtape.Lajbi 18:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Wikipedia article on "mixtape" states that they are indeed illegal, although the DJs ususally aren't prosecuted. I know it's a bootleg, because if it weren't, it would be on sale in a regular legal venue. All a mixtape is is a heavily promoted bootleg. --FuriousFreddy 18:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - And is a mixtape illegal if it is released by the artist himself, and on the label owned by the artist? If you listen to ANY of the mixtapes, Snoop talks in the intros,interludes and outros that these are HIS mixtapes. He mentions the album name, his record label name, and the forthcoming projects. I have an example for the inverse to your "Bouncing theory". In Welcome to tha chuuch vol. 2 it is the premiere of the 213 song "So fly", with a Snoop introduction, the only change that has been made to it in the later Hard Way album is that they cut out the intro so it starts with a sudden beat. Lajbi 19:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        If a mixtape is released by the artist themself, it depends on the songs included (where they were recorded, when they were recorded, and who owns the master recordings) to determine whether or not the mixtape is legal or not. This means that you'd have to check each and every song on each and every mixtape, and make sure not a single track reappears on any other album or mixtape anywhere in existence. And mixtapes aren't too keen on not including previously or soon-to-be released material. Regardless of the legality, we don't need articles on every Snoop Dogg mixtape in existence. He's released plenty of real albums between 1993 and 2005 that have Wikipedia coverage, so no one thinks he dissapeared during that period. I've never listened to any of these mixtapes. You know why? They are illegal, and I'd have to go through special circumstances (such as ordering them from untrustworthy online retailers -- I've heard horror stories about mixtape websites) to try and get one --FuriousFreddy 19:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said you can get it at Virgin Megastores or FNAC (you can order them online too). Are they trustable and acceptable distribution networks for you? (They are also in External links). Please forget your preconceived ideas and bad recollections about mixtapes. You really don't have to go to the outskirts to buy them from an armed smuggler. At least next time don't do so.Lajbi 20:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I can't get this Virgin Megastore (which sells bootleg imports as it is anyway). This has nothing to do with my personal preference; this has to do with maintaining an encyclopedia. When you understand that, you'll understand why these articles need to be deleted, reguardless of whether they exist or not. --FuriousFreddy 20:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        We have different ideas about encyclopedia. All that I'm saying is we should keep the chucch series at least, because they exist and you couldn't cite a source that doesn't say they are released by Doggystyle records. Remember, some people vote against deletion because articles are grouped together. They must have a reason to do so. And that word usage remark that you've offered to me was a cheap shot, I don't expect you to speak Hungarian fluently, Do I? It is enough for me that you understand what I tend to say. Lajbi 21:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't know you didn't speak English fluently; sorry. However, this isn't about my idea of the encyclopedia vs. your idea; this is about what the Wikipedia in general has already been doing, which is writing articles only on official releases with verifiable information that aren't just stubs with tracklistings. --FuriousFreddy 00:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of these articles and ban whoever created them. Paul 18:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all random unofficial compilations. If any of these are non-random certainly the article would say why they are important. WP:V, folks. Pilatus 18:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You REALLY deleted the films. And from what point of you. It is you who need to justify your deeds.Lajbi

Comment to Paul : Please think before hurting anyone. I'm not a vandal. Lajbi 18:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above. Flyboy Will 19:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per community consensus, the deletion policy, and Pilatus. Nandesuka 20:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all above Compu ter Joe 21:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa. These should be individually nominated. -- JJay 21:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Group deletion nominations are not uncommon here, and it would be tedious for the voters if I had nominated each one seperately, and they had to go around to each nomination and keep casting the same vote. If you read any of these, and think that any one establishes any sort of notability that the others do not, or is otherwise notable, you can say such here. Otherwise, seperately listing two dozen articles about almost identical subjects for the same criteria doesn't make sense. --FuriousFreddy 21:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Pilatus. Xoloz 22:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and sanction Tony for wasting all our time. Ambi 22:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, the wheel war that Tony got himself into was around OGTV2 - From Tha Hood to Hollywood, which was deleted here as some dude's bootleg and then summarily ressurrected by Tony because, you know, AfD and VfU is wrong and keeping good content out of sight. Pilatus 23:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Pilatus, could you explain what you mean by "wheel war?" I haven't warred over this at all. I simply saw a clear case of AfD making an obviously bad decision, and then performed an undeletion. I have not warred with anyone over this, but anyone who claims that there is a wheel war is obviously believed different. I'd like to chat person to person with whoever it is that has propagated this false statement, in the hope that we can sort it out.
- Meanwhile attempts to delete the article in question clearly haven't a hope in hell of succeeding while so many other (presumably verifiable) articles are also listed. The system is broken if it destroys such verifiable information rather than considering merging it to another, more comprehensive article about an obviously widespread an encyclopedic phenomenon surrounding such a prominent exponent of rap music as Snoop Dogg. I say this as someone who knows almost nothing about rap but has known who Snoop Dogg is for well over a decade. Wikipedia will not delete this permanently. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It isn't "some dude's bootleg", it's the soundtrack of a DVD presented by Snoop Dogg and some dude. Kappa 23:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pilatus You're kinda arrogant, disrespectful and dulling everything into black and white. Snoop knows Daddy V very well, agrees to get involved in Daddy V's mixtapes (Not just a guy who wants to make money using Snoop's name)and they have recorded track together (like OGTV main theme). They can be seen working together in a studio in the Welcome to tha chuuch DVD promo sample video that can be downloaded legally for everyone on westcoast2k. Please do as much research as I did before calling him "some guy". I haven't seen OGTV, but I bet it would be like a brainwash to you. And by the way as I wrote in OGT2 talk page, I have read on MTV that Daddy V is in talks with them about launching his own show called "OGTV". But it doesn't worth looking it up, because you delete everything about "that guy". Okay, he's not a superstar (but you aren't neither, so please...) Lajbi 23:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Ambi and Pilatus It wasn't Tony, It was me who debated throughout the whole page. If you want something address it to me. Lajbi 23:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per User:FuriousFreddy and User:TUF-KAT. Jkelly 23:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination. A general article on Mixtapes is encyclopedic. This should certainly be a section of the Snoop Dogg article and perhaps a single branching article for this artist. Durova 00:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't argue against a "Welcome to that Chuuch mixtape series" paragraph in the Snoop Dogg article, if notability other than general existence can be established. I would, however, argue against said article including each and every tracklisting and direct commercial links to where to buy the tapes. As for the other mixtapes, they should be done away with, before we have a Nas or Jay-Z or (God help us all if it happens) 2Pac fan come along and do the same for their hero. --FuriousFreddy 00:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another surprising fact about me:I'm 25, and I don't believe in heros any more (Oh sorry my grandfather is a hero), and the word "fan" was used in my user page as a self-irony (as you probably didn't read). Before you start to object what I said I know you were just talking about "some people". But you should be aware that mixtapes sales are in upsweep tendency, many DJ-s started with them and become famous and still releasing mostly mixtapes. There will be a point, where you can't avoid them any more some time in the near future. Lajbi 00:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, that point isn't now: they're still illegal, they're still ususally unnoteworthy, and, unless discussing "artist beef" and such, they're not really much of a point to discuss them in an encyclopedia. And, no, I didn't read your user page. --FuriousFreddy 00:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - From now on you can change anything you want I don't care. No hard feelings! Lajbi 00:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone explain why the question of legality has been raised? I notice, and now that I see it I'm quite, utterly, shocked by this, that the Bob Dylan article barely admits the existence of the many bootleg recordings that were made of Dylan's work in the early seventies--items which fed the Dylan cult and led to a peculiar and distinctive form of Dylan fandom. This is a very, very palpable omission from that article. But with these articles that we're discusing now, we're not even talking about illegal material, but material that has been released with the sanction of the artist, Snoop Dogg, who has gone out of his way to promote his own local brand of rap. Why on Wikipedia should we ever consider statements such as "this is not an official and actual album" when clearly there is material in the form of an album? Are we to say "there was no asesmbly on that day" because the legal authority in Peking on a certain day denies the existence of a popular protest?" --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- {{sofixit}}. You made an excellent point. Bob Dylan bootlegs are part of Dylan fandom and some are well known. Now the material under discussion here is a stack of mixes amongst hundreds of others. As I said above, if any of the mixes here was important stuff the article would say so and it would be kept. The question if the music here was issued with The Dogg's blessing or not is rather irrelevant. Pilatus 15:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. No notability other than existence (and commerical links) are established. Bootlegs, mixtapes, and the like don't need articles (or even mentioning) unless they are notable factors in something like a hip-hop rivalry or such. Do you really understand just how many Snoop Dogg mixtapes exist, how many new ones are created and distributed within a year's time, and just how many aren't even listed here? Do you understand how many mixtapes exist for any given popular rapper? Do you understand just how interchangable and individually indistinct each mixtape's tracklistings, etc. are? This is where the line needs to be drawn between "encyclopedia" and "indiscriminate repository of data". I didn't join this project to write articles about CD-R's pressed up in some guy's basement. If bootlegged songs are ever released to the public in special packages (The Lost Tapes, The Bootleg Series Volumes 1-3 (Rare & Unreleased) 1961-1991), mention them there. It's also not that big a deal to have an article on Snoop Dogg mixtapes and bootlegs, minus the individual tracklistings and plus notability, significance, and historical context (if they exist). But that bundle of warez up there almost made me quit the project because of just the sheer size of the problem, and the lack of response when I asked for help with doing cleanup. --FuriousFreddy 16:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FuriousFreddy. And Tony Sidaway's hyperlegal parsing and po-faced proclamation of innocence regarding his unilateral overriding of process ought to be condemned. --Calton | Talk 01:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow me to join in condemning it a second time. Mr. Sidaway's pattern of abusive behavior, and contempt for the well-reasoned beliefs of others, is growing too pronounced to be permitted long to continue. Xoloz 17:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per FuriousFreddy. android 79 03:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per FuriousFreddy. -- Kjkolb 07:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect those that relate to something notable, delete the rest. Zocky 14:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete all they're mixtapes, not official releases. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above; mix tapes don't deserve their own articles, nor do they deserve a merge. Ral315 (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per above. --King of All the Franks 18:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Question. It is very possible that I have not found all of them, and that mixtape articles may exist in other places as well. Can we make mixtape articles (excepting any that are highly notable, and have verifiable scholarly referenced proof that they are ) speediable (speedy delete or speedy redirect, doesn't matter, though I'd prefer a delete to prevent recreation), or should I just bring them to AfD the normal way? --FuriousFreddy 18:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Far from being speediable, it's doubtful whether verifiable mixtapes involving prominent artists are deletable at all. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Remember, only User:Tony Sidaway is allowed to unilaterally invent and act on criteria for speedy deletion that don't actually exist. Nandesuka 15:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - A mixtape is just about as verifiable and as randomly existant as
*Ahem Apparently Tony Sidaway has taken it upon himself to make one large, ugly (and still poorly formatted) copy and paste merge of all the tracklistings at Snoop Dogg minor albums, bootlegs and mixtapes. Crap like this are good reasons that people that could contribute to Wikipedia don't. Tony, you know better than this (and unless I'm mistaken, I think he may have blocked me as well -- I can't post while logged in). --FuriousFreddy 17:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. --NaconKantari 17:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- FuriousFreddy, I haven't blocked you and wouldn't contemplate doing so. Indeed I made a comment on two talk pages recently requesting explanation of some of your recent edits. I agree that the new article is a mess; obviously I think the material belongs in individual articles. I find the statement "Crap like this are good reasons that people that could contribute to Wikipedia don't. Tony, you know better than this" uttery inexplicable, as inexplicable as indeed I find the original listing for deletion. It's utterly mind-boggling. This is verifiable material about a major artist. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Verify it with a real, dependable source (like the kind Wikipedia is supposed to use), and not a commercial catalogue website. Mixtapes, random compilations ,etc. exist for any number of artists. Does that mean that we write encyclopedia articles on them? C'mon, I know you know better than this. I am almost certain that that eyesore of a merged article is unneccssary (and I really should add it to this list). Snoop's mixtapes are just about as verifiable as the numbero f pairs of shoes and cars he owns, etc. Wikipedia quality is already on a wane; we don't need ot be crowding it with underground CD-Rs. Also, in case you don't realize it by now, Snoop was actually only fully involved in maybe 30% of those mixtapes -- the rest are DJs using his name and image to make money for themselves on the side, so there goes your "verifiable material from an artist" excuse. --FuriousFreddy 18:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tony, you couldn't know how mixtapes work if you're trying to push for keeping these articles in any form or fashion. It would be a good thing to have an article on Snoop Dogg underground releases that, using verifiable sources, lists (no tracklistings) the mixtapes he himself was actually fully and directly involved in making/approving (if any) and/or covering any important underground songs contained on any of them (in many cases, one song will pop up on dozens of mixtapes). This is a travesty. I've fought tooth and nail trying to improve Wikipedia's once woefully poor coverage of hip hop, R&B, and soul music-the least you could have done, as an administrator and an apparent long time user, was done some research and reaize just what the heck you're doing, instead of going "oh it exists; here's a link to where I can buy it at" (first mistake) and trying to bend rules and make edits/articles you know better than doing (and to what end I have no idea). (And even then, if you wanted to bend rules, why not clean up the articles before merging? Why the text dump?) My WikiBreak just might turn into a breakout if I am to look forward to coming back to globs of consolidated and poorly formatted Snoop-cruft (at least the Mariah Carey cruft was, if nothing else, decently formatted and informative (if overly so and coated with a thick sheen of POV). And after I put off my day's tasks yesterday trying to give Lajbi a tutorial on how to become a better editor, and how his edits/articles could be improved. --FuriousFreddy 18:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm, in some cases we have very little information about these unofficial releases other than the outlets through which they have been made available, and the track listings. I see absolutely no legitimate reason to remove a track listing from the information about an album. I also remain unconvinced by the arguments that the article about these unofficial items should be deleted. The "Welcome to Tha Chuuch" series, in particular, inspired an official release, and so it would arguably be best to merge the information to the article about that official album. These items are for the most part easily verifiable (and where they're not then a case can be made for deletion) and the information should not be deleted from Wikipedia without an extremely good reason. No reason, other than personal attacks and palpably false accusations against me, has been presented to support this mass listing for deletion. The only person who has attempted to make a constructive response--myself--has been vilified. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like Tony took the step he felt necessary to start an article on Snoop mixtapes. Maybe you could help add sources. In the future, please individually list each mixtape for deletion and make your case based on the merits, instead of complaining about formatting. The artists doing this work and the editors creating these articles deserve a minimum of respect not condescension. -- JJay 18:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. PJM 18:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Under no circumstances should mixtapes be mistaken for albums. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Doc ^ask? 20:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the last days' development (?) in the debate:
I'm not a kid or A guy, I'm 25 and my name is Lajbi. Preferred to be called that name.
Yes I collect Snoop CD-s I bougth some of the mixtapes in France (and saw the others too) and (oh my God, it may happen that illegally) purchased the rest. It was a hard work and took several years, and I listened all of them, and I can make a difference between what is fake and what is not. (Right now I'm not giving reasons for keeping I want to make clear I'm not just a naive fan)

Small summary of the debate:

1.It's been said that they don't exist - now the links show different
2.It's been said that they are illegal - while there's no charges brought against the DJ-s by Snoop or by the F.B.I. or the RIAA, and can be bought in several stores, this isn't proved to be true. Not to mention that the 7th chapter is distributed by Sony BMG.
3.It's been said that they are unofficial - there are several cases when official mixtape DJ-s work for artists (DJ Whoo Kid for Shady/G-Unit, DJ Exclusive for Aftermath, and most of all DJ Clue, who produced several number one hits' beats), the CD-s are released by Doggystle Records (others like the Gutta Music release are from the New No Limit). Maybe they are just called mixtape to sound more underground. And for the chuuch 1-9 series there are no DJ name indicated. Because they are Snoop Dogg releases not unknown DJ ones who try to make easy money.
4.It's been said that they are not notable. They contain mostly unique tracks by a large variety of artists, these albums are the original and first (!) appearance for those tracks and the series led to a "solo studio album" release. Not to mention that the 7th chapter is distributed by Sony BMG. They have a reason to do so.
Lajbi 21:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. the wub "?!" 23:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the above. Yes, they exist. No, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. R adiant _>|< 00:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete/comment~~: ~~Keep~~: <delete/long comment> after thinking this over more than 3 times for the last 2 days,(and changing my vote), I've finally decided that they should be deleted... (with the posibility of being brought back)... though I indicated:

keep the information and merge the useful stuff all under one article called... dunno Snoop dog... If Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven), which is an artist work, can be listed on wikipedia, than we should be able to keep these articles (in comparison to Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven) they should all be stubs) make a sub article for each album like snoop dog/album title..

I also indicated further on in my previous comment:

humm... then again, wikipedia isn't supposed to be a collection of lists is it? Nice work, but if we had an article about boot legs maybe... Preferably we would pick the best of this artist and try and comment on those songs (with research... don't just make a list of songs but add critical comments that can be found in the news about these songs... if there is none, then perhaps a delete might be warranted. But then that would require an anlysis of each one) perhaps before deletion... (if)... we should transfer the information to wikisource? --CyclePat 01:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My afformentioned comments seems to co-incide with WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information:

Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s). You may want to consider contributing FAQ lists to Wikibooks.

So, what I am saying, is that, though I have attempted to compare this with the precedence of Beethoven's 9th symphony. Beethoven's 9th appears to be full of information with adequate sourcing. These present articles, up for deletion, have may have a potential for expansion. (Probably not, but who know's maybe someone has written a novel, or some news articles on the album songs.) However, it will probably be hard to find non-original research that analyses the music in those tracks. Essentially what I am getting to, is, will these articles be expanded? I looked into precedence for this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Music and I agree with whomever wrote this page. (though it is not wikipolicy) This stipulates that:

Albums are notable, but please provide the name of the band, and more info than a mere tracklist

Furthermore:if you follow the link Wikipedia:Notability (music) provided a little further down in the text from the above quote, you will notice in the 2nd paragraph that when it comes to notability:

the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true.

Though this appears to be in the context for musicians, I believe it is as true and applicable for their respective albums or even bootleged albums. So my conclusion: Expand the articles to have news paper clipings information, etc... talk about the songs, etc... or unfortunatelly move to wikisource and delete. (Currently, I'm not convinced that they're posibility for improvement to the article in time before this delete is over so I think it will be deleted.) Again, I strongly encourage the admin. that will probably be deleting these articles and the information to move them to "wikisource" or "wikibooks". --CylePat 00:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (already voted) I really can't understand why some people are voting to keep. How could DJ Kool Kid : Snoopdaville - Da' Unreleased vol. 1 ever be expanded beyond a few sentences of filler, an infobox and tracklist? Tuf-Kat 05:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- THe feeling is mutual. Why are so many people voting to delete neutral, verifiable information? Because the items aren't "official"? That means nothing to Wikipedia, it's just somebody's name on a piece of paper and doesn't stop artists producing useful work (for instance the mixes that 50 Cent did after losing his contract with a record company,that resulted in his being signed up by Shady Records...oh but those have been listed for deletion too.) This whole nomination strikes me as a "Wikipedia is getting full up! Stop now!" panic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe people are voting to delete these entries that are undoubtedly verifiable because they feel that Wikipedia is not a good home for track listings of minor recordings. This is an encyclopedia that relates what secondary sources have said about a thing, not a repository for first-hand data. The fact that this is a large volume of data on a very specialized and ephemeral subject may also play a role in peoples' voting behaviour. It certainly did in mine. Pilatus 17:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Not encyclopedic, etc. Panic is when you delete something upteen times rather than let MfD finish, or restore it umpteen+1 times rather than let DRV finish. This nomination and debate is not "panic", but it's nice to see that casting aspersions on the mental state of anyone who disagrees with you is alive and well. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 16:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. NeoJustin 04:52, December 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete all per above. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 07:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. His basement tapes are important, just not to us.Flakeloaf 08:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to CylePat and to Everyone.

According to the Wikipedia:Notability (music) :

"Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country". This criteria is for musicians but it is simply applicable for albums too as they can be considered as a "subcategory" of a musician's article. From this point of view the Dogg Pound Mix (for example) should be kept because as a Street Dance Records release (that means European distribution) it charted the Switzerland Top 100 Album at the place 81 in 2005 (that would mean a larger amount of record sales) [37]. It can happen that it is only an endorsement of Snoop, but it doesn't falsify the fact that it contains Snoop Dogg recorded tracks It is released with Snoop's agreement and is popular (=so notable).Lajbi 14:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC applies to performers, not recordings of any kind. I very much doubt there'd be consensus to apply all those guidelines to recordings. Tuf-Kat 22:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- comment:I think I have to agree with TUF-KAT on this. We should not jump out of context with my use of the quote from WP:MUSIC. The section I quoted talks about notability and appears to be more of an introduction to the main subject of "musicians." The rest of the article should not be brought out of context to accomodate "recording-artists." Now, if these recordings where all done by pure hasard by the same DJ, it may be convenient to have a small bio on this "recording engeneer," and include all these albums as a list of "see also." Again, they would have to have a significance to the "artist" that created them. As for the #81 on the Switzerland list... perhaps that information should be added in the appropriate album or song section and would hence add credible information to give that one article enough substance to avoid deletion. Finally, I think the problem here is that we are treating all these articles as one. I read through one and it appears to be fair, and stipulates more information than just a list of songs on an album. However some others, like this one, are simply a list of songs on the album. I think what we want to do, with the current information and knowlege we have, it to valurize the artist. To do that we need to add more information than just a list of songs on an album. There is no reason we can't do like my above example, of Beethoven's 9th, but we must have some information on the subject. Currently the articles appear to be anemic on this and I don't think there is any room for much improvement at least for a little while. (as I stipulated, merge the information under the artist, wikisource or wikibooks, (place them on your user page, or whatever) and when there is enough info about those album, more then a list, then perhaps incorperate into wiki. --CylePat 00:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Tuf-Kat : Then let's make one! Is it so impossible to accept that at least a few albums of this group nomination could be taken out for some reasons? In case of Dogg Pound Mix you should really agree the exception. I'm trying to reveal some proof where it is possible.Lajbi 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you'd like to try and build a consensus for this, bring it up at WP:MUSIC's talk page. If there is something specially notable about Dogg Pound Mix, it needs to be explained in the article (that's a WP:MUSIC rule as well), and if all you've got is a #81 hit in Switzerland, well... that makes Snoop Dogg notable, sure, but not this article. Tuf-Kat 00:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, this is not a place for mixtapes --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep and tag for merging. howch e ng {chat} 20:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folkies[edit]

This article has been tagged with several tags (copyedit, verify, etc.) for about a week now. The content of the article is also rather dubious.

Merge with Folk music. Endomion 14:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with Endomion. I should've probably put a merge instead of VfD tag, but regardless, this article doesn't stand on its own. 68.143.166.174 16:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Folkies" is to "folk music" as "hippies" are to "Jefferson Airplane", "Janis Joplin", etc.
Keep per above. One week is way too short for a nom. -- JJay 21:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Endomion Compu ter Joe 21:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge no need to delete as someone may actually like to know what the term "folkie" refers to...but it cant hold its own as an individual article. if there were to be an article for every stereotype or nickname for a group, wikipedia would be ridiculous. Jbenkato05 09:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enfra networks[edit]

This seems to be a case of self-promotion, in which the self is a business venture. I don't consider it appropriate for Wikipedia.

Delete, per nom.--Srleffler 16:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per nom Compu ter Joe 21:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising Dbchip 05:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediatlas[edit]

This seems to be an abandoned title for an m:wikiatlas idea that's kicking around on meta. Nothing to share with the outside world at the moment. Kappa 14:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly Speedy.--Srleffler 16:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not speedy Compu ter Joe 21:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delisted. JYolkowski // talk 15:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahamic religions[edit]

The main article sits under Abrahamic Religion And Abrahamic Religions forwards to it. They must be swaped. It must proceed as follows:

Abrahamic Religions - > Abrahamic Religions (temp)
Abrahamic Religions - > Deleted to make room for Abrahamic Religion
Abrahamic Religion  - > Moved to Abrahamic Religions
Abrahamic Religions (temp) -> Moved to Abrahamic Religion, forwards to Abrahamic Religions

Achilles 14:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this to WP:RM. Thanks. JYolkowski // talk 15:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oster[edit]

Silly US slang phrase (not like our manly Aussie ones at all). WP:NOT a dictionary, and especially not a dictionary of obscure slang that may or may not exist. Wiktionary don't have an entry for this term, and I suspect they don't want one. The article is effectively an orphan: all links refer to an American manufacturer of the same name. Google points to either the manufacturer, or the surname, but not (as far as I could tell, and it is kinda late on Christmas Eve, fer cryin' out loud) of the slang term. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologisms are not acceptable for Wikipedia, and WP is not a dictionary.--Srleffler 16:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. «LordViD» 16:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Somebody just made this one up, which is pretty whack. Endomion 16:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - FrancisTyers 23:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fuddle said pretty much everything that needs to be said. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 11:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and I'll write a short stub on the kitchen equipment manufacturer. My dad got an Oster milkshake machine for Christmas :o) FCYTravis 11:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NeoJustin 04:49, December 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. howch e ng {chat} 21:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Hao De[edit]

I tried to speedy this twice, and two users unilaterally removed the tag. It's a vanity bio, principally edited by the person himself. This should be speedied. -- Jbamb 15:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "two users unilaterally remov[ing] the tag". Two administrators visited the article with the intention of deleting it, and discovered that it didn't meet the speedy guidelines. I am not very impressed by this edit summary, by the way; please familiarise yourself more with our policies before you attempt to give lessons on their contents. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanity unless references are added before end of AfD. JYolkowski // talk 15:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Oh, there are references already. Missed that before. Keep. JYolkowski // talk 03:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity page.--Srleffler 16:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless a cite is given of the "Taiwan survey" which identifies 100,000 followers of this guy. Endomion 16:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and cleanup. This is a recognized religion in Taiwan as shown by the following link from the Taiwan yearbook [38]. The 100,000 figure checks out and is based on government statistics. In any case, even if untrue, it was never a speedy. Suggest the nom take some time to learn correct use of speedy templates. -- JJay 21:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per JJay Jcuk 02:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consider move to Maitreya Great Tao, apparently the name of the religion. Article says that "Wang passed away in Chiang Mai, Thailand in 1999," so it seems unlikely that the Wikipedia editor is the same person, unless this religion works better than most. — Smerdis of Tlön 01:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest the many critics learn WP:FAITH and not assume that I'm a freaking moron before criticizing. Thanks. -- Jbamb 14:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mate, you might want to review some of the comments you've made on the topic of speedy deletions before complaining about others' reactions. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep WangHaoDe

This is not my autobio, Wang died in 1999. This is the founder of a contemporary religion in Taiwan and subject to Western Chinese Studies research. The religion Maitreya Greta Tao is listed in Taiwan government website: http://www.taiwan.com.au/Soccul/Religion/report01.html All of the info can be checked in a published journal, listed as reference: Clart, Philip. 2000. Opening the Wilderness for the Way of Heaven: A Chinese New Religion in the Greater Vancouver Area. Journal of Chinese Religions 28: 127-144.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros Jargon[edit]

This is a sea of non-notable neologisms, and, alliterative value as such aside, should be deleted. JDoorjam 16:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; Are these terms in common use, or are they just those of some guy and his friends? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've played a decent amount of Super Smash Bros and have even done an embarrassing amount of research into the game on how to unlock characters (the things big brothers do for seven-year-olds... but I digress). I've never come across or heard of these terms. JDoorjam 16:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, you've never heard of wavedashing? Oh well, it's a fairly obscure ability anyway. Delete. Marblespire 21:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These are all legit terms (although some of them are inane; "caping" is simply the act of using a cape attack, for instance), but they're of very narrow application (SSB fans), and Wikipedia isn't a dictionary anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete a list of neological gamecruft. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howch e ng {chat} 21:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seperation of Powers & Checks and Balances Annotations[edit]

See also Bicameralism Annotations (AfD discussion).

This appears to be original research. Delete. Move to Wikisource. JDoorjam 16:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT original research, but is a sub-document of Article One of the United States Constitution, and is official annotation of Article One, Section 1 of the United States Constitution from Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution : Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States : Senate Document No. 108-17 : 2002 Edition: Cases Decided to June 28, 2002
Look at the What Links Here page.
CORNELIUSSEON 16:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: previous entry by author of article. B.Wind 23:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "What links here" doesn't really demonstrate anything. You were the one that added the hyperlinks pointing to this article. Uncle G 02:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, some people can link additional discussion to basic articles, and other people can't? Go look at the entire family of documents that makes up the US Constitution article in Wikipedia, and you will find a veritable rabbit warren of subordinate documents. CORNELIUSSEON 17:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource if it is legal to do so, otherwise Delete as a copyvio. --FuriousFreddy 18:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If this subdocument is moved to Wikisource, then I would expect all of the other subdocuments to articles on Wikipedia be moved to Wikisource as well.
  Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
  CORNELIUSSEON 20:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: previous entry by author of article. B.Wind 23:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, they should. And go easy on the ruling lines, please. --FuriousFreddy 00:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - if the article survives the AfD, it would help to have the correct spelling in its title. B.Wind 23:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the headsup. I'll correct the spelling if it does survive. CORNELIUSSEON 00:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Wikibooks already has The Annotated Constitution of the United States. Uncle G 03:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks: Per previous posting, move to The Annotated Constitution of the United States. DLJessup (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have copied the article text to wikibooks:United States Government/The Annotated Constitution of the United States/Article One, Section 1 Annotations and cleaned it up a little. — DLJessup (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 20:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otley Museum[edit]

Non-notable museum article for a small town, reads like a ad or a brosure, Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the original author but I think this has merit, so I added (and will continue to add) more relevant content, and cleaned out the POV language. Keep. JDoorjam 17:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Otley. -- JJay 20:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
merge into Otley, where it will find a gruff Yorkshire welcome, and a nice cup of tea. MNewnham 21:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is. I've put it in 3 categories, and they would not be appropriate if it was merged. Mergists don't seem to place much value on the category system. CalJW 01:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have plenty other articles about museums that seem to set a precedent Black Country Museum Greenfield Village to name but two. Jcuk 02:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true, but some element of notability must exist. You are comparing a 26 acre 'living museum' to a room in the town hallMNewnham 18:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dsmdgold 03:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Otley. Local interest only, so should be lumped in with the local article. --Calton | Talk 01:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm generally sympathetic to the notability of museums, even small or regional ones. -Colin Kimbrell 16:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Evil Eye 17:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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} 21:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wave plan of Geneva[edit]

Rather poorly written article, which I take to be a case of first impression. Are "wave plans" (radio transmission regulations, apparently) of individual Swiss cities notable? Xoloz 16:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and mark for cleanup. It's a bad translation of de:Genfer Wellenplan. Europe 1, a badly-translated article on a French radio station, mentions it. It appears to be an international agreement to avoid interference between radio stations on the same wavelength. I believe [39] is the same thing - it's called the "Regional Agreement concerning the Use by the Broadcasting Service of Frequencies in the Medium Frequency Bands in Regions 1 and 3 in the Low Frequency Bands in Region 1" there. Hopefully someone who knows more about European and Asian radio can help. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha - this appears to be the agreement. I'm not sure if there's a better name than Regional Agreement Concerning the Use by the Broadcasting Service of Frequencies in the Medium Frequency Bands in Regions 1 and 3 and in the Low Frequency Bands in Region 1. [40] appears to confirm its "notability":
  I011. Which “Regional” plans, established under the auspices of the ITU, are still relevant to the terrestrial services?
  - Frequency assignment plans for LF and MF broadcasting annexed to the Regional Agreement on LF/MF Broadcasting (Regions 1 and 3), Geneva, 1975 (GE75);
- It also seems to be referred to as Frequency assignment plan GE75 and Regional agreement GE75. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move into single article (preferably giving more info on the term itself). Getting "Wave plan of every-city-on-planet" here looks scaring. Pavel Vozenilek 08:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You apparently didn't read my comments above - this is an international agreement, not a plan for a single city. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 17:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Pilatus 21:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Lancaster High School. howch e ng {chat} 21:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster MasterMinds[edit]

Seems like a fan page to me... seems like a nn high school. Dare to prove me wrong ;-) Kareeser|^Talk! 16:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNon Notable with a capital N.Obina 20:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge important parts with Lancaster High School. -- JJay 20:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per JJay. Shawnc 07:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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} 21:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blackwood's Magazine, 1818[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was movd ws 7/05. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under A3. The page was originally a copy of an article titled Review of John Keats from Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine. As such the page title was incorrect. The article has since been moved to Wikisource. While it would be nice to have an Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine article in Wikipedia; this isn't an article about it. After the move, there is nothing left so it qualifies for speedy deletion as a blank article. -- JLaTondre 00:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. I moved it back to English unit where it was before this all got started. howch e ng {chat} 21:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British unit[edit]

KEEP! Imperfect it may be, but it does contain information I could not find anywhere else. Fix, but keep. R.L.V.

This article is hopelessly wrong. The only people who refer to English Units are Amercians. The system that they describe actually dates back to the Holy Roman Empire, not England or Britain. Whilst it might be salavagable I doubt it. It has become to massed up by addition made by someonewho knows little or nothing about the history of the measurement in the UK. Imperial is a late and very codefied system which, were as the systems it replaced were more remshacle than ever. The term 'English Units' should be decribe as an Americanism describing in accuratley European measuring systems.--IanDavies 01:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move back to English unit (IanDavies moved it just before listing it for deletion). The history of measurement in England is distinct enough from that of Scotland, Ireland, France, ancient Rome, etc., to warrant its own article. Indefatigable 18:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Then call it the History of Measurement in England, most of the measures are based in various Viking, Saxon with some Norman.--IanDavies 20:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They have a British Thermal Unit too. Endomion 21:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move back to English unit per Indefatigable. If the article has issues then it should be marked for clean-up; not deleted as the subject is valid. -- JLaTondre 00:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possibly needs retitling to, but not so worried about that myself. Jcuk 02:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but God alone knows what the title should be. These historical units have a much wider currency that is suggested by "English" or "British" units, not least due to their spread throughout the Empire, but also if you look into the history of science you will find people like Boyle, Hooke, Newton and others using drachms and other units, and their work was circulated worldwide. Use of the FFS (Furlong/Firkin/Fortnight) system still has some currency as an affectation among traditionalists. I guess that perhaps archaic units or units (archaic) might be the best target. We should definitely keep the content. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also Imperial unit which covers 1824 and beyond. This article appears to be addressing the period before that time, but it doesn't appear clear cut (probably because the topic isn't either). -- JLaTondre 19:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is broader; "imperial" is a narrow subset in anybody's usage, and much narrower yet in the United States where it only is used in connection with the volume units introduced in 1824. Gene Nygaard 22:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much as it pains me, I think List of archaic units may be the best answer. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the first entry. This is a difficult subject, but this isn't a useful article. I don't think it contributes to material available elsewhere, in parts it is wrong, in others misleading, and the conversions are too precise. It fails to address the issue with rigour. It is insufficiently detailed to be useful to historians, and dangerous for non-historians. The list is useful but these are definitions for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. At the very least the name must be changed - it is an invention. English wouldn't be better as units were regional within England, and often imposed in e.g., Wales GBH 22:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The accuracy issues can be fixed. The problem of the correct title is a thorny one, but I've recently been reading the original papers of Robert Hooke in reproduction by Robert Gunther, and the units in those papers (including early work on gravitaiton, magnetism, microscopy, the nature of light and so on) include some of these archaic units. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That should hardly come as any surprise. You wouldn't expect Hooke to be prescient enough to use the metric system a century or so before it was invented, would you? Newton liked troy ounces for weight, but often used French length units rather than the English units. Gene Nygaard 13:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It supporters and the article haven't show anywhere that the units are in anyway English. You haven't shown the originated in England or by English people. You haven't shown that the measures were peculiar to England. The only thing that has ben demostrated is that Americans use the term English Unit, but Americans also have English Muffins, which do not occur in England. This all shows one of Wikipedia weaks points. If Hooke happily used units from everywhere why are some reffered to as ENglish?--IanDavies 14:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move back. It's a matter of origin, not of current usage. Gene Nygaard 22:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you an American?--IanDavies 14:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a useful page, which I have used for reference in the past. In its present form, the article has three main problems: 1) Everything is listed under 'historic' when some of the measures are in current use; 2) it is possibly mis-titled and should be English Units, though I could argue that British Units is more sensible for historic perspective since English units became the defacto British ones and all that's missing (if anyone knows) is earlier units used in other British areas (I have some data somewhere on units used in Mona (later, Isle of Man)); 3) there can be confusion with what those in the USA call English Units (just as they say they use the English Language yet use something slightly different than those in England) but that can simply be explained in a paragraph and a pointer to a separate article on units in the USA. --Douglas 16:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cybernoir[edit]

Like the other neologisms associated with "punk" genres this entry contains no sources and appears to be original research by the author. UltimateXiphias 23:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Scoo 11:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was hoping when I saw the name that there were a huge crossover between film noir and cyberpunk, but apparently not, it's just the usual goth/punk intersection. -Sean Curtin 22:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cybernoir will grow and expand over the next several years, current examples off the top of my head include hacker fiction, Blade Runner, basicly Noir with a technology edge. I can't believe this was deleted, this was a terrible move as this is an emerging art form and as such should be encouraged rather than destroyed - Baboeska.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 05:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberprep[edit]

DELETE. Another original research entry with no real sources or citations. UltimateXiphias 23:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Look at the talk page, it lists several sources Johhny-turbo 18:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into cyberpunk as a lesser-known neologism, or redirect. Ashibaka tock 02:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Cyberpunk without the punk" is more generally known as science fiction. -Sean Curtin 22:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But 'cyberpunk' also refers to a certain bunch of technological developments. Ashibaka tock 02:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also cyberpunk takes place almost exclusivly on earth, and life is surrounded by technology, in normal sci-fi there can still be frontiers, like Tattoine. Johhny-turbo 18:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Cyberpunk is a dystopia which conforms to the "punk" view that this world is a dystopia. Cyberprep is not a dystopia and there fore is not punk Johhny-turbo 18:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. As the person who created this article, I would prefer it continued to exist since it wasn't original research. I've provided the missing reference. However, I would have no problem with seeing it merged with the Cyberpunk article if the consensus leads to that opinion. --Loremaster 00:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Google: "Results 8,490,000 for cyberpunk; Results 48,600 for Postcyberpunk; Results 1,410,000 for Steampunk; Results 539 for cyberprep." One of these things is not like the other. No serious writer, editor, critic, or academic, inside or outside the field, seriously uses the term "cyberprep."
Delete
Delete: Nobody uses this term.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Emma Goldman. howch e ng {chat} 21:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durruti is Dead, Yet Living[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was moved to wikisource. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Emma Goldman. I've added a Wikisource template for the Durruti is Dead, Yet Living text to that article and to Buenaventura Durruti. -- JLaTondre 00:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; a Redirect is a good idea here. -Colin Kimbrell 16:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rollback (now there's a result you don't see often). Hedley 02:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Carter[edit]

The content seems to be local too much. Elliot Carter is actually famous modernist composer --Amakuha 18:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete what seems to be an attack page in the history and speedy restore the original redirect to Elliott Carter. u p p l a n d 23:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. WTF? What u p p l a n d said. rodii 16:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Er.... What Uppland said. Definitely. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Uppland; this should roll back to the original Redirect.-Colin Kimbrell 16:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Falling asleep of the Mother of God[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was movd ws 7/05. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

deleteThe article was moved already. agree to remove this remnant.Obina 20:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't see a logical place to redirect this to based upon the original text. -- JLaTondre 00:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedily as currently empty. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The text which was moved to wikisource is also present here. It's a description of ritual within the Eastern Orthodox Church, so if you wanted a redirect, I'd suggest either Theotokos or Liturgical year, both of which contain some information on the subject. -Colin Kimbrell 16:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Forty-seven Ronin. howch e ng {chat} 21:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Statement of the 47 Ronin[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Algernon Bertram Freeman-Mitford, 1st Baron Redesdale as the translater. I've added a wikisource link for the text there and at Bushido. -- JLaTondre 00:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Forty-seven Ronin per Colin Kimbrell. -- JLaTondre 16:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think a Redirect to Forty-seven Ronin might make more sense. -Colin Kimbrell 16:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That does make more sense. I must have missed that one. -- JLaTondre 16:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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} 21:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Options v. Kaplan[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was movd ws 7/05. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was a copy of a court decision that has been moved to Wikisource. Searched for participants names in Wikipedia and didn't find them so doesn't look like there's a good place to redirect to. -- JLaTondre 01:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JLaTondre. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The opinion was written by Stephen Breyer, so I'd probably Redirect to his page and add a wikisource box in his external links. -Colin Kimbrell 16:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 20:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Power Rangers places[edit]

It looks awful, and does wikipedia really need a list of places in Power Rangers? --Differentgravy 15:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — ooh, it's uuugly... Kareeser|^Talk! 16:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gaaahh! Those with weak stomachs shouldn't look! Search 4 Lancer 17:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Look" is not a criteria for deletion. -- JJay 20:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination - this is unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 23:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean up. It's obviously made by a beginner, but each entry need a description. -- Eddie
Delete, totally unsuitable for an encyclopedia. 01:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC) Andrew Levine 06:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with Andrew Levine above. --Daveb 04:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft. --Apostrophe 08:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP should not evolve into webhosting provider for fans. Pavel Vozenilek 09:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft. All of it. And especially this, since it is atrociously formatted, containsd zero supporting information, and is listcruft as well. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NeoJustin 04:46, December 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 20:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of lawsuits relating to haircuts[edit]

This seems pointless to me, but if there's anything it can be merged to I'm still open to that. Although it seems deletion-worthy I'm wanting to hear what the sense on this is first so I abstain for now.--T. Anthony 06:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.This is Uncyclopaedia material.
Delete. Unencyclopedic. --FuriousFreddy 18:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Well defined interesting list, although we need articles on the various lawsuits. -- JJay 20:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Harmless, Amusing, Hope it expands. Certainly not suitable for Uncyclopedia as it contains no bad language82.38.97.206 22:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)mikeL[reply]
Delete. Wholly unencyclopedic. This is a list of barely-newsworthy events, in a "here's some random trivia about foo!" format. Wikipedia is not a collection of random trivia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- See List of trivia lists for a small selection of our coverage. -- JJay 03:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - You might want to read WP:NOT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting reading. Thanks for the link. -- JJay 03:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- If I could find a "list of unusual law suits" at that link, or something similar, I'd actually go merge. I just put it here because I found no such list and on its own this doesn't amount to anything.--T. Anthony 06:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another unencyclopaedic list. --Daveb 04:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmaintainable, unencyclopedic listcruft. This one is interesting enough to email to Uncle John's Bathroom Reader, if anyone cares to take the trouble. KillerChihuahua^?!? 08:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft. --Apostrophe 08:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 08:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft. An arbitrary list of arbitrary events relating to an arbitrary function, with no indication of how we would ever know if it is complete. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What next? Nail clipping? Jtmichcock 01:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Liverpool Bay. howch e ng {chat} 21:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Bay Area[edit]

Failes google test. Cannot find any references anywhere other than this. Various other non existant terms seem to have crept in, like Liverpool City Area which seem as imaginary.--IanDavies 12:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently I live in this supposed "Area" but I've never heard it used like this, only for Liverpool Bay itself, usually in connection with offshore wind farms. A Google search confirms this. Rhion 21:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't live in Liverpool, but I am interested in urbanism and I have heard the term before. It isn't correct to say that it gets no google hits. There are quite a few. They don't dominate the top of the hits list because it is a combination of three common words, but it is used for example on this Merseyside Civic Society page, which features on the first page of google hits. The article is accurate. CalJW 01:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- CommentHave actually checked the link on Merseyside Civic Society page. It seems to be broken--IanDavies 13:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Liverpool Bay, which is how it's usually known. Hits for Liverpool Bay Area are actually in the most part for Liverpool Bay area (note capitalisation). Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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} 21:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Aeronautics and Space Act[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was movd ws 7/05. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Was moved, it's blank, nobody's missing anything.
Keep this is a notable and significant federal law, and I created a stub for it. No reason to delete. Paul 18:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- JJay 20:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to NASA and put a Wikisource link there to the moved text. I doubt the stub will ever be expanded beyond what is already in the history section of NASA. The NASA article has a link to "National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958" that at least needs to be changed if the stub stays. -- JLaTondre 01:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change my vote to Keep per Jtmichcock. I've also fixed the link at NASA. -- JLaTondre 03:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to allow proper categorisation. CalJW 01:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge + redirect to NASA. --Daveb 04:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain, nevertheless I "feel" the article has potential to grow as this is the law which is perhaps the first legal enactment of its kind in the world. --Bhadani 09:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please treat my vote as Keep. --Bhadani 15:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Act did more than create NASA, it also created the national aeronautics board (separate from NASA)and made provisions making space inventions non-patentable under certain circumstances. Jtmichcock 01:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind adding that to the article so it's captured for whoever expands the stub? -- JLaTondre 03:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Note that the creation of the military coordination panel led to Vandenberg AFB being into a military facility for space travel. This exists outside NASA's direct control now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtmichcock (talk • contribs)

Look great. Thanks... -- JLaTondre 15:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. howch e ng {chat} 21:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poem of Scanderbeg[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. This was a Longfellow poem that was moved to Wikisource. A Wikisource link is already on the Longfellow page. -- JLaTondre 01:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I concur; Redirect. -Colin Kimbrell 16:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion JoJan 16:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Single Scope Background Investigation[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was movd ws 9/05. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely empty, isn't it? And empty articles should be speedied. Pavel Vozenilek 09:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
added {{db|empty}} to the article. Scoo 11:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 09:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spinmaster plantpot[edit]

Looks like self-promotion to me: not well-written, not written from a NPOV, and doesn't seem very significant (come on, it has links to a MySpace!) Delete. Scottmso 04:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are 12,500 references in Google (with quotes), and while the number is not great, there are some press links. The person is a comedian, from what I can tell. I vote delete until someone can come up with the gentleman's real name, and the article is heavily rewritten, with its promotional links removed.—Stombs 04:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are 108 unique Google hits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Draeco 07:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --Thephotoman 08:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DarthVader 08:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Search 4 Lancer 16:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Renata3 06:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splatterpunk[edit]

Yet another article with NO SOURCES, delete delete delete!!!! Piecraft 17:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is merely a bad-faith revenge act by the author of a variety of niche-punk articles that went up for deletion. He is correct, however, in that if the article has no sources, then this should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.89.171.253 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NO NO NO, please as I echo my fellow editors, don't take this as a personal attack! I am merely pointing out the flaw in this article. Piecraft 21:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disingenuous nomination by an upset user. - EurekaLott 16:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'. I do recognize the genre from personal, anecdotal experience. It's a valid encyclopedic article. Dnavarro 17:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite the origin of this AfD as a possible act of vengeance, it is another instance of punkcruft. Only Cyberpunk, Steampunk and possibly Biopunk have enough notability to evade deletion. Endomion 18:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-I hate this kind of writing and don't know the history of the AfD. That said it is a recognized subgenre and I've seen it mentioned in critical reviews in genre magazines. Lawrence Person wrote an essay on "The Splatterpunks" and there are anthologies of it. Scholar Google has 24 results, that's as many as it has for Steampunk. Regular Google has over 29,000.--T. Anthony 18:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No case made for deletion. -- JJay 20:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, recognized genre term going back to the 1980s. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, thanks to T. Anthony for the cites. rodii 16:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above Ashibaka tock 02:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Michael 02:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC) here. There has been no clear case made for Deletion of this article. I say, it should be retained.[reply]

Michael 02:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 E. D. Morel. howch e ng {chat} 21:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Man's Burden[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was movd ws 7/05. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Restore to pre-vandalism state and move to Wikisource. JDoorjam 16:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any vandalism and it has already been moved to Wikisource which is why it is on AfD. -- JLaTondre 01:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On this edit someone suggested the Black Man's Burden is his genitalia; I wanted to make sure that didn't get transwiki'd. JDoorjam 05:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per the history, that occurred after the transiki so it should be okay. -- JLaTondre 16:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was a copy of Edward Morel's commentary on imperialism. I don't see an obvious place to redirect this as we don't seem to have an article on Morel. The White Man's Burden has a link to a non-Wikisource version. Unless someone has a suggestion for an imperialism or race relations related redirect, I think a stub on Morel might be the right direction. -- JLaTondre 01:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to E. D. Morel per Colin Kimbrell -- JLaTondre 17:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to E. D. Morel, the name under which Edward Morel is more commonly credited. -Colin Kimbrell 17:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Page was blank - content already moved to wikisource -Doc ^ask? 21:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Divinity School Address[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Johannite. howch e ng {chat} 21:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnostic's Creed[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was movd ws 7/05. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: as of listing, article was blanked after Transwikification. I'll be WP:BOLD enough to revert the blanking for the AfD process. B.Wind 23:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Johannite. This is the Gnostic's Creed used in the Johannite church per the article. A Wikisource link to the text should be added to Johannite. -- JLaTondre 01:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 John L. O'Sullivan. howch e ng {chat} 21:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Nation of Futurity[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was movd ws 7/05. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. to John L. O'Sullivan. This was a copy of a speech by him which has been moved to Wikisource. The O'Sullivan article already has a link to a copy of the speech at Cornell University. -- JLaTondre 01:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. - FrancisTyers 02:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Basilides. — JIP | Talk 08:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The seven sermons to the dead[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was movd ws 7/05. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Basilides. This was a text written by him which has been moved to Wikisource. The Basilides article already has an external link to the text at a The Gnosis Archieve. -- JLaTondre 02:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Basilides, and add Wikisource link there. Basilides knew how to keep his audience glued to their seats. Smerdis of Tlön 01:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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} 21:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US-PRC Joint Communique[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was movd ws 7/05. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was a diplomat communique issued by the United States and the People's Republic of China regarding the status of Taiwan. It has been moved to Wikisource. A link to the Wikisource text should probably be added to Political status of Taiwan. I would be okay with a redirect to that article, but I doubt that people will really search by this name (and there are probably more communiques from these two countries than just this one). -- JLaTondre 02:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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} 21:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turks and their minorities[edit]

This is original research. Delete.JDoorjam 16:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Maybe not the best title, but I think it's a little early to give up on this one. I do see that we have Demographics of Turkey and Human rights in Turkey, and a catagory called Ethnic groups in Turkey; I recognize the potential for conflict here, so if this is part of a larger issue I'm unaware of I hope someone will let me know. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 18:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, because of concern that this is a POV fork. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 21:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per above (if we do not cover the issue). Nom might consider leaving time for editors to work on articles. -- JJay 20:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is not original research. I am not an academician. Since I saw that there were a lot of pages (mostly with woes, one-sided opinions and political undertones) from former (or present) minorities within Turkish rule (I am Turkish, by the way), I thought it would be a good idea to create a larger pool under this heading, and to attempt a more balanced approach, as well as with a deeper historical perspective. Just trying to expand it a bit at a time. --Cretanforever 21:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Demographics of Turkey. Highly likely to be a POV fork, see [41]. - FrancisTyers 23:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all topics that this article could cover can be more concisely be described in other demographics and history related articles. Also, the article will inevitably end up being a POV essay, one way or another. Possibly not even redirect, as the current title is just ... --dcabrilo 00:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV Fork. bogdan 00:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NeoJustin 04:45, December 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. I highly encourage any of those voting "keep" to please clean this article up. howch e ng {chat} 21:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High school subcultures[edit]

Long and not poorly written in general, but contains 100% original research and a bunch of rants against different social groups. Definitely not encyclopedic. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article in question does need more attention to context and grammar, it does illustrate the myriad of cultures that exist in a typical High School. As a former student, I recognize most, if not all, groups that are described in said article. The subcultures also need to be expanded. I motion for improvement.

Keep. Has a chance to become a good article if tagged for "Higher standards of quality", NPOV, etc. Needs time to develop, and might blossom into a good article. Dnavarro 17:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Very new user [42]. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:38, Dec. 24, 2005
Delete as original research. This article will either a) stagnate or b) grow relentlessly with everybody's local term for a group of different kids. I was even tempted myself to add in some terms I'm familiar with, but don't see, but I realize that's not what an encyclopedia is for (UseNet is good for that). Given that this article was made "11 April 2004" and currently has no sources for any of the terms/statements, I see little hope for it to "blossom". Also, I don't consider the typical book/article on high school subcultures to be a realiable source. The only utility I see in this article, is the identification of all the slang dicdefs in need of AFD nomination. --Rob 18:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dnavarro's comments. Endomion 18:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; It needs citations, and it needs to be linked in with Subculture, Adolescence, and probably others. It's just too interesting for me to vote for deletion. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 18:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep for high school subcultures are something that is very real, and I say that as a high school student myself. NIRVANA2764
Delete per Rob (Thivierr) above. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:38, Dec. 24, 2005
Comment: Could people saying "keep and add sources" please cite some sources to add. Let's see what you're talking about. Consider looking for the sources *before* you vote to keep. Note, I already tried getting sources for this topic in another article, Secondary education in the United States. I couldn't find any *reliable* sources, nobody else found any (or even replied), so I just removed the comparable subsection weeks ago. Nobody has come up with anything. Why? There aren't *reliable* sources for this. --Rob 18:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not a sociologist, so maybe some of these are inapplicable, but the term does seem to be in use in academic work. Certainly some of the material in the article is uncited. Whatever can't be substantiated should be removed; But the article itself seems to describe a legitimate chunk of human knowledge. [43][44][45][46][47] Tom Harrison ^(talk) 19:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above. The subject is vital. -- JJay 20:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is vital as an insight into high school life. -- Zazou 21:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: What "insight" does this article have, that's not in the typical stereotypical TV show or movie about high school life? I think if anybody thinks this article provides insight into *real* high school life, then sadly, this article has already done harm. --Rob 21:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very late reply: Why need it necessarily provide an insight into a real high school life? You hit on the point there, "in the typical sterotypical ..."; if nothing else, this article could be adapted to list stereotyped groups in High Schools. I certainly don't believe that it's unbiased; I know my school doesn't have such clearly divided groups as the article implies, but I think the article has potential to be adapted to either role. — Zazou 12:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Tom Harrison. --Petros471 22:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Dnavarro and others. Very noteworthy and verifiable! Blackcats 22:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to High school subculture stereotypes or something of that ilk. Bahn Mi 22:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a good start on a valid topic. -- MisterHand 23:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously a valid topic. If we don't think wikipedia can cover this sort of thing, what are we doing here? CalJW 01:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Unreferenced original research (I use the term "research" lightly: it's really a list of pop HS stereotypes). --Daveb 04:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Dbchip 05:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ichabod 13:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rob and Daveb. Interesting but unencyclopedic. CalJW, what sort of thing is "this sort of thing"? (not an attack, a sincere question) rodii 16:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, open to a lot of interpretation, and even offensive (and per Rob) --Matei Tache 00:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is very interesting. --Liface 02:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a mix of movie archetypes, countercultures, and clubs. At the absolute most, this should be renamed "list of [those 3 things]." Lumping them together and adding descriptions, psychobabble, and notes about "crossover" is not only subencyclopedic, but not even research, since there's no proposed unifying hypothesis nor paradigm in which to even propose a hypothesis. --Lucent 18:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not all schools work that way. Being very stereotypical, not the sort of article that is helping to make the world better. It is also opinionated.

Keep for reasons stated above. FireSpike 02:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it necessary for WP to explore stereotypes in society, even though it is hard to do so without causing offence to some people (usually not those to whom the stereotypes refer, incidentally). I think this article, with some cleaning up, will be perfectly acceptable. WP should not be the domain of rampant political correctness. Dan 19:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --NaconKantari 02:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep No one is going to be perfectly happy with an article discussing sterotypes but its a perfectly valid topic. I'm not saying it couldnt be cleaned up to be more neuteral, but it doesnt deserve deletion --Phoenix9 00:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let's say for the sake of argument that this article is on a "perfectly valid topic" and just needs "cleaning up." If it were "cleaned up" by removing everything that wasn't sourced (WP:V), that was original research (WP:NOR) or that was POV (WP:NPOV), what would be left? "The three policies are complementary, non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editor's consensus," and this article violates all or them, repeatedly, and the arguments to keep utterly ignore that. rodii 00:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And yet most people are voting keep. How bizarre. Why do you believe this crucial topic can't be sourced? Have you tried? [48] [49]. -- JJay 01:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely believe that something could be made of this article. Here's how: (1) delete every word on the page; (2) do some actual research (thanks for the references) about high school subcultures; (3) write it up, with references. I'm not going to do that, though, and no one else is either as long as there is a long, random list of stereotypes filling that page. It could make a great basis for a website of its own, I must say, with a scope like urbandictionary or the late lamented TV Tropes wiki. But as it is, it's worthless--as opposed to "vital" or "crucial"--and I don't see it developing in a useful way. I (still) support what Rob says above, 100%. rodii 04:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely said. I am at a loss as to why people are so keen to keep this sort of junk. It is a blight on the Wikipedia and Wikipedia's attempt to be a serious encyclopaedic work. --Daveb 12:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep Renata3 05:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfowitz Doctrine[edit]

User:Walter Görlitz suggested speedy deletion, but I believe it does not fall under a CSD. Beginning AFD. EdwinHJ | Talk 17:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "A psudo-name given to the..." Given by who? Keep - Has potential Tom Harrison ^(talk) 23:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Term gets 12,000 googles and needs to be explained. Never a speedy and the user who tagged this should learn about the other templates available. -- JJay 20:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per JJay. Perhaps with a (sources?) tag for the time being.Obina 20:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definately Verifiable. -Satori ^(talk) 22:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of stuff on it out there. - FrancisTyers 23:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & expand, would benefit from see also's and such. Scoo 11:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & expand - Not sure why it was marked for deletion, but then again, I'm a newbie (and the original author). The information is definately verifiable and neutral point of view. I've been tyring to find the original document to study it more and to link it. I agree that this need "see also's" as well references but I can't see the lack of identifying who coined the term "Wolfowitz Doctrine" as reason for deleting it. If you google it you get over 12k hits. Anyway, any advice appreciated. I'm going to try to work on it more over this comming week. --Daniel Santos 06:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand EdwinHJ | Talk 08:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neuromuscular[edit]

dicdef 666666th user 18:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Endomion 18:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 18:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef. --Daveb 04:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In-crowd[edit]

Dicdef/slang. Unsourced article with no potential to inform anybody. This is just a place to put meaningless generalizations and stereotypes. Rob 18:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though I could consider an appropriatet redirect. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 18:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dbchip 05:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is my first Delete vote... ever. --Liface 02:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Mark King[edit]

Biography of a Non-Notable Person Kaaphi 18:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 18:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nn-bio --MisterHand 23:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. This one was a close call, but given the lack of verifiability, I'm deleting it, although I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up WP:DRV. To that end, I did not delete Talk:Daddy V or Image:Daddyvpic2.jpg. For the record, FuriousFreddy did not vote on my adminship. howch e ng {chat} 22:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy V[edit]

I'm afraid that I can't verify much of the assertions in this entry. "Daddy V" or "Daddy Vick" doesn't have any of his work listed on allmusic, Google doesn't have anything really pertinent on his name, the name of his company "GFL Records" clocks up 17 Google hits, nine of which are unique – altogether this looks like the band vanity that we see too often. Pilatus 18:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cleaned the article up, but didn't really see any notability (his website, which might have helped, is down). --FuriousFreddy 18:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ambi 22:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are just like some kind of triumvirate or deletion-coalition of some sort. I hope you enjoy it. You should have visited the site before it went down. I don't know how you want to upkeep articles pending on the internet, because nothing is eternal there (in other words everything is temporary). I have done some link corrections myself on other pages because their link was obsolete, but didn't tag them for deletion. Lajbi 00:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. : I had to do a lot of web browsing til finding that page. Google only came up with www.daddyv.com, that was already obsolete (only the main page remained), then I changed to Hotbot, and it found on the 50th hit the www.ogdaddyv.com flash page, which was up to date with background streaming audio and so on...But never mind that. Need help? I would really join your Delet-o-mat ltd.
- Note that both www.ogdaddyv.com and www.daddyv.com are down. How someone would dare even attempt to demand that we should have visited a down website before it went down is nothing short of ridiculous. --FuriousFreddy 16:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiably performed with Snoop Dogg on Welcome to da Chuuch Vol 2 and 4, verifiably performed on at least one Eastsidaz album. Allmusic is not our guide. We aim to be much better than that. If I can hear the guy sing on a CD produced and presented by Snoop Dogg, I should be able to read about him on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever happened to WP:MUSIC? Pilatus 00:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSIC does not dictate what gets kept and what gets deleted. Wikipedia does. To attempt to pass off an article about this rap performer who has worked with people at the top of the profession as some kind of band vanity is a travesty. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - His companies don't show up in a web search, there is no proof for the assertion that he plays in the same league as Dr Dre and King Tee - the most that can be said is that he issued a bunch of mixes of Snoop Dogg's work. How much Snoop Dogg was involved is unknown - the article doesn't say, and I was unable to find any sources. We don't know how influential he was, I guess not very much, if he was someone would have noticed his work and reviewed it somewhere. Maybe you can bring up the article to WP:V standard. If you want it kept you should. (Did I mention that I used to work with a member of the National Academy of Sciences and sometimes rode in the elevator with a Nobel Prize winner? I guess that qualifies me for an entry here.) Pilatus 01:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - And my father was a Military Attorney General and I know someone who knows someone who has once seen a Nobel Prize winner's neighbour on the other side of the street. Are we in elementary school or what? And are you talking about Daddy V with these guys? It doesn't prove your level of intelligence (oh yes, sorry, It does - lowers it) Lajbi 01:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSIC does indeed dictate what gets kept or deleted. That's what it's there for. We've already determined that being on the same CD as a notable performer doesn't qualify you for notability yourself, if no other such notability is established (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quan)--FuriousFreddy 16:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm pleased to confirm that FuriousFreddy is incorrect. WP:MUSIC absolutely does not determine what is kept and what is not kept on Wikipedia. It's merely an attempt to consolidate the consensus. Where there is disagreement (and there is clearly disagreement here) then it isn't much of a guide. Which is why we need AfD. Daddy V is on record on some CDs that are widely circulated; he isn't your local butcher, he's an artist whose work is circulated in every country of the world. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So new pages aren't welcome at Wikipedia because it may be out of some people's field of interest. I really saw much simpler pages without any reference with just a stub sticked on them. Is it a serious problem of that kind? Lajbi 01:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think the claims in the article should be verifiable with a bit of research. JYolkowski // talk 03:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The unverified bits are now on the article talk page. Maybe you have better luck than myself in tracking down information on the guy. Pilatus 16:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fairly pissed now, JY. Instead of saying "verifiable with a bit of research", why don't you actually do your share of verifying? Pilatus 21:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm saying. If the research was already done, and proved fruitless, then how can we verify it. Wikipedia doesn't need an article on each and every underground hustler in existence, and I'm ususally the first one to try to have marginally known hip-hop acts kept. --FuriousFreddy 16:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not so concerned about that (you are the one fighting on the behalf of stubby articles). You attack EVERYONE who says keep it. But that doesn't change nothing. It's one vote for Keep and that's it. You will win anyway with your friends voted you for admin. Lajbi 21:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - It would behoove you to read the rules we have hear, particulalry Wikipedia:Assume good faith. If someone has a good reason for keeping, I don't argue it. But if they don't, I do. Simple as that. And what kind of accusations...? "my friends I voted for admin?" Surely you jest. --FuriousFreddy 00:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Daveb 04:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tony Sidaway and the other excellent comments above. Snoop is one of the true geniuses of the rap genre. Like Picasso and Warhol, anyone associated with him needs to be discussed to maintain the historical record for future generations. -- JJay 00:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Last time I checked this nomination was for Daddy Vick?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilatus (talk • contribs) 02:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...anyone associated with him needs to be discussed to maintain the historical record for future generations. -- JJay 03:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Including his neighbours cat that sometimes sat in his garden. Seriously, this guy here performed three lines on a CD produced by Snoop Dogg. Pilatus 03:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Exactly- keep and expand. Include the cat if on CD. Snoop is cool. -- JJay 03:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Don "Magic" Juan deserves his own page, then Daddy V surely does. This debate is not only about Daddy V, but minor persons who will may be included in several (Snoop) projects in the future. Is it a standard requirement to collect your info for years at home until finally be let upload it to Wikipedia? Lajbi 15:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the people above for whom WP:NOT and WP:V matter more than scoring a WP:POINT. I fully expect that once this is deleted, it will recycle to WP:DRV and then we'll have a wheel war over it, but hey perhaps I'm not AGF-ing enough. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 16:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Renata3 05:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Little man tate (band)[edit]

Appears to be band-vanity. Does not assert notability. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It isn't even complete; check out that last sentence. Ah, the fun of working Christmas Eve... - Lucky 6.9 18:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. --Petros471 21:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nn-band -- MisterHand 23:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - FrancisTyers 23:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. This really reads like a term paper and TK-P has not made any attempts to clean it up (nor has she edited anything since June 28, 2005). If anyone would like to tackle cleanup with it, I'll restore it and move it to userspace. howch e ng {chat} 22:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feminine Beauty & the USA Popular Media[edit]

Original research, unencyclopedic editorial Paul 18:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. «LordViD» 18:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up. Important topic, well sourced and nom makes no case for deletion. Considering the article has been here for some time, I'm surprised the nom failed to use the talk page to raise concerns priod to this AfD. -- JJay 20:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research by putting quotes together - essay not an article. --Doc ^ask? 20:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keepper jjay.Obina 00:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ridiculous original research & unencyclopedic topic. Grue 17:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NeoJustin 04:44, December 29, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. This was created by TK-P (talk · contribs) together with his students. See this user's talk page for more details. — mark ✎ 08:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Jinian 02:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPod Maintenance[edit]

How-to manuals don't belong on wikipedia; maybe wikibooks - DavidWBrooks 18:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. Transwiki to wikibooks if they want it. -- JLaTondre 02:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename an edit for transparency of lists. mikka (t) 03:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jews by country[edit]

~~del~~ misleading title and extremely POV content: a single Jew from each country is listed. mikka (t) 19:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect a good idea. mikka (t) 03:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ and rename to List of Countries with Jews (if we don't have a similar list). The examples are not POV- they look like they were selected completely randomly- and can and probably should be removed. -- JJay 20:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You probably have in mind template:Jews by country. "completely randomly" - hardly the author rolled the dice. mikka (t) 20:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I think the list is good, but needs info like population figures, length of Jewish presence, etc- obviously the token Jew approach is not the way to go (although the Harold Pinter/Bob Dylan coupling is funny). -- JJay 21:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Population numers, etc. are in yet another table, in Jews by country. I posted the proposal to merge the two, see Talk:Jews by country#Merge proposal. mikka (t) 03:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I'm a bit confused now that I've seen the list below. Wouldn't it have been easier to just redo the present list, instead of creating a new one? Or did you only create that list based on the voting here? Because the problem is once the present list gets deleted, your new list qualifies as a re-creation and thus a speedy delete. -- JJay 02:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Hmm, I didn't notice that the Lists one was that new, but I don't think it would qualify as re-creation because it is a list of lists (and the lists it includes have been around for sometime) so it's not technically the same content. However, it would have been a lot easier if mikka had simply edited the current one and renamed vs. creating a new one and putting the old one up for AfD. -- JLaTondre 02:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess you are right. I think mikka saw the need for this list based on the voting and decided to create a new one without the names. -- JJay 03:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are right. Without names and with clear intro and with trasparent links, without unnecessary piping that confused me. mikka (t) 03:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. We have al kinds of lists, why is this one wrong? This list just points to more comprehensive lists. Sebastian Kessel^Talk 20:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Changed my mind after mikka pointed me to an article that I've never seen before. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 02:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- And you probably have in mind this one, which offers a clean and transparent navigation. mikka (t) 20:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lists of Jews by country. This duplicates what is already done much better there. -- JLaTondre 02:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to confess I introduced a confusion here, because of my misunderstanding. I created Lists of Jews by country by myself after User:JJay pointed to my misunderstanding, that the discussed article was in fact "List of Countries with Jews". What I did I wrote a clear intro describing the purpose of the list and made it transparent. And then I noticed that the discussed article does the same, only in a peculiar manner. I didn't notice that that the links to lists are piped: ([[Lsit fo ....]|list]]), and they simply slipped from my eye because of the random list of names, and I was overfixated on its POV. 03:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jinian 02:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.NPR[edit]

Non-notable podcast, though that's probably redundant. Deserves a brief mention under NPR, if anything. Delete. Catamorphism 19:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 20:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to NPR per nominator. FCYTravis 23:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nominator. Thryduulf 15:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - closed AfD had been mistakenly re-opened. -- RHaworth 06:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John_Weston[edit]

Delete ..Found to be biast. John Weston wrote it himself, thus spinning it to make it look like the Conservitives are better than the liberals Forgotten 06:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Weston[edit]

Not notable, vanity ad. Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom.Obina 20:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. If he wins a seat this page isn't even a good start because there's so much posturing there... Musser 06:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Picography[edit]

Neologism. Google returns 190 hits, over half of which are porn-site mirrors. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} 19:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 20:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dic def or neologism - either way.Obina 20:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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/REDIRECT to List of battleships of the United States Navy. — JIP | Talk 08:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States battleships[edit]

This article essentially duplicates List of battleships of the United States Navy Iceberg3k 19:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to [[List of battleships of the United States Navy]. Tom Harrison] ^(talk) 20:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, making sure that there is no useful non-duplicate content that can be merged first. --Petros471 21:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect per Petros (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 20:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slaughter of 1997[edit]

Some term made up for when General Motors began discontinuing most of their rear wheel drive models. --ApolloBoy 19:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Searching Google gives me links to slaughters of bison, pigs, chickens, and politicians, but not to rear-wheel-drive cars. Relevant content can be added to General motors. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 20:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with General Motors, then delete.--Petros471 21:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as previous votes. Musser 06:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no relevant Google hits. --Interiot 18:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Tiger Woods#Background and family. Walton^One 16:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cablinasian[edit]

Old debate here.

Essentially a neologism, this is a term that golfer Tiger Woods used to describe its heritage. It is not encyclopedic in and of itself. >Radiant< 14:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a neologism, and one that hasn't even caught on. Wikipedia is not the place for every nifty little non-word that a famous person utters. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tiger Woods#Background and family. "Cablinasian" is the key word in a notable quote from Tiger Woods; it is not a notable term in and of itself. Furthermore, the entire point of Tiger Woods' remark was to illustrate the lunacy of trying to fit each person's heritage into a tidy little box. How ironic then that there is now a Wikipedia article trying to pass this neologism off as a recognized and notable way of classifying ethnicity. Just divide them up into smaller boxes!

The section of the Tiger Woods article that I referenced covers all of the important information about this term. I think the redirect is valuable, because I can very easily envision someone encountering this term out of context in an article about Tiger Woods and trying to search for it on Wikipedia. But it definitely does not need its own article. --Jaysweet 16:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The plan that Jaysweet proposed sounds like a good soloution. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 18:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO or a redirect would work Corpx 18:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an article but wouldn't hurt to include it somewhere on Tiger's page. --UntilMoraleImproves 21:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I mentioned, the term is well-described at Tiger Woods#Background and family, which gives all of the useful information in the article plus puts the quote in context. --Jaysweet 21:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Jaysweet. At best a semi-notable protologism connected solely with Woods. --Dhartung | Talk 21:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Jaysweet. --Fabrictramp 21:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 20:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of city halls[edit]

This list, if completed, would essentially be a list of all cities and towns on the planet. I think it should be deleted because such a list would be far too long to be useful, and because the posession of a town hall or city hall it is not a distinguishing feature of a town or city. This is my first AfD listing so please let me know if you see a problem. Musser 20:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete List spam. (Nice Nomination Musser, be bold.)Obina 20:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 20:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom SailorfromNH 20:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - each city's article can link to an article about its city hall if its notable. Blackcats 21:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed. --Petros471 21:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nice list of our renowned city hall articles, just needs to be expanded -- JJay 03:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed it is ridiculous to list every city and town hall on the planet. One city even listed a whooping 6 halls.--Huaiwei 04:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Administratively Hong Kong is not one city or multiple cities. It has no definition for city as an administrative division. That section is not for a city, but an entity. — Insta ntnood 11:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Huaiwei. --Terence Ong ^Talk 07:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft. --Apostrophe 08:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 08:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No harm, and I don't think categories can provide all the information presently included on the list. — Insta ntnood 11:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Would be nice to have one list of the city halls available. If a user wants to compare/contrast City Hall's around the world then this would a good starting point. Without this list, they would have to guess every city and go to each and every page to see if there is a link to a city hall. novacatz 12:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Completely pointless. Do we have to include everything from the giant cinder block in Boston down to some trailer in a village of 60 people in Podunk, South Africa in order for it to be complete? (Especially because the distinction between city and town isn't exactly a clean one) Haikupoet 06:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as previously-speedied (4 times) non-notable article with information previously provided in George Reeves. Mo0[talk] 01:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Reeves Project[edit]

-- Search 4 Lancer 20:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertisement, asking for volunteers Search 4 Lancer 20:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper Lancer.Obina 20:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find many references to to project on Google, and this article is ad as per nom. --Petros471 21:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --MisterHand 23:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ad, not notable. Musser 06:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I speedied this as CSD A7 --Improv 02:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all pertinent information in this article is already in George Reeves. --Alf ^melmac 00:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 nothing here. -Doc ^ask? 20:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus_matias_jimenez[edit]

No real content in here tskaze 20:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 20:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was obvious keep Renata3 05:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William "Duke" Procter[edit]

NN late WWI vet with no claim of notabilty. Speedied a couple of times, restored by another admin. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was the one who restored it. He was one of Canada's last surviving WWI veterans, and his death received nationwide attention in that country. - SimonP 20:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I agree with SimonP. The remaining First World War vets have received a fair amount of attention in Canada these last few years, and Procter's death was a noted occasion in this country. I'm a little shocked that this is even under discussion. Skeezix1000 20:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has received much attention in Canada. --GrantNeufeld 20:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a perfect example of why things like this should be put on AfD and not speedied. JYolkowski // talk 23:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if this guy were American I doubt we'd even be having this discussion. -- MisterHand 23:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find that comment blatantly offensive. WP:NPA. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No personal attack intended. It's just that I see Canadian actors/politicians/etc nominated here all the time that wouldn't be considered if they had reached the same level of fame in the US. -- MisterHand 06:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

if this guy were American I doubt we'd even be having this discussion. Try again: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Gardner --Calton | Talk 04:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really have the chutzpah to even attempt to claim that someone whose own article says that he served in the military for less than 24 hours, because he was only just on the train to boot camp when the war kinda sorta ended under his nose, is remotely equivalent to the matter at hand? Wow. Talk about cojones. Bearcat 04:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keepas per MisterHand Jcuk 02:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. as per SimonP, Jeffrey O. Gustafson needs to find a new hobby, instead of deleting other people's articles. Travb 02:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The fact that this could get even close to a speedy tag is completely out of order. I agree with MisterHand and JYolkowski- noms and other speedy addicts need to wield some restraint. -- JJay 02:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though will need expansion. --Daveb 04:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, agree with Travb. Bart Versieck 12:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Big_Iron 10:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that news stated that he was the last Canadian WWI veteran who had seen front line combat. The other three never got to the front Dowew 21:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what anyone thinks of the article at hand, this was pretty clearly not a speedy candidate. This has been handled correctly, both with the restore and the subsequent AFD for clarification. That said, I'm on the keep side here, and do have to agree that if the guy were from anywhere other than Canada, this wouldn't even have been raised as an issue. However: the article must be moved to a title that doesn't have quotation marks in it. Bearcat 04:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete this mess. Hedley 02:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gunk Land[edit]

Probable hoax. Purportedly it was a children's show that aired exactly one episode, in Wisconsin, in 1984; however, as is usual for hoaxes, mysterious circumstances seem to have conspired to put obstacles in the path of anyone trying to verify that the show actually existed: the lead actor "died under mysterious circumstances in 1989", the director/producer "remains anonymous to this day", and rumoredly "tried to destroy all of the props and footage after his show was cancelled." The external links claim to list the "Gunk Land Official Site" and "Gunk Land at the Internet Movie Database", but in fact "Gunk Land" has no listing at the IMDB. Neither does its supposed lead actor, Glen Thompson. The "official site" is actually a fan site, but out of its multiple subpages, only "About", "Characters" and "Video Clips" are anything but mere "Coming Soon" stubs. The video clips don't function, so they provide no evidence for the show's existence and the "Characters" pages list all character images as "coming soon". Then there's the show itself: this was supposedly a children's show, complete with educational content -- but the lead character, the little girl "Jane", is played by an adult male actor? There's "a giant phallic looking pink furry puppet named One Eye", who "has been known to spit a viscous fluid when pet under the chin"? "Poh Pie cuts off his arms to stop his urges from touching the TV set"? Who believes that anyone would have put this on the air as a kid's program in 1984, at the height of the Reagan era? This is a very full-featured hoax, and truth be told, I find these retroactive creations of shows that never existed rather intriguing, but they're not appropriate material for Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 20:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I checked out the article before reading your full nomination, and concluded the same thing (though you went into more detail!). --Petros471 21:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although kudos to the people who took the time to make such a hoax, I guess. -- MisterHand 23:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello, I am the person who submitted the article Gunk Land, and while I am excited to think that people think I concocted this absurd story, I have to admit my own imagination is far too lackluster. I would like to petition to keep the info up as it is real. I distinctly recall seeing it sometime back in the mid 80s. Although I am not clear of the channel, and it could very well have been one of the local cable access shows. You have to keep in mind that while the story is potentially subversive - look at the much more successful Pee Wee's Playhouse. I distinctly recall much sexual innuendo between the puppets and the live characters such as Miss Yvonne. Also look at the subversive aspects of "You Can't Do That on Television" which aired during the Bush era. To say a show is a hoax because of its potent content is silly and short sighted. I can see your point about the "anonymous" director. I chalked that up to either shame or embarassment and the need for the artist to seperate him/herself from the failed project (aka Alan Smithee). Anyhow, I do hope you consider my petition to keep the article intact, and hope all of you have some Happy Holidays! Thank you for your consideration! :) -- Aidan_NY 23:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, without sources you aren't making much of a case for the article. -- MisterHand 23:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true MisterHand, I am not able to make as much a case for the article. It seems to be much harder to prove something exists especially when I am merely going by my memory here. The fan site is the only offering of confirmation that the show exists coupled with my memory I have of the media experience. I clearly remember this show, as well as the more popular Sid & Marty Kroft live action lineup of the late 70s. I also can't help but see humor and irony in the concept of an anonymous jury debating the validity of my memories and experiences. :P Anyhow, I have contacted the fansite creator but haven't heard back. I was hoping to contribute my memories of the show. I guess I'll keep looking. I'll see what I can find on IMDB. That seems to be another reputable source that exudates fact - thanks for the lead Francis Tyers!-- Aidan_NY 23:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting that you added a (non-working) link claiming to be "Gunk Land at the Internet Movie Database" and now you're referring to it as a lead... -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it is a real show then you should be able to find some references somewhere. Try IMDB maybe? - FrancisTyers 23:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax per nom. Domain gunkland.com created 2005-12-17 by Skye Thorstenson, whose website according to Google (DMOZ) specializes in "Internet experiments". "Screenshots" on "official website" look like photoshop jobs, not something from 1984. In fact, the JPEGs have EXIF Software tag of "Adobe Photoshop CS2 Macintosh". --Quarl 01:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: article creator is User:Aidan_ny (not User:Aidan_NY). If this AFD results in delete, also delete Gunkland and Gunk land and the ~~crap~~ references added to Gunge. --Quarl 01:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And the references to "Gunk Land" added to Gunge. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- (My 2005-12-25 01:15 UTC comment was vandalized by User:69.107.132.236 (who signs comments as Aidan_NY) --Quarl 08:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- It also doesn't even deserve a mention at List of hoaxes --Quarl 08:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if only it was true :( - FrancisTyers 01:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I barely scanned the article because this is the kind of thing people spend lifetimes trying to forget. Nice work to nom -- JJay 02:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like an interesting hoax. Here are the meta tages for that page: "The Elk Hotel, Elk Hotel, theelkhotel, Film, Opera, San Francisco, Skye Thorstenson, Daniel Paul Bates, Veronica Klaus, Mara Luthane". The Elk Hotel at least has an IMDB entry, as well as a wikipedia entry. Ronabop 03:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems non-verifiable. --Daveb 04:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this is a hoax, then it should be recategorized under hoax section. If not, then the debate should shift whether or not Wikipedia should even have a hoax section that links to other pages that are hoaxes. --trickster 06:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Metacomment: the preceding comment is by User:Lostheadfactory whose only edit is this comment. Skye Thorstenson's web site is www.lostheadfactory.com. --Quarl 07:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia does not keep hoaxes. --Quarl 07:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Correction, Wikipedia actually does keep hoaxes, at Category:Hoaxes. However, there is a difference between keeping a hoax that was perpetrated in the outside world, and achieved some level of lasting notability (Atlanta Nights, Cottingley Fairies, Hitler Diaries to name just a few), and describing them accurately as hoaxes, and wasting time with non-notable hoaxes that people have tried to play on Wikipedia itself. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skye Thorstenson --Quarl 08:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and send the author to a writing class, or at least chip in to buy him a copy of Elements of Style. Flyboy Will 08:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "I thought we were supposed to be civil under the Wikipedia guidelines - nice to see such a kind community being fostered here - "and send the author to a writing class, or at least chip in to buy him a copy of Elements of Style." - and Carl or Amy - here is the list of hoaxes that Wikipedia supposedly does not contain. :) I guess the debate is up to what constitutes a hoax - by saying that a short lasting hoax is not in name a relevant hoax. Then what is it? Since I am not as wholly credentialed journalists and copy editors as the lot of you, I thought I might gleam something by asking (because I actually got really informed by Flyboys dropa stone article. I never realized there was a recorded history of alien visitation in existance. lostheadfactory 08:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "I thought I might gleam something by asking (because I actually got really informed by Flyboys dropa stone article. I never realized there was a recorded history of alien visitation in existance." There's little point in arguing with a liar like you, is there? The dropa article is not "Flyboys" [sic], as you call it; a look at its edit history doesn't show him editing it at all. Even if he had, however, we have already explained to you the rather significant difference between Wikipedia recording the details of an externally notable hoax and Wikipedia being abused to attempt the perpetration of a hoax. What do we see in the first four lines of Dropa? "Skeptics note, however, a number of problems with the case (and a lack of corroborative evidence), which offers significant doubt as to the reality of the more sensationalistic Dropa claims. Mainstream critics argue that the entire affair is a hoax." Your "Gunk Land" article, on the article, tries to pass itself off as the real thing. Don't bother replying if the only replying you can do depends on ignoring the crucial distinction between recording a notable hoax and trying to play a new hoax. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just posting a good natured hoax article on wikipedia. (redundant info to follow: A hoax is often perpetrated as a practical joke, to cause embarrassment, for personal aggrandizement or to provoke social change through awareness) my point is that i was amazed that a layman like me with no obvious practical experience in editing, research, journalism could put up information. It was a practicle joke. In regards to gunkland - yes i am a liar. i actually liked your introductory delete note and wanted to thank you for taking the time to write it. -- lostheadfactory 23:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --King of All the Franks 18:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Reviewing most of Wikipedia's general guidelines, I realize I am still inept in proper coding - but it seems to me that Quarl seems to be quite over-excited in his psuedo witch hunt (Reviewing all of his heated and persistant and inane edits to mistakes that are common with a newbie really causes me to take a step back. I am not versed in how to add "comments" to these pages and will cut and paste the previous entry and fill in my reply.) - I understand most of everyone's comments in how Gunkland is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I felt it was because of the fairly recent criticism concerning this site, and my growing interest in the nature of hoaxes. Gunkland wasn't created specifically for Wikipedia - but I was planning on using Wikipedia to help make it a fact - as it is known that the internet audience is increasingly relying on the internet for fact. Gunkland is my thesis project on the blending of media experiences (blurring horror, sexploitation and children's programming) and posing an argument about whether or not asexual characters can exude either homosexuality (like spongebob or teletubbies. The Elk Hotel is a film that exists and is currently being finished - I did this all in good humor, and was not trying to cause people anxiety attacks as I seem to have caused Quarl as represented in his crude criticism - (referring to his comment about getting rid of the "crap" on the gunge page - although the word crap is totally appropriate for Gunkland in the sense that taboo bodily fluids are figuratively exploited in the world I am creating. I realize that creating a hoax needs much more work before it is generally released into the world. This was a great test for me though! lostheadfactory 08:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for coming forward with the truth. I'm sorry I used the word "crap"; it's easy to lose cool when someone repeatedly lies, sock puppets, vandalizes, makes ad hominem attacks. See Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point#Hoaxes. If you can trick enough people outside Wikipedia then it might deserve an article describing the hoax as a hoax, or a mention at List of Hoaxes. --Quarl 23:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --NaconKantari 19:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax bordering on patent nonsense. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 19:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hedley 01:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a simple google search gives out quite a few sources of it's authenticity. All the article needs is a major cleanup. if Wonder Showzen gets an article, why shouldn't this old, similar, show? --ThrashedParanoid 05:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - didn't read the entire AfD entry, but now its pretty obvious that this article deserves deletion.--ThrashedParanoid 21:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources of authenticity? The article creator already admitted to it being a hoax. --Quarl 06:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While an interesting concept - it isn't for Wikipedia content. --Maxfield2003
- Comment Ok. I agree - delete. I see that the general consensus is that this article doesn't fit here. My bad for having fun.--Lostheadfactory69.107.136.224
  - Reply I welcome the delete of both this article and this debate. I don't think either are good examples of Wikipedia at its finest. -- Maxfield2003 16:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Metacomment. Please, let's all stay cool (advice to everyone including myself). Wikipedia has a policy of no personal attacks. I have taken the liberty of removing personal attacks -- comments whose classification as personal attack is controversial, but anyhow they are comments that the subjects of the comments wish not to see, and are unneccessary. Please both sides, stop reverting the removal of personal attacks. I hope it is obvious that the consensus is to delete this article, so we can close this discussion and avoid further fighting. --Quarl 21:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 20:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RadioActive Rock Guy[edit]

Advertising, this was originally created by a user with the same name as the publisher SailorfromNH 20:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 20:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree, delete. --Petros471 20:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Quarl 01:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. FCYTravis 23:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Random Insanity[edit]

Some gaming forum: full content, excluding links: "Random Insanity (RI) is one of the most famous and active boards on Gamefaqs. It is known for the crazy and downright insane activities of its users. Some well known users of Random Insanity are Moth366, ysqure3, Maldor, jen2, Poog009 and Kloo Shanko". The author is also posting other related forumcr*ft. u p p l a n d 21:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm well acquainted with RI. They're a small board on GameFAQs, not worthy of an article. - CorbinSimpson 21:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 20:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radu Balan[edit]

Has been progressively made blank by 4 people, and the original content isn't encyclopaedia material, more a personal resume. Delete this page. Jbattersby 21:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would appear that the original content fails the 'The professor test', however it is verifiable (quite a few google results. I'll vote delete though, because of first point. --Petros471 21:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 23:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn; reads like a resume: non-encyclopaedic. --Daveb 04:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn. Musser 06:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - NeoJustin 05:24, December 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nonsense. - Lucky 6.9 21:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moobears[edit]

Hoax article, sadly, WP:CSD does not cover this - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's going away as nonsense. I agree with Chairboy, though. The rule applies to a plausible sounding hoax, which this isn't. - Lucky 6.9 21:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Strike_glitches[edit]

Too technical for Wikipedia, not being supported or used productively, questionable overall value Cylik 22:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup, valid topic. JYolkowski // talk 23:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and expand, greatly. --MisterHand 23:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete note, Cylik seems to be a major contributor, if he says it isn't being worked on... - FrancisTyers 23:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (Cylik). Almost no progress since Cylik created the article. See history. --Quarl 01:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should note that this was talked about in the CS talk page before the page was created, and while I may have physically started the page, it wasn't my idea so my opinion shouldn't be considered more relevant solely because my name's next to the creation entry. I was expecting at least two others to contribute. That didn't happen, and since nobody else seems to have the ability to flesh the article out, I don't think it's worth keeping. Also, another person questioned the article's worth in its talk pages two months ago as well, and although at the time I disagreed, now I think there's merit to his argument. I do think it would be worth keeping if it had the content, but it just isn't happening. --Cylik 02:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - technical list of facts; non-encyclopaedic. --Daveb 04:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Not worth keeping record anymore... seems like a small discussion has formed at the bottom of the article page! Kareeser|^Talk! 08:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, technical manual. Pavel Vozenilek 08:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom; also, there is no sign of salvagable information (notable glitches) to merge into Counter-Strike. ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 20:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC) ╫[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Renata3 05:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the deleting admin, I take responsibility for this action. --D e ath phoenix 16:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anathemacious[edit]

Neologism, does not seem to be used anywhere but Wikipedia mirrors and 2 blogs [50], one of which coincidently is linked to from the article. Probably not a good Wiktionary candidate for this reason. --W.marsh 22:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - dicdef, neologism -Satori ^(talk) 22:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anathemaciously. Endomion 23:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - FrancisTyers 23:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks like the article creator has a vendetta against the blog linked from the usage example. --Quarl 00:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Red_Scarlet[edit]

This page is unnecessary, terribly written, and most of it is inaccurate nonsense. Flurpo 23:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. JYolkowski // talk 23:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. A google search on '"Red Scarlet" metroid' reveals 14,000 hits. -MisterHand 23:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of those 14,000 hits, only 73 not omitted, including forum posts. Claim to notability of this pseudonymous person is "holds the world record for getting 100% of the items in the third installment of Nintendo's Metroid". --Quarl 00:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This person holds a single record for a single video game, and hasn't even held the record very long. Far below the WP:BIO bar. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Daveb 04:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I did contribute to the article during its lifetime, I never felt that something so minor was worthy of its own Wikipedia article. I was the one who added the mention of Red Scarlet being the world record holder on the Super Metroid page, but I think it shouldn't have gone any further; merely an indication of the current world record and its holder should suffice. ~GMH talk to me 19:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Renata3 05:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Keleher[edit]

While not CSD, as the article asserts notability, it's not verifiable: a google search for "Brian Keleher" magician returns 5 unrelated hits. -Satori ^(talk) 23:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as nonsense. The claims in the first paragraph can be easily disproved. This guy isn't even a alliance-approved magician! -- MisterHand 23:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a hoax. Claims about film roles are bogus (see imdb) Endomion 23:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He cannot possibly have the cloak of levitation seeing as I currently posess it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterjuiceman (talk • contribs)

Delete or Redirect see also Joseph rosenthal. - FrancisTyers 23:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, clear hoax. JeremyA 23:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The article at the same time claims Keleher as a fictional magician and a real actor (which are bogus as per Endomion) --Quarl 00:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. - NeoJustin 05:23, December 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect Renata3 05:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph rosenthal[edit]

Not notable (note, google search brings up many Joseph Rosenthals, this one doesn't seem to be one of the more notable ones). This guy is top of the list. - FrancisTyers 23:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe redirect to Joe Rosenthal ? - FrancisTyers 23:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect per nom. - FrancisTyers 23:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, apparent hoax (the creator has created other apparent hoaxes too, like Brian Keleher). Once deleted a redirect to Joe Rosenthal seems reasonable as Joseph Rosenthal already redirects there. JeremyA 23:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joe Rosenthal. This is a nn-bio and/or a hoax. -- MisterHand 23:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joe Rosenthal --Quarl 00:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. JWSchmidt 21:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Versailles[edit]

This page is not needed, it is a disambiguation between a town and township, and the township redirects to the town SailorfromNH 23:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Change to redirect instead of Delete. SailorfromNH 22:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - FrancisTyers 00:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to North Versailles Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. This page is a result of the confusing fact that the North Versailles census-designated place is coextensive with North Versailles Township. I'll make that clear on the township article. -- Mwalcoff 00:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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