Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 8

< February 7	February 9 >

Purge server cache

February 8[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 gone. DS 14:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

اب سیاه[edit]

Been at WP:PNT for over 2 weeks, listing here since it hasn't been translated. Discussion from there:

Found loose in Category:Wikipedia articles needing translation. Don't know which language. Kusma (討論) 01:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a wild guess... It's using the arabic alphabet, so I'll guess... arabic? It could also be Farsi, I think, but it's probably arabic. There's also the english word Glaucoma in it, which doesn't have an equivalent article in arabic wiki; my hypothesis is that this is an article meant for the arabic wiki, and we should move it. СПУТНИК^{ССС Р} 02:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not Arabic - it uses a number of letters found only further east; but I'm not sure which language it is. ColinFine 00:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is Farsi and it means Glaucoma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.99.234.199 (talk • contribs)

Delete since no one even knows what language it is. - Bobet 00:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is English Wikipedia. --Ezeu 00:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I don't understand Arabic and I don't see how this is useful for an English Wikipedia. Georgia guy 00:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if nobody is going to translate it. Royboycrashfan 00:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone translates it (even then it would probably need merging with Glaucoma, if it had anything useful). -- Mithent 01:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Je ne parle pas Arabic, et je ne veux pas parler Arabic, et je ne veux pas pouvoir comprendre Arabic. (A vrai dire, c'est le wiki d'anglais - donc, pourquoi parle-je francais?) --M @th wiz 2020 01:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La langue est "arabe" en francaise, merci beaucoup. Daniel Case 04:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del a sole contribution by a colourful name user:Ardy dude . mikka (t) 01:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seeing as this in en.Wiki -- Krash (Talk) 02:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You can't translate the untranslatable. --Aaron 03:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wrong wiki --† Ðy§ep§ion † 04:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of a good reason to keep here. Hard to tell if it's Arabic or not ... there is one letter not used in Arabic, but only that one, and there are some recognizable Arabic words in there and the morphology generally follows Arabic patterns. Daniel Case 04:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll take people's word that it's Arabic, to me it looks like Gibberish. Note that this is the author's only contribution, and it's almost a month old. JIP | Talk 06:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My guess is it's Persian rather than Arabic, and I'd have said "transwiki" to fa.wikipedia, if it wasn't also a likely copyvio from here: [1]. Lukas ^(T.|@) 08:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to ask you if you can actually read Arabic script or just spotted the word "Glaucoma" in Latin script. JIP | Talk 08:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can read the script (with a bit of effort) but don't understand the language. As for finding that source page, Google is your friend. Lukas ^(T.|@) 08:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wrong site.--Jusjih 09:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything above. Essexmutant 10:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it's a likely copyvio and we can barely even tell which language it is, let alone translate it... Grandmasterka 10:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wrong place to write an article here. This is English Wikipedia not a Persian or Arabic Wikipedia. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wrong language, if no one translated it in 2 weeks it should go. Elfguy 13:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note It was speedied. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was sppeedy: copyvio dump from http://www.fenerbahcegazetesi.com/ . mikka (t) 01:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fenerbahce Gazetesi[edit]

Been at WP:PNT for over 2 weeks, listing here since it hasn't been translated. Discussion from there:

Found loose in Category:Wikipedia articles needing translation. Turkish. Kusma (討論) 02:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline advertisement. It's about a special magazine for Fenerbahce. Not notable, speedy. MonsterOfTheLake 00:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since that's what the only guy who so far has known what the page is about says. - Bobet 00:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. --Kinu 00:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 00:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --M @th wiz 2020 01:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fenerbahçe SK. As MonsterOfTheLake says, it appears to be Turkish football team house magazine - website here. Tearlach 01:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Almost unanimous concensus amongst people not the subject of this article. W.marsh 22:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Winer[edit]

Notice - - I have revised the page. This renders all of the comments irrelevant. Like beating a dead horse, you know. Leon Winer, Feb. 12, '06

Notability only marginally established through mention of "book" authorship, which turns out to be a 12-page university publication. However, my main concern is that the article is self-authored and therefore probable vanity. See Wikipedia:Vanity_page for more information. --Alan Au 00:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That article is a thinly veiled advertisment, Mr. Winer fails our notability requirements by a wide margin. Mstroeck 00:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity. Royboycrashfan 00:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity, and too many external links. —Last Avenue (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files Royboycrashfan 01:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How do you know it is "self-authored" - there is no proof? Nevertheless, it is still vanity, so delete. --M @th wiz 2020 01:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non noteable person, and also and advertisment. Section9 02:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Last Avenue & Royboycrashfan. -- Krash (Talk) 02:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 02:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep. Plainly not a vanity article; original author contributed to many related articles and did not insert references to Winer, as would be expected of vanity author. Subject is considered notable for professional activities as reported by external media [2][3] [4] , particularly for role in promoting greater employee influence on 401K plan investments (a subject of great interest to many who are familiar with such enterprises as Enron). Also presented papers/led discussions at international professional conferences [5]. Another AfD nomination without appropriate checking. Monicasdude 02:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, if you check the other edits, you should realize that they are almost universally linkspam to Lwiner's personal site. However, if you would like to rewrite the article as a non-vanity piece, feel free to do so. --Alan Au 04:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response. You're right about Winer being the principal author of the article, and I failed to catch that a few of the edits in the author's history went to the user page rather than the article. But none of the vanity aspects of the article outweigh Winer's lead role in a newsworthy event -- the 401(k) control controversy, which was treated as notable by several external sources. Bad behavior by the subject of an article on Wikipedia doesn't justify the deletion of an article on a notable subject, even though his notability may be in a very narrow field. Monicasdude 05:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Monicasdude, if this guy was of any importance, surely more than 100 websites would mention him. EdGl 03:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Section9. --Aaron 03:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Certainly appears to be self-authored, compare User:Lwiner. The history of that user page is primarily by Lwiner (talk · contribs) and 68.173.184.201 (talk · contribs), the latter being the primary editor of Leon Winer (history of article). Their contribs are fairly similar, and seem primarily to be reasonably good edits though with a propensity towards advertising-ish links. User space is appropriate for what appears in the article, which essentially duplicates the user page already. Lacrimosus (talk · contribs) has already spoken to Lwiner (talk · contribs) about the appearance of vanity; encouraging Winer to continue editing while keeping those guidelines in mind would be helpful. -- Jonel | Speak 04:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for including the user links; I neglected to put those in the original nomination, but the edit histories are indeed what I used to infer authorship. --Alan Au 04:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I figured you probably had, but Monicasdude (talk · contribs) thought the checking was inadequate so I figured I'd make the checking obvious. I've seen plenty of really poorly researched nominations, and this wasn't even close to being part of that category in my opinion. -- Jonel | Speak 05:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fathering notable children does not make one notable in and of itself. Daniel Case 04:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn vanity.Blnguyen 05:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Don't waste our time with this nonsense.--God of War 06:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all the excellent arguments above. Reyk 09:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable vanity ad. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an obvious case of vanispamcruftisement. Count the links, friends. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Maustrauser 12:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 284 google hits, this article being #2, does not seem important enough for an article. Elfguy 13:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity & external links galore. Death Eater Dan 19:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). AndyZ 01:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note related articles created by Winer (using at least two usernames, Lwiner and Lwiner9), include Strategic Creative Analysis, Strategic Creative Analysis (SCAN) and Objectives in Strategic Planning. Also Lwiner9, which I already speedied. Rd232 ^talk 12:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Continues to fail notability test. --Maxamegalon2000 04:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Note. I have revised my page. It now includes the fact that I have published 100 articles and papers that were peer-reviewed in the double-blind process. Also, about all the excitement displayed above about my linking to my website: If I have a done a lot of important original work, who am I supposed to link to, the ignorant hacks who keep quoting each other and have not had a new idea in their entire lives?? See Leon Winer. Lwiner 21:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lazuli[edit]

Hoax? In any case he is not notable. Ezeu 00:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lapis lazuli, as it seems like a legitimate search term for that. As for the current subject, even if he is real, non-notable and probably fails WP:MUSIC. --Kinu 00:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC horribly. Royboycrashfan 01:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:MUSIC - redirect would not be proper in this case. --M @th wiz 2020 01:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a ~~noteable~~ notable artist. Section9 02:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per the above. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 02:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn .Blnguyen 05:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kinu MLA 10:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable musician. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kinu. And good luck being a complete isolationist. It wont get you on Wikipedia, or anywhere else for that matter. Grandmasterka 12:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Kinu. The number of genuinely notable artists with myspace pages is, by common consent, negligible. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, people could search for the search term so it should exist, but simply redirect it to the proper article. Elfguy 13:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:MUSIC Death Eater Dan 19:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 21:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP notable FloNight 03:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Indi ^{[ talk ]} 22:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Done. Ifnord 17:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enronomics[edit]

This article contains no content that isn't already at Creative accounting, a much more thorough article. The term is also not widespread; there are under 1000 google hits including Wikipedia. The term also falsely implies that there is an economic theory behind what happened, as opposed to fraud. --Bletch 00:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Creative accounting per nom. Royboycrashfan 01:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above; it's on shaky ground with under 1000 hits, but there's no harm in a redirect. -- Mithent 01:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. --M @th wiz 2020 01:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. A few things link to it and there's no harm in redirecting. Maaaaybe throw in a reference to the word on Creative accounting, but not a full merge. Snurks ^{T C} 01:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologistic. -- Krash (Talk) 02:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Krash. All "Enronomics" may be Creative accounting, but not all Creative accounting is "Enronomics". That makes it clearly unsuitable for a redirect. --Aaron 03:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Fine. Let me put it another way, see below. --Aaron 14:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Umm... A is a subset of B makes A perfectly suitable for a redirect to B if A isn't article-worthy. That B is not also a subset of A simply means that a redirect from B to A would be clearly unsuitable. -- Jonel | Speak 04:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. We have lots of redirects that address one small part of a greater article. Daniel Case 04:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Creative accounting. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Redirects are cheap. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are indeed cheap. Elfguy 13:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Krash. Ginned-up neologism that violates WP:NPOV and thus does not belong in Creative accounting. --Aaron 14:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:26Z
Redirect to Creative accounting FloNight 03:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The Enron info should be added to Creative accounting Fosnez 12:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EasyObjects.NET[edit]

Non-notable website, spamvertisement. —Last Avenue (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one hit on Google, 1,000,000+ Alexa rank. Royboycrashfan 01:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spamvertisement? That's new to my hears. I like that term - spamvertisement! Ha! --M @th wiz 2020 01:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see 183 Google hits, but still very non-notable. User's only edits are in relation to this site. -- Mithent 01:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What search term did you use? I entered EasyObjects.NET and it only returned one result. [6] Royboycrashfan 01:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for EasyObjects.NET then asked for pages that contain the term, giving [7]. -- Mithent 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said 183, but I see only 181. ;) In addition, it only lists 43 unique results. Royboycrashfan 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I still see 183! I do get 43 unique though. -- Mithent 01:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. FreeGNUspamvertisment. Dr Debug (Talk) 01:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR mappers are dime a dozen and this article doesn't provide any valuable information beyond announcing existence of a tool. 01:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nominator. Death Eater Dan 19:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn spam. Billbrock 02:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 02:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. spam --† Ðy§ep§ion † 04:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam.Blnguyen 05:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 06:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like an ad blurb... the only thing missing? "But wait! There's more! If you call within the next 10 minutes..." -Kinu 08:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator Compu te r Jo e 08:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanispamcruftisement. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanispamcruftisment. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 13:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. Elfguy 13:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:28Z
Explanation Yes, I agree it is spamvertisement, but so are all the others on the list that have a page. I tried to trim out as much marketing text as I could, and stick to just the features. I will make any additional changes you suggest. But if you let the other guys have a page, it seems unfair to pick on mine simply because of my Alexa rank. -mgnoonan
- Comment: What "other guys"? I'll gladly nominate any other pages for deletion if they merit it, because I'm a deletionist. Also, please add ~~~~ to the end of your comments to add your username and the current time and date. Stifle 13:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Krashlandon (e) 17:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion A6, attack page; content of talk page was, "Seriously, if you knew the guy, you would not want the article deleted."). howch e ng {chat} 19:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fistel[edit]

Neologism, and I couldn't find any reasonable or relevant google hits [8] that would confirm it is what it actually says it is. Since {{PROD}} was removed, it has to come here. Delete. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, nn neologism. Royboycrashfan 01:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NEO. Why was {{prod}} removed, though? --M@thwiz2020 01:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The creator removed it. Oh and delete as the proder. Broken Segue 02:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not only per WP:NEO but also as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Mithent 01:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or at least move to wikitionary. --AySz88 ^-^ 02:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NEO. Billbrock 02:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. -- Krash (Talk) 02:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 02:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Aaron 03:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 12:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete bollocks. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inacurate, can't find in on search engines or dictionary. Elfguy 13:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:29Z
Speedy delete as an attack page. See talk page. Pilatus 18:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was del. Discounting unqualified editors, the score is del:16, keep/redir: 7 (or 5, if to discount Mmirabello and Thatcher131, who have insufficient edit history). mikka (t) 03:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Odin Brotherhood[edit]

del nonverifiable, It looks like only Mark Mirabello who wrote a book with the same title can say something about it. Since the article was created by a user:Mmirabello, I smell original research, too. mikka (t) 01:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Do not Delete. Yes, Professor Mirabello wrote the book. University of Glasgow (Ph.D.),University of Virgina (MA), University of Toledo (B.A.). Writing the book qualifies me to write an article. Please feel free to e-mail at mmirabello@shawnee.edu.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmirabello (talk • contribs)

Sure, to boost the sales of the book; it would be a good idea. Are there any independent confirmations of rich fantasy of Professor? Please read the policy wikipedia:Verifiability. mikka (t) 02:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm voting to delete unless it can cite sources Ruby 02:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. Billbrock 02:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete reads like utter FictionCruft. I mean, sources?? Who is this important to? Hilarious WP:NOR, verifiability and blatant self-promotion issues too... Writing a book qualifies you to do exactly SQUAT on WP. The existence of a notable subject qualifies anybody to write an article about it, PhD or not... 173 unique Googles, nearly all of which are commercial listings for the book rather than any verification of the subject, [9] while the comments on the book's Amazon page (sales rank: #2,970,920) [10] could not stink more strongly of Sockpuppetry. Mirabello has been very clever with his linkscattering, especially the various legit sounding google references which eventually end up here. Nice try. ++Deiz 02:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 02:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and attempted WP:VSCA. When attempts to verify end up back at GeoCities... well, that pretty much settles it. --Kinu 03:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 03:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete idem. User has page here [11] Checked content at Amazone (in so far it was available), and contains factual problems, consistent with the lack of knowledge of 15 century, utter fantasies about traditions in Nordic religeon etc. Pure disgusting how a religeon is mutilated. I have removed all links to this page from other wikipedia articles. Online page of the brotherhood is only for the promotion of the book. KimvdLinde 04:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Odinism. It appears to be about a book, and that book may be quoted there if notable. Note that if you publish a book first and then quote your book on WP, it does not qualify as "OR" (after all you may edit WP anonymously and would not have to reveal that you are the book's author). Treat like any other piece of fringe literature. dab (ᛏ) 07:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per dab -- Simon Cursitor 09:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, original research and vanitycruft. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 12:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does exist [12] but it seems a completely non notable, online community. Elfguy 13:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Germanic Neopaganism or Mark Mirabello. I think the content of the book is interesting as a cultural phenomenon within the milieu of Germanic Neopaganism rather than as documentation of a historically accurate secret society. HroptR 16:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:29Z
Delete falls below the threshhold of notability and smacks of vanity.--Isotope23 17:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Isotope23. Death Eater Dan 19:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - The article seems, by virtue of its content, to not be subject to WP:V or WP:CITE. If this holds true, then it has no place here. However, a few caveats are worth mentioning:

- We have the Oera Linda book with its own article at Wikipedia. The Odin Brotherhood and the Oera Linda book appear to be equal to each other in terms of factual content (id est, they are both fiction), according to the nature of their sources. I would not mind having The Odin Brotherhood here with its own article if WP:V or WP:CITE can be satisfied. I doubt that will happen, as Dr. Mirabello's book seems about as verifiable as Guido Karl Anton List's personal gnosis concerning the Armanen runes.

- Additionally, I must respectfully disagree with HroptR, Dieter, and any other folk who wish to redirect the article in question to any Germanic neopaganism article here at Wikipedia, as that would lend a false credibility to Dr. Mirabello's book which it does not deserve. I base that judgement on having read the book itself, my education in relevant subjects, and finally on the rules governing Wikipedia articles. Odinism is, to my POV, a valid variant of Germanic neopaganism in our time, and to grant The Odin Brotherhood the status of being a valid academic reference, or even a commonly used spiritual source text for that religion would be quite inaccurate.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 00:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note about this AfD[edit]

Tracking all mentions of an entry or link across wikipedia and deleting them before the AfD is even completed is a form of harassment. I also perceive users placing 7 warning templates on the entry as a form of malicious harassment. There seems to be a total lack of assuming good faith and civility by many here, as well as the most severe violations of attacking new comers which I have ever seen. The editor has less than 25 edits, and has only been a member of wikipedia for three days. He doesn't even know how to sign his name with four tildes (look at the top of this page). This entry was not even 10 minutes old, before it was submitted for AfD. I think we need to wait and see if he is going to add further content, verifiable sources and clean up the entry - or whether it should be merged into another article. Contrary to what has been stated here, I have heard about this alleged secret society elsewhere in print and even on a radio show. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Dab and myself are in fact the only editors who have voted in this AfD who have edited or contributed content at wikipedia about Germanic Neopaganism, Ásatrú, Odinism, Odinic Rite, Polytheistic Reconstructionsim, etc. and I feel that those who have not contributed to these subjects do not know if it is relevant or not because they don't know the subject matter whatsoever. Relax everyone. HroptR 16:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do have knowledge about the topic. That I do not edit on these topics does not matter. --KimvdLinde 17:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point; just because someone doesn't have anything to add to an article is no basis to automatically assume they have no knowledge of the subject matter.--Isotope23 17:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most earlier contributions went through 146.85.84.60 contributions. Just for completness sake. --KimvdLinde 17:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So he has been editing since the 3rd of February? How does this justify harassment? Regardless, of your expertise on the subject matter, NPOV dictates even more discretion if you find it personally disagreeable. HroptR 17:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but Wikipedia is not a list of links to all possible (fantasy) books written on a certain topic. --KimvdLinde 17:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some well made points HroptR and I apologise to Mr Mirabello for biting... Still, as the creator of the page is clearly monitoring the debate one might reasonably expect any changes to happen quickly. We all appreciate very few among us have knowledge of this, perhaps because it is an inherently niche topic. We all want to promote our own interests (and commercial publications) but don't lose sight of whether this is really a topic for WP... It's a promo for a book, and would need to be completely rewritten to become some kind of objective article about the society, a society which you state is "alleged" to exist, and therefore doesn't sound extremely verifiable. ++Deiz 18:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up[edit]

I have gone through and done a quick wikification of the article, so it is a book entry and not an advertisement. I ask editors to consider whether this should be redirected to Mark Mirabello (which also needs clean up) or elsewhere, and whether it is NPOV at this point. HroptR 19:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The cleanup is better, but I still have a few reservations about this article. The excerpt section is overly long, and in my opinion unecessary. See The Jesus Mysteries for a better example of how this article could be done. Also, the controversy section is POV, basically attempting to defend the lack of sources by casting aspersions on the sourcing of unrelated works. Most importantly, I'm still not convinced this book has reached the threshold of notability. There are no set standards for books that I'm aware of like WP:MUSIC, so it's a judgement call.--Isotope23 19:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to nominate the Mark Mirabello page for deletion this evening as it is ~~an autobiography of~~ a non-notable person. The book remains non-notable, it claims to be non-fictional, but without any verification and consequently not a usefull contribution to wikipedia. There is no indication that the website is from someone else than Mark Mirabello, or that any of the advertisments, or radio interviews were with anybody else than Mark Mirabello himself (there is documentation of a radio interview with him). Neither have I gotten any verification from within the Asatru or Odinist community that this group exists (some responses still pending). If he, or others provide verification for the non-fictional aspect of the book (or I get word from others within the community), I would reconsider whether there is potential of a seperate article on the brotherhood themselves. If not, it appear to be fictional work sold as non-fiction. Until then, I remain for deletion of the page as nom. --KimvdLinde 20:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Edited error on my site --KimvdLinde 14:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are advocating purging all reference to him on wikipedia? You stated: Neither have I gotten any verification from within the Asatru or Odinist community that this group exists which community would this be? I don't think the argument is whether the group exists or not, but whether mention of a book should be purged because the content is questionable. Deleting the biography just seems like sheer malice. HroptR 20:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am talking about deleting an AUTObiography Wikipedia:Auto-biography, in clear conflict with the policies of Wikipedia.~~ And to answer your question, the Asatru/Odinist community in Europe and the USA where I am part off. --KimvdLinde 20:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC) It was an error on my site. --KimvdLinde 14:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to revise that - the person who authored the Mark Mirabello entry Stege1 has commented at the talk page. To wit: Mark Mirabello did not write the entry as stated in the nomination for deletion. HroptR 01:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are talking about deleting an autobiography in clear conflict with the GUIDLINES of Wikipedia. Strongly discouraged, but NOT absolutely forbidden. And if HroptR is correct, not an autobiography in the first place. Jcuk 09:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Now: No opinion. Mandrake of Oxford is a vanity press, as such its publications are not inherently notable and likely to be inherently non-notable. Ikkyu2 21:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Monicasdude asserts Mandrake is not in fact a vanity press. I have no way to verify this, so I've changed my opinion to No opinion. I note that [Mandrake's own web page], while maintaining a pretense of editorial standards, requests that books be submitted in ready-to-print CRC format, and can require authors to pre-order a quantity of books; a reputable publishing house would never permit either of these practices. Ikkyu2 02:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a vanity article about a seriously unnotable vanity book, written about a seriously sketchy, unencyclopedic topic. Even after efforts by someone acquainted with the subject to shed some light on things, the article has proved impossible to wikify. Vote remains: strong delete. I would also support nomination of the AutobioVanityCruft article Mark Mirabello. Said page (particularly the external links to a self-made profile page at "Shawnee State University" (which in turn is the least wikified article I have yet seen on a university) and a so called "radio" interview (click to see the term "radio" stretched to breaking point)) is as VanityCruftlicious as they come. ++Deiz 23:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read what you just responded to? :) Ikkyu2 23:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ik, if you mean was I responding you then I wasn't (we seem to be in agreement here) and have reformatted.. otherwise...? ++Deiz 00:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Now that it's cleaned up it's clearly nn. Comparing one's lack of sourcing to biblical prophets just proves the point: when the book sells as many copies as theirs has, re-submit the article. Carlossuarez46 23:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Amazon.com sales rank of 546,286, the publisher seems like a vanity press. [13]. Peyna 00:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Minimally notable book by minimally notable author. Current publisher doesn't seem to a be a vanity press, doesn't show up on any author alert lists I've seen. Book is actually in-stock at Amazon (as are several others from the publisher) which isn't the norm for vanity presses. [14] I have little doubt that the book itself is of little intrinsic merit, but the same applies to Pokemon, Celine Dion music, and the collected works of Jackie Collins. Monicasdude 00:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Wikipedia adopted a Limbo namespace, this article could be moved to Limbo during the discussion on deletion. Moving an article to Limbo would remove it from the article namespace and prevent search engines from delivering suspicious content while the community decides whether to keep or delete it. For more information, see the discussion on establishing the Limbo namespace. Fg2 01:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a real (if obscure and un-authoritative) book from a legit publisher. The article has come a long way from its beginnings, and with further improvement (such as a reduction of the "Manifesto" section and NPOV work on the "Criticism" section) it'll be worth having on the server. -Colin Kimbrell 17:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Informative book and article. Good reference source. butterflyblues 20:20, 9 February 2006

Keep. Interesting work. I think the author is well-researched and knows what he is talking about. dogbytes12 21:19 9 February 2006

Keep. As a practicing Odinist, I use the book. The original article was flawed, but updates improved same. Good work HroptR! warhammer 21:25 9 February 2006

Nice try User: butterflyblues or should I say , User: dogbytes12 or should I say User: warhammer, but faking votes does not help you out, see for the trace that you just left here: [15] See also history for attempt to hide the fake voting by removing my and the fake entries. --KimvdLinde 04:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desperate newbie / sock-meatpuppet scramble eh?? Nothing lends more credibility to a page than that... Been making some new friends HroptR?? ++Deiz 04:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it was HroptR, but some students from the university that like the professor very much (nothingb wrong with that). One of them made the page about him. When one of them got hold of the deletion request, things started. HroptR is sincere as far as I can tell, strong in his arguments, but not deceptive or anything bad. --KimvdLinde 04:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and please nobody think I'm accusing HroptR of anything, just remarking that the new postings mention him. ++Deiz 12:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In this bizare play that is curently at stage, I just wanted to clarify things. --KimvdLinde 15:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Sockpuppetry and stacking votes is not my modus operandi. I know plenty of established wikipedia users I could encourage to vote or comment, but I have not. Mob rule is still mob rule. For me personally, not citing sources and verifiable research has undone this book entry, not group consensus or lack of notability. However, I think there is a fine line between fanatical deletionism and revisionism. People are being way too emotional about this on both sides of the issue. HroptR 16:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to OCLC FirstSearch-WorldCat, the FBI sees fit to keep this book in their academic library. The book has been published now by several publishers, Mandrake of Oxford is the most recent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.85.124.121 (talk • contribs)

That's interesting, a link to sources which verify that claim would be useful. ++Deiz 02:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It can be verified at an obscure and little-used site, www.amazon.com. Here's a link to the previous, fourth, edition [16]. Monicasdude 02:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FBI library. I have found that as well. But that is not surprising as some Asatruer/Odinists are neonazi in line with the misuse of our symbols during Nazi Germany, so I can imagine that the FBI would indeed get everything available. But I think we are digging very deep at the moment, and yes, we will find some stuff..... --KimvdLinde 02:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we'll discover that the previous edition of the book was published by Holmes Publishing (who seem to have no website) and has a sales rank of #1,509,755. Far from being "little-used" and "obscure", Amazon is actually quite popular and well-known. Probably because it does more than sell books about the occult and Norse secret societies... ++Deiz 08:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

- - I am the student who created the article on Mark Mirabello. I did not create the article for The Odin Brotherhood and I have not encouraged any students or anyone else to create excess log ins to influence a vote. I find that accusation by KimvdLinde to be a bit upsetting. While I have only been a member at Wikipedia for a short while, I have used it for years and have never tried to add anything false or engage in any unethical practice. Stege1

I am not accusing you of adding the fake stuff. I am only saying that as soon as the word came out at the university, it started to rain anonymuous and new people at this page. I will change the wording to take away the confusion. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --KimvdLinde 15:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite There are only about 10 University libraries worldwide that own this book. That's 10 more than any book I ever wrote, but its not a ringing endorsement either. Would it be acceptable to rewrite the article so it wasn't about the book but about the "Odin Brotherhood" as a possibly imaginery movement, listing the book as the source. That way it's not just a book advert any more. If somebody does hear about the Odin Brotherhood somewhere and tries to investigate at WP they would find an entry explaining where the term originated and why it is highly suspect. WP must have an article on Bigfoot, which probably doesn't exist either, right?Thatcher131 16:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can point me to either A) a critical (not necessarily negative!) appraisal of the historical claims made in this book by someone with academic qualifications, or B) a critical (not necessarily negative!) appraisal of the book by a member of the polytheistic reconstructionist community and an indication that this is considered an essential text by some segment of the community. Until then, there just isn't enough information for us to write an NPOV article on this book. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 19:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey AdelaMae. I don't think any recons would subscribe to the Odin Brotherhood just because of the occult elements and secret society bit. For what it's worth, it is on the reading list of several neo-heathen Asatru /Odinist groups like the AFA with a blurb: "a fascinating, poetic, visionary, and many suspect, metaphorical, look at Odinic religion" and is mentioned on several Asatru webistes and forums briefly like this one. The radio show from Odin Lives linked in the article goes into the works impact as well as the veracity of the order. I just think it is a poor precedent to delete fringe authors because their works or beliefs aren't seen as valuable to the mainstream. Many subcultures are not highly represented on the internet. HroptR 20:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a secret society. Perhaps it will be hard to find a critical historical study of it. In answer to AdelaMae's criteria "B" the Asatru Alliance considers this work to be important enought to include in in their suggested reading list of contemporary works. Click this to see.[[17]]stege1

- Daughters of Frya also reportedly respect the teachings of the Oera Linda Book. ::shrug:: And the point is? Recommended reading lists from the Asatru Alliance are not particularly relevant to whether the article on The Odin Brotherhood is worth retaining here at Wikipedia. If the AA decides to laud Dr. Mirabello's work as sacred scripture/divinely inspired/whatever (which I doubt they would ever decide to do), then it would be a different matter entirely. A very small religious organisation recommending a book as being 'interesting' and 'possibly useful' does not give a book inherent credibility or verifiability. The book, and its respective article here, must stand on its own merit and on the rules found at WP:V and WP:CITE. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 04:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to new editors:[edit]

There appears to be many editors who have edited anonymously or have created a username solely to vote on this issue. While we appreciate your concern and passion about this issue, unfortunately the input of new users does not have much weight in these matters, because you are not yet a contributing member of Wikipedia.

Also, it is expressly against Wikipedia policy to create more than one user account to affect the outcomes of deletion discussion or AfD. This is called sock puppetry. This practice is highly frowned upon by your fellow Wikipedia editors and is expressly discouraged by Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines.

Furthermore, every computer on the internet has a unique IP address, which in most instances, can identify the specific computer and the physical location used to make edits. If numerous editors in a vote all have the same IP address, this is evidence of sock puppetry, and your votes will not be counted. You could also be blocked from editing in the future. You are not completely anonymous!

From Wikipedia:Sock puppetry:

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

I encourage you to stick around Wikipedia and contribute to the project, regardless of the outcome of this vote. - HroptR 22:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Wild debate. Note that the book has a sales rank of 9,395 at Buy.com [[18]] Maybe its rank is lower at amazon because smart people look for deals--it is cheaper at buy.com! --146.85.84.60 01:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different retailers calculate their ranks based on completely different formulae. Amazon.com is an often used standard, so when an Amazon.com sales rank is quoted, it is being compared to other products with Amazon sales ranks, not the same product's sales rank on a completely different site. As you will see if you become a more experienced WP user, Buy.com ranks are not considered any kind of standard measure by Wikipedia editors. Your post also sounds like an advertising jingle. On those two counts you might want to strike that one. ++Deiz 02:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT. The Oera Linda reference above is interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oera_Linda The book has its name from the Linden family. Is it coincidence that Mirabello's middle name is "Linden"? --146.85.84.60 03:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a favourable coincidence to you since you have been adding (and been reverted in each case) links to The Odin Brotherhood in numerous articles here at Wikipedia. Please stop doing so. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 03:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT. Here is the link to the FBI Library Collection. Type "Odin Brotherhood" or "Mirabello" to find it. http://fbilibrary.fbiacademy.edu/webopac/cgi/swebmnu.exe?act=3&ini=splusweb So, if the Odin Brotherhood does not exist, why is the FBI reading about it? Do you think they have titles on the "Fantastic Four"? "The Justice League"? What do you think, Mulder? Scully? --146.85.84.60 20:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A simple reason is that the FBI does research on neonazi and white supremacist groups, some of whom are Odinist oriented. Just remember Nazi germany and the misuse of our symbols by them. So, they want to have the background knowlegde and make a library. Simple enough. --KimvdLinde 20:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the link above to go directly to the FBI library. In a quick search, I cannot find any other Odinist/Asatru titles there.... --146.85.84.60 21:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT. Here is an interesting Portuguese-language site. http://paginas.terra.com.br/arte/sfv/Asatru.html Note they believe the Odin Brotherhood is ancient and is real. --146.85.84.60 22:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not of an Odinist group. Furthermore, all my sources within the Asatru and Odinist community report back that they think the book is a fantasy (or they never heard anything about it at all). --KimvdLinde 22:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is an Argentine site of Odinists. Note they believe in the antiquity of the Brotherhood. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3290/ --146.85.127.124 23:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT The Odin Brotherhood in Spanish! I found this through the Argentine site. see their links. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3290/odinhood.html --146.85.127.124 00:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to prove here 146.85.127.124. If you're suggesting that new sources have come to light which will enable you (you're clearly some kind of expert) to write an encyclopedic, verifiable, unbiased and objective article on this topic then maybe you should stop piling stuff onto this AfD page and DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE ARTICLE WHICH HAS BEEN NOMINATED FOR DELETION. The majority of editors on this page know nothing and care even less about Odinism. What we do want to see are submissions which belong in Wikipedia. As it stands the article flies in the face of several of WP's criteria for inclusion and if you tot up the opinions of experienced editors (per the warning at the top of the page and the "Notes to new editors" piece by HroptR, several "editors" opinions will be discounted due to the evidence of sockpuppetry) you'll see the article could do with less hot air and more hard work. ++Deiz 01:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT. I have been systematically demolishing the uninformed with facts. As for the article, it is already a murder victim, killed by people for emotional reasons.... --146.85.127.124 01:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 08:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide University Engineering Society[edit]

I'm wondering if this meets the notability criteria. It is mainly a social club at a university, which is typically concerned with the consumption of alcohol?? I go to this university, and so am abstaining. It is very well written though. Blnguyen 01:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
- Thankyou for the compliment Blnguyen. Kino, if you had examined the logs, you would see that the edits such as contact us and our website were done by a different user to the main editor of the page (that is, me). To those who say most of the socities activities relate to pub crawls, this is partly true - they hold a single pubcrawl which is quite large, however, that is by no means the limit of the scope of this page. As the page is still being written, I ask everyone to give it a chance. This is my first major contribution to the wiki, so any guidance would be greatly appricated over straight out deletion. Shenki 23:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- After closely re-reading all of the relevant documentation on deletion, I believe this article does not qualify for deletion as those below have mentioned. I agree with Blnguyen that the article must not become just a advertisment for some student club which just drinks alcohol (infact, I was concious of this when creating the article in the first place).Shenki 23:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Adelaide. -- Jonel | Speak 02:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of its activities relate to pub crawls. Could possibly get a sentence in the Uni of Adelaide article under social life. Keep and cleanup. Shenki's rewrite is improving the article greatly especially the emphasis on famous members and publications. Capitalistroadster 02:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Delete. Smells of WP:VSCA (at least as of this writing. It says it's currently undergoing major changes). Royboycrashfan 03:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... not very notable, as social clubs like this, "official" or otherwise, are dime-a-dozen at every university. Also, this is reasonably close to fitting WP:VSCA in my book (i.e., the section "Contact Us" stating to "goto our website"), and I don't see how revisions would help that, even if those ubiquitous first person pronouns were removed. --Kinu 03:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Longhair 03:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --cj | talk 09:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Despite the VSCA references, if those were removed I would recommend a keep. R o gerthat ^Talk 10:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 12:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft. It does not appear to do anythign whihc distinguishes it from any other student club (see the prominence of "pubcrawl" i there?). We had two societies at uni that might scrape notability, one was the film club whihc won BFFS Best Film Society and Best Student Film Society several times, the other was the engineering society which ran a 1929 Dennis toastrack bus and took it to Russia with an aid convoy. This article doesn't even include that kind of minor notoriety. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It does seem to exist and has a web site [19] altho the name is slightly different, and seems to be more than just a drinking club. Plus someone seems to be rewriting the article, so it could be worth keeping. Elfguy 13:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Death Eater Dan 19:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per capitalistroadster. --Roisterer 08:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm a former University of Adelaide student from another faculty, but this is one of the best-known clubs there. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the university. Stifle 13:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is much more notable than you nerds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.123.147 (talk • contribs)

Really? It scores 59 Google hits and zero inbound links per Yahoo, I score 1600 on the web and a few tens of thousands in Groups, and around 7000 inbound links to my private website. You may be wrong here! - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 09:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. --Karnesky 22:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete every university has lots and lots of of societies...why is this one notable? -- Pierremenard 22:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you had read the page, the discussion here, or any comments posted by myself to admins who have experience in this area, you would know that the society is considered noteable as a number of famous students were members of the society, and it is on this basis that I belived the society notable. There are plenty of societies that I know of at the uni who could not be considered notable, but this one is. Shenki 08:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar Pictures[edit]

Vanity interview with the founder of a non-notable video production outfit; doesn't even come close to WP:CORP. Claims "production" work on a few unnamed projects. No sources. Delete. Melchoir 01:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like an advertisement. --AySz88 ^-^ 02:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Avi 02:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as almost certain copyvio (re: obvious cut-and-paste feel of article and see last line: " --Susan D. Simmons www.theHilltoponline.com 09/28/04"), no assertion of notability that I can see either. Also VanityAdCruft-o-licious into the bargain. ++Deiz 02:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly feels like a copyvio, but I couldn't find the original text. Melchoir 04:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanispamcruftisement. Royboycrashfan 03:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn .Blnguyen 05:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable production corp. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 12:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Elfguy 13:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable Compu te r Jo e 19:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -- Death Eater Dan 19:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable corp FloNight 03:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable 64.192.107.242 03:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Shanel 02:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Evans[edit]

Asserts global reputation but I doubt it Ruby 02:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Asserts notability, but gives no evidence. --Allen 02:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete.Blnguyen 02:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. Billbrock 02:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nn-bio --light darkness 02:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD ^e✉ 02:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha College of English[edit]

The article is spam! It is a commercial project, is not a university. DELETE. -- Tim User:Tim54

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Advertising. Ruby 02:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs to be cleaned up, but it there are 12,900 google hits and it seems to be an established college even though it is commercial.Delete per "wikipedia spams google" Dr Debug (Talk) 02:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 12.900 hits? Spam (e.g. 106 hits alphacollege.com) or advertisement (e.g. http://www.studytoday.com/xx/general.asp?lang=cz&cities=100&id=335 etc.). Tim 02:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no one seems to want to clean it up. -- Krash (Talk) 02:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've cleaned it up (probably a waste of my 2 minutes, but hey). Poor quality writing isn't really a deletion criterion. -- Jonel | Speak 03:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Abstain -- Krash (Talk) 03:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic spam. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 02:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 02:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --HasNoClue 03:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Linked to from Dublin's official tourist site ([20]), member of the EAQUALS consortium ([21]), ISO 9001:2000-certified, not sure what search terms others are using, but this search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=%22alpha+college+of+english%22+-wikipedia&btnG=Search gave me about 800 hits. -- Jonel | Speak 03:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wow, 12,104 (!!!) google hits with wikipedia! without Wikipedia: 796 google hits only. is big spam. Tim 03:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please put "Comment" not "Delete" in front of your comments once you've declared your initial delete. Turnstep 14:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tim54. Royboycrashfan 03:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ruby and Tim54. It reads like an advertisement. Notwithstanding, looking at their site, it sounds no more notable than the typical for-profit "educational institute" that advertises repeatedly during every commercial break during The Jerry Springer Show and Judge Hatchett. --Kinu 03:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a german newspaper http://www.manager-magazin.de/koepfe/artikel/0,2828,263361,00.html writes o.alpha college and Haim Saban, many news in press, radio and television about alpha college: http://www.fremdsprachen.tv/17965.html or http://www.alpha4lingua.de Tim 04:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC) different companies with same name. Tim 05:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn advert.Blnguyen 05:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and cue the vikings. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can rewrite it and provide sources as to why this place is notable, and credible. Elfguy 13:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems harmless and non-spammish as currently written. Turnstep 14:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nominator's account seems to have been created for the sole purpose of setting up this AfD. No other edits in WP at all. Turnstep 14:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam. -- Death Eater Dan 19:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The current version does not read like ad copy, the existence of the institution seems to be confirmed; see Wikipedia:Schools. Smerdis of Tlön 19:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Djegan 20:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad. Gateman1997 06:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this is not a spam now Yuckfoo 19:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Universities and colleges in Ireland? it is a joke, yes. Why is a commercial language school a university? that is a private school. The entry is a disadvantage of all other 1,000 language schools in dublin. Krestin 23:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad./per "wikipedia spams google" Krestin 23:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - does Wikipedia spam the Dublin tourist bureau as well? Visitdublin.com, 4th entry is this school. The school could hardly be called a university, but the city's tourist bureau found reason to list Alpha College of English as an educational institution in the city. -- Jonel | Speak 00:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Alpha College of English like others language schools in Dublin as well linked. It is a reason? Entry please: Centre of English Studies http://www.visitdublin.com/study/detail.asp?ID=208, Horner School Of English http://www.visitdublin.com/study/detail.asp?ID=567, Liffey Linguistics http://www.visitdublin.com/study/detail.asp?ID=1716, American College http://www.visitdublin.com/study/detail.asp?ID=34, Aspect ILA Dublin http://www.visitdublin.com/study/detail.asp?ID=62, Dorset College http://www.visitdublin.com/study/detail.asp?ID=1411, Dublin School of English http://www.visitdublin.com/study/detail.asp?ID=359, English in Dublin http://www.visitdublin.com/study/detail.asp?ID=1437, Griffith College Dublin http://www.visitdublin.com/study/detail.asp?ID=1559,...... and 200 others language schools in dublin, Entry please. Each company in dublin linked to from Dublin's official site. It is self-advertisement. Fact: 12.104 google hits with wikipedia and without wikipedia 796 only Krestin 15:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I respect the opinions of those who say the place isn't notable. However, it is easily verifiable and is no longer spam or advertising. That it's a "commercial project" does not make it unworthy of an article. That it has mention by independent sources is enough to convince me of the notability of the place. Also, the seeming creation of two accounts (Tim54 (talk · contribs) and Krestin (talk · contribs)) solely for the purpose of this AfD is troubling. -- Jonel | Speak 00:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please put "Comment" not "Keep" in front of your comments. yes, my name is Tim Krestin, I've forgot my password Tim/Krestin Tim or Krestin 16:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete nn, advertising, as per many above Pete.Hurd 00:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as attack page. Capitalistroadster 05:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kidd Chris[edit]

pov/vanity-laden rant about a local radio show, not notable and nothing in this article is salvageable. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepBut clean it up!
DeleteUltramarine 02:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per {{Db-attack}} -- Krash (Talk) 02:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This is an attack page Avi 02:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very informative --HasNoClue 03:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, and can't decide if this is an attack or vanity by a bunch of crackheads... anyway, let's go with the former and say Speedy Delete per attack page. ++Deiz 03:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A6. I need not explain. Royboycrashfan 03:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: A6 per above. Would be a delete regardless, since, being someone who has listened to the subject in the past, believe me, he is no more notable than your average morning DJ. --Kinu 03:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity nn and per above --† Ðy§ep§ion † 04:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn .Blnguyen 05:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD ^e✉ 02:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Utilitarianism[edit]

Delete Original research. 20 Google hits[22], none showing the existence of the concept Ultramarine 02:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and WP:NOR. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 02:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --HasNoClue 03:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - severe verifiability problems. Appears to be original research based primarily on a shaky understanding of utility (said concept being ridiculously slippery, this certainly can't be held against anyone). Redirecting to Utilitarianism would probably be best outcome, though I wouldn't argue with deletion per WP:V and WP:NOR if verification of outside use is not forthcoming. -- Jonel | Speak 03:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 03:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as or.Blnguyen 05:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or. Elfguy 13:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1) It's a recent article, and certain obvious elements (References page, Links page) are not yet included - still under construction, so unfair to criticize it for lacking elements. This violates the "assume good faith" part in the Wikipedia AfD Page. Also, I'm a new user, so I'd appreciate some more time to get used to Wikipedia and clean up the article before everyone decides to demolish it. 2) First two references on the page demonstrate the validity of the basic claims of the article. The references aren't well documented yet, but the pre-existence of the concepts is, if you read the first two links. 3) User who nominated this page for deletion, Ultramarine, seems to have both a personal problem with the article, and a history of being an extremely biased Wikipedia user in general (see his profile for more info). After a brief discussion, he refused to commmunicate further and immediately opted for deletion. See Talk:Quality Utilitarianism. 4) Concept by name isn't more than 5 years old, and not very strongly spread by name into most Utilitarian talks. Just like the esoteric topic "Set-Theoretic Models of Disjunctive Operators", not getting what you look for in 20 Google hits doesn't at all provide a good argument that it isn't a pre-established topic. Twiffy 18:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles need to adhere to Wikipedia policy from the very beginning. In particular, you need to cite verifiable proof that "Quality Utilitarianism" is a current term, and not something you made up. Relax - you have 5 days. And if you can't do it in 5 days, copy the page to your user space before then - maybe at User talk:Twiffy/Quality Utilitarianism and keep working on it there until it meets Wikipedia policy. Ikkyu2 02:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, unverified Avi 21:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:V, possibly WP:NOR as well. Iff multiple independent peer-reviewed references which specifically refer to the term "Quality Utilitarianism" appear before the end of this AfD, consider this vote changed to Keep. Ikkyu2 02:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Angelo 04:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 16:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Skanks[edit]

Non-notable band. Only about 1,140 hits on Google, and I'm not even sure if all of those are for the band itself.[23] Kross ^Talk 03:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.--Kross ^Talk 03:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VAIN and WP:MUSIC. If they had passed the latter, their webpage would not be at MySpace with a self-aggrandizing nickname. --Kinu 03:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanispamcruftisement. They left the URL for their MySpace profile. Isn't that cute? BUT IT'S WRONG! Royboycrashfan 03:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as article doesn't even assert notability. EdGl 03:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete C'mon a link to their myspace profile? Delete with a passion. NN --† Ðy§ep§ion † 04:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here but vanity! VirtualSteve 04:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn vanity.Blnguyen 05:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7, tagged. PJM 13:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, and poorly written too. Elfguy 13:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable vanity. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:31Z

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. moink 23:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kelly (ecologist)[edit]

I believe this to be a non-notable bio, although the article does attempt to assert some notability. I've had some discussions on the talk page with the article's creator regarding sources, but those that were provided (such as the "very exasperated person in the White House who reads his letters then hands them to the president") don't really fit the criteria at WP:V. Joyous | Talk 03:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, no sources cited, and a few other problems. Royboycrashfan 03:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The discourse on the talk page was good for a brief chuckle. And I do mean very brief. --Kinu 03:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 04:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this may be genuine attempt but failure to answer questions or show valid notability as previously posed on discussion page and thus inability to verify, leads to my current vote.VirtualSteve 05:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again.

03:04, January 31, 2006 Golbez deleted "Paul Kelly (ecologist)" (either vanity or nn; no links, no notability attempted, and a quarter of the article is an attack on yours truly)
00:24, December 12, 2005 Eugene van der Pijll deleted "Paul Kelly (ecologist)" (content was: '{db|nonsense / not-notable}Paul Kelly is a ecologist. He is currently writing a story called "Quarantine Zone" and is in the process of publishing ...')
02:47, May 18, 2005 Golbez deleted "Paul Kelly (ecologist)" (vanity)

Creator has no history outside this article, except for one piece of trivial vandalism. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

13:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is just recreation of a previously deleted article. Elfguy 13:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks self written. Krashlandon (e) 17:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, possible vanity. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per verifiability policy mentioned under every edit box. Can be re-created at any time if proper source citations, as described in WP:V and WP:CITE are provided that correspond to the key facts mentioned in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom --KimvdLinde 22:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 23:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Revolution[edit]

Entry on a webbased turn game that does not appear to meet WP:WEB guidelines. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vanispamcruftisement. Royboycrashfan 03:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I did not know you could not post content like this here. It is a game that has been around for 3 years now. Maybe there is some other way I can add it without flaging for deletion? First every page, I should have read all before posting it I just was thought I could post it and keep on editing it.. A simular game has one, please let me fix this to the setup that it should be set at before it is removed. - c4smok

Delete. Yay WP:VSCA! --Kinu 03:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was flagging this for AfD myself but somebody else beat me to it. It's textbook spam/advertisement. --Wingsandsword 03:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 04:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn .Blnguyen 05:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no Alexa rank, forum has less than 300 members! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy for creator user:C4smok to work on, or delete as lacking any evidence of importance. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Elfguy 13:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:VSCA -- Death Eater Dan 19:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was moink 00:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VanHalentines Day[edit]

Delete - this day does not exist (except on the Van Halen internet forums) Zelmerszoetrop 03:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - this day should never exist. No Guru 03:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - forumcruft --light darkness 03:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too many problems with article to name. Royboycrashfan 03:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 04:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "It is a special day for Van Halen fans, and whoever wishes to celebrate it. If you chose not to, then it is up to you to ignore it." Wikipedia chooses the latter. Daniel Case 04:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bullocks Ruby 04:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Is it just me, or is this listed twice on the list of articles for deletion? --Rory0 96 04:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a glitch or something, I didn't see the AfD banner in this article and sent it down, but I fixed it in due course. Ruby 04:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why can this not exist when something like "Winter-Een-Mas" can? --DJ 04:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Winter-Een-Mas" is recognized by EB Games. Who has recognized VanHalentines Day? --Rory0 96 04:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence presented that this day is of any significance to the wider community. Capitalistroadster 05:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school in one day. JIP | Talk 06:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with Winter-Een-Mas. Unencyclopaedic fancruft. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non sense. (actually Winter-Een-Mas has a web site, and several references from various game related forums, so its at least semi notable) Elfguy 13:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable and could possibly lead to Van Hagar day. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:33Z
Delete as forumcruft, before someone creates an article on Hansonukkah or Hall&Oatesween. --Kinu 18:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. Winter-Een-Mas should go too. Next thing you know people will be making an article for the Edgar Winter Soltice. BTW, that was a good one Kinu.--Isotope23 18:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if only because it is being continually lumped in with Winter-Een-Mas. That is most certainly an established bit of pop culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.183.218 (talk • contribs)
Strong Delete Utter nonsense - get rid of crap like this cluttering up an encyclopedia, keep it to the fan forums! -- Death Eater Dan 19:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Sceptr e ^(Talk) 23:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Alph a x ^τεχ 02:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although, straight from the heart, whoa-oa, why can't this be love? Ikkyu2 18:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where to begin is right. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD ^e✉ 02:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Crocker[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO; a couple of minor human-interest profiles hardly meets the "100-year test". Also has zero internal wikilinks. Aaron 03:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I originally put a {{PROD}} tag on this; it was removed without any improvements being made to the article, so I'm listing it here per WP:PROD. --Aaron 04:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep With the whole controversy surrounding intelligent design and evolution, she seems to be making a mark on the debate. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 04:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One article in the *W* section of The Washington Post and a *callout box inside another article* in Nature don't seem too notable yet. (If she does reach that point, no prejudice against recreating.) --Kinu 06:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable minor creationist. Fails the 100 second test, let alone the 100 year test. I've forgotten her name already, in fact. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Most google hits for that name have nothing to do with this person. Elfguy 13:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, gets attention within the controversy. Kappa 15:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to have had any more press coverage than I've ever had, and I know I don't merit an article. Google hits are few and far between. —Whouk (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is too minor to meric an article under WP:BIO in my opinion. Maybe a mention under Intelligent Design would be appropriate.--Isotope23 18:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. -- Death Eater Dan 20:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is she a leader in the debate or just one of many who has taken sides? Is the fact that she has taken what some would consider the less likely side notable? As to the 100-year test, we have not followed that in any real way. 100 years from now, nearly every person whose biography appears in Wikipedia will be forgotten by nearly all except real trivia hounds and at least half even by such hounds. Carlossuarez46 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FloNight 03:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Angelo 04:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted after userfying. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saurabh saklani[edit]

Vanity/Advertisement page. Only claimed notability is publishing a book with only 5 unique Google hits. Or, to use the new term: WP:VSCA Wingsandsword 03:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:VSCA and WP:VAIN. --Kinu 03:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It just clicked in my head that the author of this page is very likely the subject. Maybe userfy instead? --Kinu 03:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not userfy. Userfying is pointless when the author only contributes to their own vanity page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy is what I would have done. Andrew, consider this: person comes along and creates article on themself. Maybe cluelessly, maybe deliberate vanity. Scenario 1: delete, chomp. Scenario 2: Move to user space, subst template:nn-userfy and leave a welcome message. I would say that the trivial effort in doing 2 is justified if as many as 1 in 100 people go on to contribute properly instead of just walking away. I haven't userfied my 100th yet so I don't know if that is going to happen, I am a notorious idealist. But anyway, userfy is what I would do here, the user page is redlinked. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. The point of a user page is to describe a Wikipedia contributor. Someone who comes here just to write a vanity page wants the page as an article, and would not have written it in a user page no one would ever find. Elfguy 13:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as copyvio of [24] (and others) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Ghrelin[edit]

Blatant advertisement, possible copyvio too. Wingsandsword 04:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (Doesn't seem to be copyvio, though, unless the source is not online) Daniel Case 04:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Copyvio. I found a large chunk of it; the page it's on 404s (maybe temporarily or just for me?), but Google cache has it. --Kinu 05:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ads.Blnguyen 05:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy-delete It's a copyvio from [25] Elfguy 13:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I'll be right on it in a moment, just goign through the creator's other edits, all of which - amazingly - are related to this. Only googles a couple of hundred anyway, so almost certainly snake oil. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep and redirect to stoner film moink 00:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stoner-comedy[edit]

Author inhaled and created a genre on the spot Ruby 04:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move to Stoner comedy. I've heard the phrase before, and it gets 13,800 hits on Google. --Allen 04:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stoner film per Kinu. --Allen 04:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (if appropriate) to Stoner film. --Kinu 04:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete to Stoner film per Kinu (if there's anything in there that can be salvaged, which doesn't appear likely), as this is actually a genre. --Rory0 96 04:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete straight up per Ruby. Stoner film already covers all material in this article, and nobody is likely to search for the phrase 'Stoner-comedy'. --Lockley 05:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to stoner film. The creator of this article changed the links to stoner film on the Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle page to point to stoner-comedy, then filled in the resulting redlink. Stoner film is an accurate and more widely recognized term for such movies (which, unless I'm missing something, are pretty much always comedies, so distinguishing "stoner comedy" from "stoner film" would be kind of pointless). Don't think there's anything useful to merge, but redirects are cheap, fun, and easy. -- Jonel | Speak 05:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete implausible redirect and not worth keeping. Adrian Lamo ·· 07:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap. Elfguy 14:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stoner film —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:22Z
Redirect per consensus.--Isotope23 18:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Redirects are cheap, and this is plausible. youngamerican (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- to Stoner film - Longhair 19:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all of the above. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 08:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Mier[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion by Esprit15d as nn-bio, but that was contested by Colin Kimbrell. Colin's reasoning is pasted below. howch e ng {chat} 19:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Talk:Martha Mier: Seems fairly well-known and prolific as a producer (writer?) of sheet music for piano/organ. 31 author credits on Amazon [26] for various sheet music collections. Not entirely convinced of notability, but at a minimum should go to AFD rather than speedy. -Colin Kimbrell 14:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep seems notable in her field Jcuk 20:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
bainer (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all this for 2 lines of text... nn. Elfguy 14:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for composed song. Krashlandon (e) 17:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks reasonably notable, but I'm not sure what guidelines would apply to a writer of sheet music. Ergot 18:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and stub. This is one of those situations that falls outside the criteria WP:MUSIC was designed for. She seems fairly notable within the realm of sheet music publication, working on the Alfred series of piano tutorial books.--Isotope23 18:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - questionable notability and hardly worth keeping as an article, it's too short to even claim to be a stub. Get rid -- Death Eater Dan 20:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I even have several doubts about her notability --Angelo 04:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Fairly notable in her field, even if completely nn outside of it. Maybe in the future, the folks at WP:MUSIC might want to look into amending their stuff to cover situations like this.--み使い Mitsukai 06:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can't establish notability, two-line substub with no reasonable prospect of expansion. Delete without prejudice, i.e. don't slap a G4 speedy tag on a recreation of the article which includes proper assertions and verifiable details. Stifle 13:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, for the reasons I had stated earlier. -Colin Kimbrell 17:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is possible, but has not been established. -- Pierremenard 22:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete DS 22:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nancom[edit]

NN Internet cafe. Daniel Case 04:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable despite that "the organization is constantly growing as of now." --Fuhghettaboutit 04:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As non-notable as most other internet cafes. --Kinu 05:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen 07:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. should be listed in an article listing internet caffes in that region, if anything. Elfguy 14:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 16:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn. -- Death Eater Dan 20:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nn. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. moink 00:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets and glitches in Battlefield 2[edit]

Almost exclusively original research, with no attempt at verifiability. A previous article on the same topic, Battlefield 2 Bugs and Exploits was deleted for the same reason. Remy B 04:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOR. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR -gamingology.Blnguyen 05:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR, and even if it can be verified, it's still gamecruft. JIP | Talk 06:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if those are valid tips, they should be added to the various existing Battlefield 2 articles. Elfguy 14:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some of this material previously existed in the Battlefield 2 article but was moved into the Battlefield 2 Bugs and Exploits article (see my opening line) after I noted that it should be removed for being original research with no sources. I dont think it would be a good outcome for the material to end up back in the Battlefield 2 article without being strictly verifiable. Otherwise, the section will (as it previously did) turn into informal commentary and personal accounts. Remy B 14:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 15:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reasons as above. Picking up SF weapons doesn't sound like an exploit, either. TaintedMustard 08:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep don't delete just because you are not interested. Lapinmies 13:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Powell[edit]

The article claims he has a "small but dedicated following" but there is no listing on allmusic.com. A Google search of his first album and his last name turns up one hit - his own web site. This doesn't seem to quite satisfy WP:MUSIC -- DS1953 ^talk 04:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as failure of WP:MUSIC. --Kinu 05:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; he can go promote himself on MySpace if he wants. Daniel Case 05:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen 07:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Standard vanity page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. Creator only did this one article. Elfguy 14:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:35Z
Delete per nom. Avi 16:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn vanity page. —Whouk (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn/vanity/WP:MUSIC take your pick-- Death Eater Dan 20:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is nn/vanity, WP:MUSIC. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by User:UninvitedCompany.--Alhutch 06:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosplayfucks[edit]

Has nothing.

Delete immediately
Speedy Delete per CSD A1. NatusRoma 04:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: A1 as above. --Kinu 05:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A1. Royboycrashfan 05:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A1. --Allen 05:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A1.Blnguyen 05:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British democracy 1919 until 1939[edit]

It's clearly original thought, as the article itself says that it's an essay by Julian Malt. --Rory0 96 04:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not to be used to display essays. Royboycrashfan 05:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay.Blnguyen 05:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete there surely should be an article on Britain in the inter-war period but I can't find one. This article header would possibly be a part of it though the content wouldn't make the cut. MLA 10:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, although an article on the inter-war period would be useful if not existing, as above. -- Mithent 13:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Julian Malt has stated on the article's talk page that he will attempt to improve the article and make it encyclopaedic. I'd like to give him the chance to do so and see what the article can become. I've seen articles with far less merits get kept before. James084 13:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or. If the user wants to write this he should do so on his own web site or at least user space. Elfguy 14:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research; it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Sliggy 16:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essay per WP:NOR.--Isotope23 17:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relectant Delete per MLA. It was an interesting article at least. Carlossuarez46 23:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with a non-original researched article.--Kross ^Talk 00:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and Delete from article space, without prejudice against creation of article on subject. Put it on the author's user page or subpage thereof and let him try to turn it into an encyclopedia article rather than an essay. -- Jonel | Speak 02:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reason Julian Malt 20:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Please delete this and I shall try to re-write it as non-original thought and produce an article to fill the gap that is Britain's economic history and the inter-war years. thanks[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pway[edit]

WP:NOT a slang dictionary. --Alan Au 04:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism. --Rory0 96 04:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism and made up in school one day. Daniel Case 04:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NEO and WP:NFT. Royboycrashfan 05:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism. No verifiability says this is likely to have been invented one day during gym class. --Kinu 05:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a slang dictionary. --Walter Görlitz 05:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NEO. Elfguy 14:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nnuuneo. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:37Z
Delete per nom. Avi 16:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Annihilate the garbage. Krashlandon (e) 17:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn neologism. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as non-notable group (CSD A7).--Alhutch 06:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latus Rectum and the Asymptotes[edit]

Delete. not notable according to WP:MUSIC adavidw 04:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete because as the article itself says, "nobody outside their high school had heard their name. In fact, most people in the school had never heard of them either." Ruby 04:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, doesn't assert or demonstrate notability. --Allen 05:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: A7 per Ruby and Allen. --Kinu 05:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Music not met VirtualSteve 05:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7. I need not explain. Royboycrashfan 05:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN, where it was probably always intended in the first place. Daniel Case 05:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete!¡!¡!¡! Don't wait, Eliminate!--God of War 06:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Vandenberg[edit]

At the center of a school-finance scandal, but not notable as 43 Google hits demonstrate. Daniel Case 04:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 227 hits for "wes vandenburg". Still not a large number, but it made local news so it might qualify. Snurks ^{T C} 05:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,I'm showing 77 Google hits and notable as he has been accused of misuse of school funds in now 3 differnt school districts. Two in Michigan and 1 in Arizona.

77 Google hits is more than I got, but still doesn't begin to break the threshold. Nor does being accused of a crime in two different states ... if that established notability (notoriety?), we'd have tons of articles on two-bit crooks. Daniel Case 05:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, blatant vanity. Royboycrashfan 05:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient notoriety for inclusion. Adrian Lamo ·· 08:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment... but rename to Wes Vandenburg, which seems to be the correct spelling. Adrian Lamo ·· 08:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Are you kidding? he stole some money from a couple of schools? Completely unremarkable individual. Zunaid 09:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multi-state fraud is sufficient notoriety. Suydam 12:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment,Correct Spelling should be Vandenburg. 543 hitswhen spelled correctly.
Delete no source, only notable because it's in the news, all that should go on a news page. Elfguy 14:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. We need more current news in Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.230.140.240 (talk • contribs)
Delete, just another boring piece of semi-news. Fraud is not inherently notable. Lord Bob 16:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does this pass the 100-year test? The 10-year test? The one? If it turns out this is the iceberg tip of some fantastic scheme to rip off the world, then yes it belongs here. But only then. Daniel Case 17:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So he's accused in a 2-count charge of stealing up to $21,000 of school funds. nn. By the way: the delete debate is using the "-burg" spelling and the edit tag misdirects. Carlossuarez46 00:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lo-mein code[edit]

Has exactly one google hit for "Lo-mein code" in a short story archived here [27] Ruby 04:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fightindaman 04:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism. I was thinking of AfDing this myself, but I wasn't sure if it was necessary, and I didn't feel like doing all that work. --Rory0 96 04:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rory. --Kinu 05:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. Royboycrashfan 05:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Lockley 05:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn .Blnguyen 05:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn per nom. Essexmutant 10:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Elfguy 14:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:38Z
Delete per nom. Avi 16:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Spaghetti code (or Delete -- one hit is really pathetic). Ewlyahoocom 19:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New nsider[edit]

On a free web host, so its Alexa rank of 683 would be misleading. Seems to be pretty new, thus article is promotional. Daniel Case 04:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -Drdisque 04:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 370 members is not notable. --Rory0 96 05:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 370 members? Really. Non-notable. --Kinu 05:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above - does not meet wiki guidelines at all VirtualSteve 05:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ad for a low-traffic forum. Snurks ^{T C} 05:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanispamcruftisement. Royboycrashfan 05:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn vanity.Blnguyen 05:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You should have seen how bad it was written before I changed it up :P Teabagged 05:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per member count. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Elfguy 14:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:38Z
Delete per nom. Avi 16:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:N. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Yanksox as G4/A7. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New nsider[edit]

Article is about a non-notable website, and the subject is similar to another article that was recently deleted. JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 18:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and protect after deletion. I don't know what the old page looked like, but as this is the second time this article has been listed under AfD, it should be protected so it won't have to go through this process again. AgentPeppermint 19:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a recreated deleted article. --PresN 20:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and for goodness sakes Protect it this time! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above, and looking at the creator's contributions, it's a clear case of using Wikipedia for vandalism. Ban. Danny Lilithborne 20:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G4. Some of the content could be consolidated into Nintendo NSider Forums. Being a former member myself, the removal of the RP board turned a lot of people off, including me. I left two months earlier for Simtropolis and then WP on 12 November 2005. TrackerTV 23:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete and protect from re-creation, absolute textbook G4 - the editor forgot to remove "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" from the article! --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by User:Woohookitty Adrian Lamo ·· 10:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Speak Like A German Day[edit]

0 google hits, not an established holiday, despite this "declaration" [28]. I suspect we might get a lot of new users showing up to tell us how important it is, I'd like to remind them that we need verifiable evidence from third-party sources, personal assertions are not sufficient. Kappa 05:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. --Allen 05:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. No external verifiability; all "references" provided are self-referential, and even searching for the broader "speak like a German" yields nothing relevant. Also calling WP:VAIN and WP:POINT on statement and first person pronoun use: "This is an established thing. WikiPedia can't delete it, because I delcare it established. - Kez". Not even close to being Pirate Day, of which even I've heard. --Kinu 05:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dont delete. ZGeek.com is a Third Party Source. As I have created this new "holiday" as you would like to call it, I will call your attention to http://forum.zgeek.com/showthread.php?t=46967. That thread has a number of "third party sources", that will verify that people have actually partaken in this "holiday". Wikipedia being the first party, myself being the second party, and ZGeek.com being the third party, thus justifiably making any form of "personal assertions" a valid confirmation. I see that this is all about a "majority", and how can you critisise this if you've never heard of it? You've all heard of Talk like a Pirate day, because people got the word out. We are trying to get the word out, so in effect, you're generating a nice big slab of hyprocracy and supression on the internet. Non-notable? You're not even giving it a change to be notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.44.182.149 (talk • contribs)
- Comment: An item generally belongs on Wikipedia after its notability is established, as Wikipedia is not a cart-before-the-horse means for establishing this notability, nor is it for "advertising" to that end. I doubt anyone is criticizing it for never having heard of it; not trying to bite, but I feel they are simply stating that it does not gel with why wikipedia exists. As for Pirate Day, that page was first created, per its revision history, in 2003, certainly well after its inception and popularity grew per the article's references; thus the comparison here is fallacious. --Kinu 05:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity and spamvertising. Royboycrashfan 05:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Perhaps even speedy delete. Improper, self-serving, unencyclopaedic. VirtualSteve 05:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up on other websites a little while ago. Daniel Case 05:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding Herr Kez's compelling defense of his creation, I added a nonsense speedy on RCP, then a prod and will now vote delete here on AfD to remain consistent. -- JJay 05:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn vanity.Blnguyen 05:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Can't sleep, clown will eat me. --Khoikhoi 05:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Gazpacho 05:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Schnell, bitte. Zgeek.com doesn't really cut the mustard according to Wikipedia:Verifiable as a reliable published source. Capitalistroadster 05:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax or non-notable neologism. And to think 160 million people celebrate this every day of the year! JIP | Talk 06:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I don't even need to explain this one, do I? Geez ... Adrian Lamo ·· 06:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, Kinu, et al. –Sommers ^(Talk) 09:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. (The fact that someone apparently involved in the article has come here and essentially stated it is not yet notable makes this even clearer.) Essexmutant 10:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

Give us 5 days to actually gain notoriety about this holiday. If I fail, then delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.44.182.149 (talk • contribs)

That's not how we do things here. Gazpacho

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

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

The result of the debate was gone DS 23:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Parsnip[edit]

Delete. This is an obvious hoax. A bit of Googling found a page in which a Dave Briggs admits it's concocted: http://davebriggs.net/?p=389 . Lockley 05:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Sandstein 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Essexmutant 12:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparent hoax. Elfguy 14:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:39Z
Delete per nom. Avi 16:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Death Eater Dan 20:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, hoax. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Allen 22:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 17:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. moink 00:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric gersham[edit]

8 hits on Google. nn/vanity Amcfreely 05:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Funny how the title and body don't match... is it "Gersham" or "Gershman" anyway? Slightly greater number results for the latter, but still non-notable. --Kinu 07:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen 07:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Essexmutant 12:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and the title is incorrectly capitalised to make matters worse. -- Mithent 13:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Elfguy 14:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:40Z
Delete per nom. Avi 16:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO.--Isotope23 17:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BIO. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Geogre's law. Stifle 13:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 00:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egocomplacency[edit]

neologism Amcfreely 05:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Amcfreely as dicdef (at best). --Lockley 06:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism.Blnguyen 07:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 19 google hits. Elfguy 14:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:41Z
Delete per nom. Avi 16:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, 19 hits. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 00:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Echolance[edit]

Only wp hits on Google/original research/nn Amcfreely 05:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "little else is available on the subject"... that pretty much sums it up. --Kinu 07:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism .Blnguyen 07:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 5 google hits. Elfguy 14:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 16:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination, Google hits. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, as even creator has now voted to delete it

Salt with Meat[edit]

An obvious hoax. Funny, though. I've already BJAODN'ed it. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 05:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteVirtualSteve 08:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *yawn* PJM 12:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BJAODN works. -- Mithent 13:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, eat helping of Salt with Meat. -Kuzaar 13:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non sense. Elfguy 14:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:42Z
Delete per nom. Avi 16:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD A6, personal attack. I doubt Lai Xue would appreciate learning that he was featured as the chef responsible for "salt with meat." Also agree with above, take with grain of salt. Ikkyu2 21:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete very big hoax --Angelo 04:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Optichan 18:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Lesgles 23:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure nonsense, per nom 3H 05:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Yea take it out, sorryGlebster 05:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as an attack page.--Alhutch 06:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ban kaaos82[edit]

An internet meme like this wouldn't be very useful on an encyclopedia, so delete. King of Hearts | (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- because... yeah. Teabagged 05:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as attack (it's already on the speedy list). Here is entire text: "Ban Kaaos82" is an internet meme popularized on the hardrockpissstunk.com messageboard in responce to the unpopularity of poster Kaaos82 (Levi Critchfield). --Lockley 06:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: A6. Looks like an attack page against one user of an otherwise non-notable forum. --Kinu 06:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Hammond[edit]

Correcting flawed re-nom, have contacted originator, no opinion yet. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Hammond
Keep. This is the biography of an important individual in computer and security culture and should be kept. It is a little rough around the edges, so some of you that say delete should do some research and add to it and make it a great bio. rhoffer21 10:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Not an old-school hacker, possibly/probably NN, but did get written up in the hometown paper. linas 06:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Verifiable, but of negligible notability.--Isotope23 20:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Article reads like semi-subtle personal attack. I'd like to hear his side of the story. Still, this is considered my area of expertise, plus I'm a pretty big news junkie, and I'm fairly sure I've never heard of the guy. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 21:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable, passes the Google Test and the Professor Test. Granted, the article's quality shifts, but it's better than no article at all. - Tapo 07:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted before. Nothing's changed. Delete it again

Going through the previous versions on here. The article seems to swing wildly between a self-promotion page and a personal attack page. As others have noted, the subject of the article is of negligible notability. Delete the article.

Relisting to February 8, 2006. Insert new comments below. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 06:50, Feb. 8, 2006

Delete it, protecting the page after deletion can solve the problem. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete He was in the news, but there is hardly any source for it and his main accomplishment seems to be making a web site. Elfguy 14:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 16:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still not notable. Maybe the 5th page deletion will be the charm ... Adrian Lamo ·· 18:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterate above vote and recommend page protection.--Isotope23 18:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and {{deletedpage}} per Isotope23. --Kinu 00:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've changed my mind, the article really isn't worth having if it's going to be such a huge edit war on such an obscure topic. And holy crap, Adrian Lamo is a wikipedian? - Tapo 23:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There is some encyclopedic info. Could this be merged somewhere? Agree with page protection unless someone makes valid argument on Deletion Review. FloNight 13:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy’s girl (second nom)[edit]

Previously nominated. Failed to meet concensus, but the clear requirement was for it to be expanded. Many doubted that it could be expanded, and indeed the article has hardly been touched since then. I believe it's beyond redemption. Delete.

I apologise for relisting so soon, but the closing admin encouraged such action if the article showed no signs of useful expansion. --kingboyk 07:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom unless someone can come up with a better use for this article. --Kinu 18:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef Ergot 18:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per pointless article... dicdef that seems to be a vehicle for a linkback to a Tekken character.--Isotope23 18:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Ruby.--Isotope23 21:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elektra complex Ruby 19:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elektra complex - UtherSRG (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elektra complex. Reasonable search term. --Allen 22:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dicdef. Elektra complex is an inappropriate redirect, as it implies a completely different power-relation between father and daughter. Ziggurat 23:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef - for once, I'm going to have say that a redirect is not appropriate, per Ziggurat. Redirecting to Electra complex would cause confusion and mislead anyone searching for the term "daddy's girl". -- Jonel | Speak 02:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elektra complex.--み使い Mitsukai 06:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. Stifle 13:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- Pierremenard 22:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 23:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneHQ[edit]

Delete Only a Fansite of Runescape, not particulary notable of its own article J.J.Sagnella 07:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete, fansites are seldom encyclopaedic. Sandstein 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Alexa rank 4,064. Seems popular in the Runescape world, but not really meeting WP:WEB for me. -- Mithent 13:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's just a web site. Elfguy 14:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:43Z

Whats the problem with it? Come on, a) what harm does it do by staying here? b) It is interesting to those who want to know about it, so just because you couldn't care less doesn't mean that it isn't important to some. c) What gives you the right to decide what articles are on here? It's a free encyclopedia... Viralmonkey 17:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: I will address these succinctly without biting. a) As it has ended up on AfD, the operative question really should be "What good does it do to stay here?"; b) Interesting and important do not necessarily equal notable; c) A "free encyclopedia" does not equal a "free-for-all". --Kinu 18:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment2: c) The democratic process of Wikipedia policies. If you don't like it, maybe moving to a less democratic website might be the thing for you? --Agamemnon2 07:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment3: Eh? You linked to "what wikipedia is not" and lo and behold, there is a heading, "Wikipedia is not a democracy". Huzzah! Anyway, the article is only a stub so how can you form an opinion about whether it is worthwhile. Although it is a website, we made a point of not advertising it, we are trying to build some kind of history using evidence, it would be interesting and informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viralmonkey (talk • contribs)
  - Read on; it rationalizes that: "Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting." Hence why you're on this page, where people are discussing reasons for their opinions, and simply not saying keep or delete for a simple count at the end. --Kinu 18:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... despite Alexa ranking, seems more like gamecruft and/or WP:VSCA than an encyclopedic topic. --Kinu 18:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a member...THAT'S what gives me the right to decide what articles are on here. Batman2005 19:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Free as in beer, not free as in lawless. (Please point me to a link for that quote....) - UtherSRG (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm agreeing with ViralMonkey here. There is no reason why this should be taken off because it is not hurting anyone. An encyclopedia is a database of knowledge. In order for it to be complete it must have an article about everything. This has never been achieved and won't be for a long time but if you take off this article you are just moving wikipedia farther from that goal. And just because this is a fansite doesn't mean it should be removed. Just go to the main page and do a search on "Fan Site" and 11 pages of matches will come up. --Eddie 23:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Above user's only contributions are to this AfD and its article. --Kinu 23:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - How does a user's number of contributions make their opinion any less credible? --DownStrike 07:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not a matter of credibility, but of bias. See WP:SOCK for an explanation. --Kinu 07:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - If Eddie truly believes that Wikipedia needs an article about EVERYTHiNG..then i'm going to start writing an article about my left shoe, because its about as notable as this artcile. Batman2005 15:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Jantzen[edit]

Seems to be an nn sports reporter. Article is orphaned and unverified. A Google search for "Christian Jantzen" "SBS television" brings up only 1 hit. In addition, article reads suspiciously like a copyvio. Abstain for now, will take into account further arguments first. Zunaid 08:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Delete per Capitalistroadster and Blnguyen, this guy doesn't seem notable enough. Zunaid 07:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It seems like a copyvio but it's not. This user ben.carbonaro is a young journalist whose style happens to resemble that of a marketing biography. Google searches for notable Australian figures don't prove anything. I can tell you he is much more notable than Max Walker (Canadian), but due to the locality of Walker, he gets more google hits.
You ever thought of adding meaningful content to wikipedia instead of deleting everything you see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerthat (talk • contribs) R o gerthat ^Talk 09:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think about it, heck sometimes I even do it. I get more joy out of pruning the 'pedia though. Zunaid 07:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Reporter for national network but for not notable enough yet for mine. 10 Google hits for "Christian Jantzen" SBS see [29]. The page that this page could well be a copyvio is his bio at SBS [30]. I was considering speedy deletion as a copyvio before seeing Rogerthat's explanation. Capitalistroadster 09:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, Google hits are very unindicative of a person's notablity when based in Australia. For example, search for "Mark Doran journalist", and of the 300 hits there you will find very little related to the Mark Doran who is a very big sportscaster in Australia. The fact that Mark Doran is a common name boosts his hits, it's unfortunate than Jantzen has a unique name ;) :p R o gerthat ^Talk 10:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Australian and I'm unconvinced by that argument. There aren't that many more Canadians that Australians. I follow sports fairly closely in Australia and I've never heard of Mark Doran. I hadn't heard of Jantzen either. Capitalistroadster 11:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not hearing of Jantzen, I'll give you some leeway, although most sports fans should certinaly know him. But not hearing of Doran makes me question your interest in sports because he is a big name in journalism, radio and TV. That was just an example the Max Walker one, but there are many American journalists you could search for that are as notable or less notable than Jantzen that would get a much higher number of Google hits for the simple fact they are based in America where there is information on everyone. Australia doesn't have a huge presence on the Net compared to America. Search for "AFL DVD's" and the game's huge popularity does not give the expected amount of hits. R o gerthat ^Talk 10:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 09:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Personally, I think the profile of Christian should stay there as he does virtually everything from down here in Melbourne and he does a good job at it as well. His general knowledge of sport is great and he isn't afraid to have a go at reporting on lesser known sports, for example he did a gret job covering the World Gymnastics Championships including an exclusive interview with Western Australia gymnast Olivia Vivian and her parents. --Ben.carbonaro 10:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. On-camera reporter for a national/continental television network. Meets consensus notability standards applied in similar cases. Article badly needs cleanup, and would be seen as a copyvio if Wikipedia's standards weren't ridiculously lenient. Monicasdude 14:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep his bio is here [31] he seems notable enough. Elfguy 14:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it gets a top-to-bottom rewrite to make it less of a hagiography. --Aaron 15:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you consider changing your vote to "delete unless rewritten"? A lot of article on AfD survive based on "keep and rewrite" votes without the rewrite subsequently happening. Zunaid 07:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - just about seems notable enough if he's an on-screen reporter. —Whouk (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment needs a rewrite so it doesn't read like bad marketing spiel written by Jantzen's agent...--Isotope23 18:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is very hagiographic. 2) This fellow actually appears on the screen - as well as reading the segment reports, he also does a weekly segment during the AFL season when he talks vis-a-vis to Jarrod Molloy about the weekend's fixtures, and he does the same thing during the summer for tennis with Sandon Stolle. Personally, I don't think journos should have separate articles unless they have been around for at least a decade, and are respected pundits, rather than just people who report occurrences.Blnguyen 23:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable. Stifle 13:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - go to WP:AWNB and ask any of the Aussies to watch Toyota World Sports and they will vouch for his existence and work on SBS.Blnguyen 22:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - "I am too stupid to use Google" is not a reason to delete, Stifle. Ambi 07:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's quite harsh Ambi. Please don't call others stupid. Blnguyen 07:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - What Blnguyen said. That comment is not productive. Stifle 09:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - All I'm asking is for one or two websites that prove he exists and meets WP:BIO. It's not my responsibility to go digging up reasons to keep articles. Stifle 09:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well if you can't do a Google search that takes 10 seconds and add the pages to the references on this page (like I did) then you shouldn't be deleting stuff either. Wiki doesn't need people like you. R o gerthat ^Talk 04:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia doesn't need comments like that either. Obviously AfD can be heated, but it's not a count of votes. If someone says to delete the aricle doesn't appear to be verified, you are entitled to counter that with sources (which should be added to the article). Telling editors that they don't belong on Wikipedia over an AfD vote doesn't help anyone. —Whouk (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After all all that, it is now verifiable, and I am happy to change to keep. Stifle 16:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ambi 07:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the user who added the links to reporter profiles and other information to prove he is a real report and works for SBS. 203.51.144.245 12:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Gurubrahma under WP:CSD Clause A7. --Gurubrahma 11:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hariharan S[edit]

Delete. Not notable.Jisha C J 09:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

Arabian goggles[edit]

Speedied once as (appropriately enough) complete bollocks, was linked from Dutch blindfold (recently AfDd and deleted). The article makes it perfectly plain it's a protologism, lacks reliable sources etc. I'd speedy it as a repost but it has been somewhat expanded since original deletion and is now no longer "patent nonsense" but instead simply nonsense. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsense. MLA 11:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 12:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My guess is that this was created as a place to put that gaming clan link, since most gaming clans are speedied or quickly AfDed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's possible that it is a sexual slang term, but it doesn't seem to be a popular one. I agree with Andrew Lenahan. -- Mithent 13:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete recreation of previously deleted article. Elfguy 14:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Complete bollocks. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:44Z
Delete per nom. Avi 16:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a joke? Delete ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Blnguyen 23:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
KEEPJust because you've never experienced or heard of it, doesnt mean it should be deleted. What is the difference between this and 'Dirty Sanchez'. They are very similiar, only one has grown in popularity faster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.8.84 (talk • contribs)
Delete this is not worth an entry Jordanmills 18:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know about encyclopedia-worthiness but the term as such seems to exist. Google for related to find more of the same. Not suitable for minors nor should be read with a full stomach. Weregerbil 00:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least add this entry onto a similar page... why have seperate pages for all this bizarre sexual slang??? Create one page for them all....
Keep it Just because the act of Arabian Goggles is a bit far fetched or unappealing does not mean that the terminology is not real. If one were to google the term, he or she will find multiple references to it from several independent sources.

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Cyberservices Corridor[edit]

Delete for two reasons. One, this is definitely already a promotional article, no matter how one salvages it, and wikipedia is not a promotional tool. The corridor is not even notable. There are so many tech facilities spread out all over the country, the whole country is a corrider? The Philippines also does not have a high technology district, that can be compared to Silicon Valley, even just in notability. Two, part of its title "cyberservices" is not used in technical or mainstream in any language, other than by its marketing inventors, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cyberservices. Note to everyone, I am Filipino, and I am not race bashing.

Simply put, it does violate 2 sections of policy. Deliberately promoting what is definitely 'not there, and predicting way too far in the future. A new administration can change alot. I rephrased in order to not sound offensive to any newbies. ;) --Noypi380 10:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, as mentioned. More importantly pls read the responses below --Noypi380 11:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a high-technology business district, the same as the others listed in this Wikipedia entry. This deserves its own entry as much as the rest.

Its not a high-technology business district, its 600 miles from Baguio to Zamboanga. Pls try comparing that to Silicon Valley. That distance is almost the 9/10's of our country! Definitely not notable. --Noypi380 09:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Mikeabundo 15:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to pursue logic of Noypi380, we would have to delete all other entries in the category High-technology_business_districts as well. The reason why Noypi380 has targeted this entry is his/her anti-Filipino attitude, as can be seen from his/her other posts.

I'm not anti-Filipino coz I am Filipino, and proud of it. I challenge you to cite a post that is anti-anything. My user name "Noypi" when reversed is "Pinoy", which at home is short for Pilipino (Tagalog), or Filipino in English. Pls read all of my work before you judge me. Pls see our Filipino community portal. The corridor is also not a high technology district, the Philippines has none, and I am a Filipino who is honest about that. :) --Noypi380 09:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

You may be right about Noypi380. For this person to say "the corridor is not even notable" is a contradiction to the Philippine president's statement that over 100,000 people are employed in the corridor. It seems this person is biased against the Philippines, and I would not be surprised if this person comes from a country that competes with the Philippines for offshore work.

Why target the Philippines? Why is Noypi380 silent about other corridors in other countries?

Pls try to compare the corridor which is 600 miles from Baguio to Zamboanga with Silicon Valley. That is almost the 9/10's of our country! The government is trying to make our whole country a corridor? Truthfully, no. --Noypi380 09:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on is the government is taking credit for those over 100,000 tech workers. Those over 100,000 are being employed in tech-related enterprises, spread out all over the country. The government conveniently credited themselves, by calling it all a "corridor", as if the government planned it ahead of time. That is why it is not notable, and it would be more politically correct to remove it. Silicon Valley is definitely a corridor. Though I am Filipino, I am the first person who would admit that there no such place in our country remotely like Silicon Valley, no matter what the government labels it. --Noypi380 09:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, I believe that the votes about this point, 2 votes and comments all in all, are from one and the same person, source, or organization. Wikipedia is not for promotion! Even though its from the government!--Noypi380 10:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm not with the government. Heck, I don't even like the government. I'm certainly not Dondi, either. I'm Mike Abundo, from mikeabundo.com. --Mikeabundo 11:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not refering to Dondi, source does not matter, that article is clearly promotion. Articles in wikipedia must be notable, or are expected to be notable! Its not even notable in the Philippines! --Noypi380 12:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I am the author of the article)

Keep Dondi 00:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup as it does appear to be notable as it is or is intended to be a significant business district. The article could easily contain a NPOV explanation of whether it actually is. Comment not sure why an anon user is failing to assume good faith in Noypi380 who does appear to know more about this than anyone else who has posted here. MLA 12:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the problem, there is no intended district, just 600 miles of country, in a small country. It is not a notable tech/business district because it is not a district at all. The article is like a hypothetical United States Tech corridor from San Francisco to Chicago! All that land is a corridor!? --Noypi380 12:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a scientific research corridor called the International Northeast Biosciences Corridor that stretches from Quebec to Connecticut, over 1000 miles. Yes, all that land is a corridor! Dondi 18:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sir, but pls compare further. Firstly Mr. Commissioner, is your corridor existing, or is just hype? Does the effort at its current stage, if ever, warrant an article in Wikipedia, or just in local newspapers? Just because the plan is big does not mean it should be in Wikipedia already. Wait and see. The goal is too far off, too unpredictable. Or can you say "600 miles of fiber optic cable" is equal to "the corridor", and then put an article here on the whole corridor? No sir. It is best that the article only exist if/when that dream is almost a reality, unless crystal balls are back in fashion. Secondly, the article cannot deliberately mislead readers promoting what is not there. Perhaps, alot have already been mislead. --Noypi380 09:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Noypi380; the "Philippine Cyberservices Corridor" doesn't really exist, except as a concept not yet fully realized. Since the only sources cited for its existence are two speeches by President Arroyo, and she doesn't even name it as "Philippine Cyberservices Corridor," I see no reason why this article should exist at this point in time.Note: I am Filipino. Noelle De Guzman 13:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the link to the 2005 State of the Nation Address. Dondi 18:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked it now (although it's not really a link to the text of the Address itself, but a link to the Executive Summary of the address), and I stand corrected. Perhaps it would be better to talk of this Corridor NOT as a defined land area (as the article says), which perhaps is the source of Noypi's delete vote. I would say Keep if the article is reworded to include the following information from the Executive Summary of the SONA:

"Philippine CyberServices Corridor, an ICT belt stretching 600 miles from Baguio City to Zamboanga which is envisioned to provide a variety of cyberservices at par with global standards."

Noelle De Guzman 02:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

amended to Merge: I might have said "delete" again since the PCC doesn't really exist and I agree with Noypi's assessment that WP can't see into the future. But I think the information in the AfD'd article would be better placed in Business process outsourcing in the Philippines as long as it's NPOV. Noelle De Guzman 03:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it seems notable, and the article has several sources. However the article should be modified to be more NPOV and look better. Elfguy 14:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the reasons below:

Although President Arroyo mentioned about a "cyberservices corridor" in the speech cited on the page, it is only but a mere concept. The Philippine Cyberservices Corridor does not even exist yet in reality as of yet. Also, the chosen resource in itself is faulty. If President Arroyo talks about the concept of the Philippine Cyberservices Corridor, that does not mean that the corridor exists, even if she tries to promote forming a corridor by the end of her term. As of now, while cyberservices are booming, there is no concrete proof that the corridor even exists.

--Akira123323 14:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Just for the record, I'm a Filipino too. I may be critical of the concept but that does not mean I am anti-Filipino, judging by the comments I read above.

Delete. You might as well redirect to Philippines-- since this "corridor" seems to span the length of the entire country. It's like having a United States "corridor" that spans from Seattle to Miami. Coffee 14:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Compu te r Jo e 15:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Actually, as with the International Northeast Biosciences Corridor that stretches from Quebec to Connecticut, only selected locations are allowed to call themselves part of the corridor. Specific criteria must be met. Dondi 18:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the precisely the point Mr. Commissioner, international readers may be misled that the thing is up, or is going to built soon, when you compare it to such examples. It seems you are still planning you're corridor. For now, it would be best to remove this article, and build a new one when you're corridor is nearly finished. Your successor might even change its name, there are so many unpredictables. Am I right to assume that you do not yet have the criteria for selecting locations for the corridor? We cannot promote what is not yet there, sir. It might not be even notable when it already built. That is why the article should not exist, yet. :)--Noypi380 09:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it can rephrased as NPOV and set out the facts. —Whouk (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good suggestion. will implement. some salient facts to point out!

-the backbone of the corridor (fiber optic network) was established in the late '90s via the telecomms deregulation

-the true resource of the corridor are the people, product of decades of enlightened educational policies

-the job generation was the result of a conscious effort of government to attract investors by establishing financial incentives and special economic zones

-promotion of the industry has been spearheaded by trade missions led by senior government officials since the late '90s

-for cities to be recognized as bonafide locations within the corridor, there is a defined process and criteria Dondi 18:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Where are the process and criteria set out, so we can all see the source for the assertion? Noelle De Guzman 02:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I've been asked to take a look at this as the nom has been revised. I don't approve of changing the nom mid-process like this, and regardless it hasn't changed my view that this is a Keep. —Whouk (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like the evil thing to do :-) ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is important to have this type of information, especially on such a large project. --Vizcarra 21:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is there... the land is there. There is controversy on its characteristics but the stretch of land does exist. Even if it not what the President of the Philippines claims the fact that it is important for her government indicates the general importance of the topic. --Vizcarra 00:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Merge, see below) Noypi, your motivation for deletion seems to be based on the fact that the article is biased towards the Philippine Cyberservices Corridor being a "real" high-tech district, not whether the concept is notable or not. I believe the concept is notable, considering the government is actively promoting it. Now, whether this 600-mile stretch of land should be considered a high-tech district or not is for the two sides of POV to battle out in the article. Noypi, I have added your point of view to the article. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-08 21:59Z

Well, I also thought of using an NPOV tag too, but I still seriously doubt that the article should be here in wikipedia. Pls allow me to clarify the terms first since there is a confusion, I was not able to speak properly when I read those offensive comments, and I was emotionally swayed. --Noypi380 07:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment let us all call the corridor "PCC". There are two PCCs in question here. One is the planned future PCC, which is based on a source, (only the presidential speeches). The other one is the "current" PCC, (subject of the article before you edited it). That "current" PCC is not sourced, is not planned, is not a district, and it does not exist, never mind about the area. That is why I argue against its notability, because there is none. Speaking in an NPOV way, it violates this policy. The one who started that article is also a government official in our country who is responsible for promoting the local industries. I apologize that he is promoting now something that is not there, and is also in doubt. On the future planned PCC which is not the subject of the article, that I concede is notable. However it is just a plan. Over 50% of long term government plans in the Philippines do not push through, even elections, and on that regard, that is why users Noelle, and Akira, and Coffee, all Filipinos, voted delete. We only start important Philippine-related articles only when we are already sure it is almost built, as too avoid this violation. That is how we do things in order to accomodate wikipedia's policies. The future PCC is a long time away, and "PCC" is certainly not the correct name in the future, and that is assuming we are using the PCC as defined in the speeches. The article was deliberately misleading, sourcing the "planned" PCC, and saying that is already here to a "current" PCC, which does not exist, and I was vehemently against. That is basically all of it in NPOV. That is why I urge everyone to delete it already. It can be brought back anyway, in perhaps 5-10 years time, assuming all goes well. But for now, it is a soapbox, stuck with little useful data --Noypi380 07:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the anon user, and Mr. Commissioner (User Dondi). I am disappointed that both of you did not assume good faith, when I proposed the AfD. You both deliberately attacked me even though you both knew that I am Filipino, even calling me anti-Filipino which is a common stereotypical tactic used by government officials against opponents. It is worse when it comes from people of your age and status. I hope it does not happen again. More importantly why can't you just contribute in the article called Business process outsourcing in the Philippines, an article that is supposed to accomodate, without being a soapbox, the sector you are working in. --Noypi380 07:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Out of line myself, pls observe, good faith thanks. --Noypi380 03:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterating my decision to delete, a piece of evidence that I found can probably explain why:

"The development of the Philippine CyberServices Corridor which shall provide a variety of cyberservices at par with global standards was pursued. The Corridor, which is connected by a US$10 billion high bandwidth fiber backbone and digital network, shall serve as a “one destination” for investors, stretching 600 miles from Baguio to Zamboanga. Certain areas have been declared as ICT hubs with high-speed networks and connectivity: (Pasig-Ortigas, Makati, UP-Ateneo-Eastwood, Alabang-Paranaque, Subic-Clark, Cebu-Asia Town Park, University Belt, Davao). Additional 9 areas have been identified as potential ICT hubs: Leyte, Camarines Sur, Pangasinan, Iloilo City, Baguio City, Davao, Zamboanga, General Santos City and Cagayan de Oro." (THE 2005 ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE ARROYO ADMINISTRATION, 2005)

What I question is that why would an article talk about a concept that is only a concept and does not physically exist. It is concedable that the Arroyo administration is pursuing the corridor, but pursuit of a concept does not mean that such a concept exists in reality. In fact, there is still no hard evidence that the PCC even exists except for the concept. Note that the first line of that quote mentions "The development of the Philippine CyberServices Corridor which shall provide a variety of cyberservices at par with global standards was pursued". Pursuit, as mentioned earlier, is not tantamount to formation. President Arroyo herself did not even give a timeline on when the PCC concept would finally take shape and when it would be completed. Because of that, it's still a non-existant concept and I still stand by my decision to delete. --Akira123323 07:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your considered responses and explaining the distinction between the current vs proposed PCC -- the Wikipedia article definitely confuses the two (I have not yet checked to verify your claim that the two are indeed distinct). If indeed "over 50% of long-term government plans" are empty "electoral promises" then that should be mentioned in the article. I did not previously see the article Business process outsourcing in the Philippines - that is a very appropriate article. Merge to Business process outsourcing in the Philippines. Again, let me remind you that the existance of a Wikipedia article (or section of an article) on a subject does not make it "better" or give it more credence, it can also be bad. Corporations often advertise on Wikipedia, only to have their article become a description of all its horrible business practices rather than a description of the things it sells. For example, if President Aroyyo has made promises in regard to the PCC / PCC proposal that she does not hold, then this could serve as documentation for future reference that she failed her promises. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-12 13:40Z

Yes, thank you very much. :) --Noypi380 00:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems another option is to remove the categorization of the article from the High Tech Business Districts. With regard to suggestion to merge to Business process outsourcing in the Philippines, this would not be acceptable as Cyberservices is more than just BPO. With regard to crystal-balling, this is not acceptable as the $10B high bandwidth telecomm backbone already exists and can be verified physically, as well as the call centers and other companies mentioned in the article. There is actually going to be a MOA signed between the governors and mayors within the next 60 days to formalize the existence of such corridor on a local/regional level (it is already part of national policy on a country level). Upon such signing, article will be updated. Dondi 07:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Mr Commissioner, but the work you are doing now in office is not equal to the "corridor". Telecom backbone + call centers + contracts is not equal to a "present" corridor (subject of article, non-existent) and is not equal to a "future" corridor (based on vague speeches of president who can be deposed even tommorrow). See how deceiving? I urge you to vote delete, and don't worry if it is removed. I'll help you out create encyclopedic articles related to the Philippine information/communication technology industry. Pls, I mean pls, vote delete, based on the reasons I said. I hope you change your mind. :) --Noypi380 00:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- It's not good practice to publish planned projects. If it does 'nt push through it, becomes a fiasco/embarrassment. Better to wait a while. Maybe mention it under Business process outsourcing.--Jondel 01:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Akira123323 22:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case let's delete Superman 3, and all of the Category:2007 films... just kidding. --Vizcarra 22:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an unfair comparison. Read the text above again, particularly my discussion with Quarl. This is clearly not like Category:2007 films or Category:2007 elections. Those things are almost certainly going to be done in 2007. The films have definite release dates, even down to the hour in so many countries. The elections have poll voting and counting schedules planned beforehand, with contingencies. The future "corridor", assuming the sources, does not even have a deadline, and has so many other uncertainties. There are so many plans but no completions in the Philippines. The "future" corridor is not even the subject of the article, for the subject of the article is a "present" corridor that does not even exist, read Akira's earlier comments. That is why there is no apparent NPOV dispute. No corridor, no dispute. You're confusing the future uncertain, unfinalized, plan with a corridor that is not there. See? That article has already been proven to be blatant act of deception through wikipedia. The planned 600 mile "stretch of land" does not automatically present itself as a corridor now unless the thing is fully or nearly built, if it is built. I urge you to reconsider you're vote to delete. Of course, all of this assumes were not kidding... :) --Noypi380 00:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 16:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Coven[edit]

NN band. "Played a few gigs" with no apparent recordings. This actual name may be appropriate for something, but not this material. Marskell 10:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn band vanity. Not even recorded a demo yet! so nowhere near notability. MLA 10:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable band, vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. [32] PJM 12:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Elfguy 14:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coven or re-purpose it for the film.[33] —Wrathchild ^(talk) 15:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable v. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:45Z
Delete per nom. Avi 16:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted. - Mike Rosoft 13:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Stanton-Reid[edit]

My speedy tag was removed by the author, User:Thierry Henry, twice. I'm bringing it to the attention of the community, who knows, maybe he is notable, but I doubt it. Delete. Grandmasterka 10:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:BIO, [34], probably a hoax. The article does not qualify for speedy deletion because it contains claims of notability (mixed in with stupidity). PJM 12:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Essexmutant 13:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was unanimous keep. Peyna 20:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gbeogo[edit]

was proposed for deletion, appears to be a real village [35]. Melaen 11:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the reason for proposed deletion was Subtle linkspam. No verifiable content.

Keep Mapquest knows it [36] Jcuk 12:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, villages are notable, Google knows it as well. Sandstein 12:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. PJM 12:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, villages are notable, isn't that obvious? --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 12:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. Elfguy 14:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:47Z
Keep. Real village with real communities of interest. How it is subtle linkspam is beyond me - must be very subtle. It is there for verifiability. Capitalistroadster 20:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 00:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeop[edit]

Unverifiable, non-notable, and has no place here. Kevin 11:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 12:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 10 google hits. Elfguy 14:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:47Z
Delete non-notable, unverified Avi 16:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete por favor as it is non-notable. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Blnguyen 23:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 00:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corser[edit]

was proposed for deletion, I bring it here for discussion. Melaen 11:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the reason given was Lacking information on its {importance} since last edit in 24 April 2005.

Delete unless it can be properly verified and expanded. PJM 12:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find related info on google hits. Elfguy 14:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 16:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination por favor. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Blnguyen 23:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plectics[edit]

A proposed neologism - by a Nobel winner, yes, but it doesn't appear to have caught on. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, the content is mostly copied fom [37]. I've refrained from tagging it with "copyvio" since it's being quoted, albeit very extensively. I'm not sure, though, to what degree this is admissible. Sandstein 12:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete crystal ball. I'm not sure that wikipedia is the right place for an etymological article in any case. MLA 12:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another instance of this sort of thing is when Roger Penrose invented the word "twistor" Ruby 14:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if you do a google search there's several related hits on various science sites refering to the specified topic as Plectics. Elfguy 14:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ruby and Elfguy. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a word coined by Murray Gell-Mann, and used by others, to describe a field of study (simplicity and complexity) being pursued by him and other reasearchers. The field seems to be an important and growing. In my view this one of the things Wikipedia is especially good for, a home for the obscure (as well as the well known). Paul August ☎ 15:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, seems to be a lightly used neologism. ~~I'm still mulling delete/keep, but~~ I'm adding it a cleanup tag because it is a piss-poor article. Spends more time explaining the etymology of the word then it does explaining why Plectics is important or relevant as a concept. It it's current state it doesn't even qualify an encyclopedic.--Isotope23 17:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism just isn't in wide enough use. Etymological discussion quotation isn't pertinent to the encyclopedic article and I don't see enough content for this to be more than a neologism dicdef.--Isotope23 21:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Ruby and Elfguy.Blnguyen 23:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not encyclopedic. Transwiki the dicdef to Wiktionary and the explanation to Wikisource. Stifle 13:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete - Copyvio. - Hahnchen 13:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANGTORIA[edit]

Does not appear to satisfy guidelines for band inclusion. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 12:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NMG, [38]. PJM 13:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 16,000 google hits, first page hits seem to all be related. Elfguy 14:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio, tagged. Kappa 15:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see your copyvio and raise you a speedy delete, as it's less than 48 hours old. (And if anybody mentions string betting, I'll have 7,000,000,000 tournament chips dropped on you. Stifle 13:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 00:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adriano Macchietto[edit]

delete: vanity. complete hoax since december 2004 . see the article's talk page Melaen 12:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm italian and I've never herad of him , plus no italian google reference. the hoax confession on the talk page seems 100% genuine. --Melaen 12:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Molto stupido. PJM 13:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per hoax confession. I can't believe no one has spotted this for over a year, and so many people have helpfully added categories to it! --Canley 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Elfguy 14:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 16:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kinu 18:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Blnguyen 23:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 00:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander M. Hankin[edit]

Smacks of non-notable vanity page. It was tagged for dubious notability, but after some investigation I decided to elevate it to AfD. Article was created by User:Hank21 (note the surname). One notable Google hit indicating subject did indeed graduate from Germantown Academy. Other than that, the rest of the article appears to be fictional or exaggerated. User:Hank21's other edits were to upload Image:393008325 l.jpg (Alexander M. Hankin with one of his many girlfriends.) and an initial edit to remove a reference from the article Caprice Bourret claiming that Ms Bourret was dating Mr Hankin, presumably added as anon user 69.136.79.245 the previous day, before Hank21 decided to create an account and this article. Canley 13:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 14:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Elfguy 14:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 16:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Regional theatre and going to some parties doesn't quite cut it on WP:BIO.--Isotope23 17:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. "He is slated to begin work on an undisclosed film in late 2006." Good job... when you do that, you'll get an entry. --Kinu 18:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. abakharev 20:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extreme and embarrassingly unashamed vanity, especially all his socialite, movie-star girlfriends,.Blnguyen 23:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity per nom. Essexmutant 10:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted - Mike Rosoft 13:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A kevin[edit]

Neologism CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. It's no more than an excuse to bash someone named Kevin, in my view. PJM 13:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax and neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 13:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 00:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gen-so fantasia[edit]

The two guys in the group Akimasa Nihongi and Jack Hsu have been deleted for not notable. The group only has 18 Googles and that's myspace stuff they create themselves. This is also from User talk:Jack71483. Defunkier 13:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Toured in 3 US states, 1 appearance on micro-indie compilation. 1 self-produced single. Fails WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, WP:NMG. PJM 13:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable band, vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 14:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Google has 568 hits not 18, shows numerous fan sites and hundreds of related links. Elfguy 14:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Google finds very little of use if you run it with more specific tags, such as -site:myspace.com. --Kinu 18:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 21:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Blnguyen 23:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the myspace test. Stifle 13:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 00:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United_Snakes_Of_Amerikkka[edit]

Delete. Just a stub describing a neologism with few hits on google outside of message boards, myspace, and a couple fringe websites (the author's?). Both the article's two sentences are POV, and for that matter the title itself is. keith 13:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism and POV. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 13:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Terenceong1992. --Aaron 13:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anti-american ankle biting Ruby 14:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-sense. Elfguy 14:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsensical and neologistic. -- Krash (Talk) 15:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 16:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lightly used slang def. Suggest author take it to Urbandictionary.com.--Isotope23 17:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Term is a non-notable neologism, and is POV in itself. --Kinu 18:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Isotope23. --Allen 22:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -stupid slang.Blnguyen 23:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redir to Celebrity. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 11:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous people[edit]

Original research abakharev 13:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR followed by a list of wiki-lists of people. I hope that wikipedia doesn't turn into a place full of lists of random things. MLA 13:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per no original research. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 14:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make a category instead. Elfguy 14:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MLA. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Death to the pointless list! -- Krash (Talk) 16:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 16:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of people --Abögarp 16:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to celebrity. Daniel Case 20:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to celebrity. Common phrase, likely to be created again if deleted. --Allen 22:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as per Allen. I was the original nominator of the AfD abakharev 23:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Categorize Carlossuarez46 00:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 23:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Jump Mobile[edit]

Keep, I'm not sure what you want me to do. I sent an e-mail to Jump Mobile over this forum listing, and they did not seem to have a problem with it. I only made this link, because this company is part of Leap Wireless. Just because they are new, does not make them any less of a company. I am having a hard time keeping up with these comments. I do not know why you keep trying to get it deleted. I am doing my best to correct any and all errors.

The2ndflood

This page is back up, with an AFD template. I vote to Delete but I guess an admin needs to clear the old debate away first? --kingboyk 03:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete since it's a "startup" it's not notable... yet. The2ndflood, the company is the problem, not the artical. (Signed: J.Smith) 06:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the VfD notice was removed on 2nd February, re-added on 8th February. See previous discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jump Mobile) which resulted in speedy deletion as copyright violation; the article is no longer a speedy candidate. No vote. - Mike Rosoft 13:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subsidiary of Leap Wireless. Possible merge candidate. Kappa 13:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 14:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a real company and has 16,500 google hits. Elfguy 14:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It only has 224 unique Google hits. --Aaron 14:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per elfguy Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to meet WP:CORP with three current Google News stories including one from the Houston Chronicle. [39]. Capitalistroadster 22:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consider merge FloNight 13:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 23:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PSIK[edit]

Delete. An article about an activity unit of an university. The website given redirects to a forum with only 22 members. *drew 13:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable forum. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 14:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and potential WP:VSCA. --Kinu 18:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn and possible WP:VSCA. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn above. Blnguyen 23:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Elfguy 13:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 17:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshiva orthodoxy[edit]

Blog with low Alexa ranking and Google results. Does not seem to meet WP:WEB. This is not a vote. Brendan 03:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e ath phoenix 14:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, no start date, no end date, and no evidence of anything important happening in between the two. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. come on it's a blog. Elfguy 14:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 48 unique Google hits, one of which is the original AfD. --Aaron 14:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Avi 16:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete both; asteroid is covered by List of asteroids (18001-19000). Johnleemk | Talk 15:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18190 Michaelpizer[edit]

Non-notable asteroid; one of many named after science fair winners. Delete. —Brim 04:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling Michael J. Pizer, the science fair winner that the asteroid is named after. howch e ng {chat} 07:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree w/ above, delte em both as vanity. —This user has left wikipedia 10:05 2006-02-02
Smerge. No reason why we shouldn't have one (or more) lists of the higher number asteroid names with a line or so about each one. Suggest we merge this and any others between 18001 and 19000 into one article unless they are truly notable.
Looked him up on Google. Very notable in my opinion. Should leave separate until sufficient entries for asteroids 18001-19000 after which should merge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.190.151.43 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e ath phoenix 14:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear. I've recently been informed that merely having an asteroid named after you makes you notable. Although with around 20,000 of them that is a bit sus, I'd say. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are tons of articles about individual asteroids as shown here [40]. However this should be listed on the proper list pages / categories. Elfguy 14:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable asteroid. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 14:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Howcheng. --Aaron 14:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the vanity (Michael J. Pizer) and merge/keep the usable info per Elfguy (List of asteroids/18001– 19000). Asteriods are notable. The people after whom they are named (sparing of course Nobel laureates, etc.) are not. -- Krash (Talk) 15:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment So you mean keep but delete Michael J. Pizer ?
Delete both asteroid and namesake articles. Neither are overly notable. I'd support a merge into List of asteroids/18001– 19000 of the asteroid information if such an article were started.--Isotope23 18:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a list of asteroids. --Vizcarra 21:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a list of asteroids, unless this one is special somehow; I will not assume that anyone for whom an asteroid is named has at least some notability any more than being a professor at some university makes one notable...if your field is astronomy (biology, too, I gather) and you find some little something you get to name it after yourself whoopie; there are perhaps *millions* of asteroids (or species/variants) which means that someone gets to be the first to see each. Not notable. Carlossuarez46 00:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the asteroid into a list, no vote on the person. I'm leaning towards saying that the criteria for having an asteroid named after someone are substantially more lax than the criteria for inclusion here, and that the occurence of such naming doesn't per se make that person notable. -- Jonel | Speak 02:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete person and asteroid, strongly against creating a list which will just turn into listcruft. Stifle 13:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a rock, people. --Malthusian (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both the asteroid and the person - Hahnchen 13:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lowri[edit]

Dicdef, already transwiki'd Alai 09:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e ath phoenix 14:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ruby 14:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also, the insect thing? Never heard it. Maybe a student prank, who knows. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. -- Krash (Talk) 14:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 23:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hexarelin, GHRP-6, Hexatropin[edit]

Previously speedied as spam (1 and 2, not 3) and subsequently re-created by the editor, whose only edits are in relation to the area of human growth hormones used as anti-ageing treatments (see HGH quackery). Article is unreferenced, probably a copyvio (most of the author's contributions to date have been) and undoubtedly spam ("we have created a more potent GH releasing mechanism than ever heard of"). Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect them all to each other in one pointless loop. Delete as nominated. -- Krash (Talk) 15:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 16:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and page protect against recreation. not WP:V--Isotope23 17:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Blnguyen 23:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete would need serious sources and better articles to be worth keeping. Elfguy 13:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy userfied to User:Brianq. howch e ng {chat} 01:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian quintana[edit]

Bio started by User:Brianq, which makes several nonsense claims to notability. Hollywood movie producers without imdb listings don't really exist. Only Brian Quintana that google finds is some guy who's suing Paris Hilton, googling ""Brian Quintana" - hilton" gives 133 unique results, none of them mentioning a film producer. - Bobet 14:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely unremarkable. Perhaps speedy per {{db-bio}}? -- Krash (Talk) 15:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete a7 as non-notable bio. --Rory0 96 15:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:49Z
Delete per nom. Avi 16:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax.--Isotope23 17:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above (junk). Blnguyen 23:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 23:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Scare[edit]

Delete. Does not appear to be a notable ensemble. BD2412 T 14:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete as {{db-band}} -- Krash (Talk) 15:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Krash. *drew 15:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 16:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn.Blnguyen 23:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Elfguy 13:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waffleball[edit]

Delete as a non-notable game made up in school one day (and then refined several times since last year until it reached its current state, of course). The creator removed my {{prod}} without comment. --Rory0 96 14:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Was just about to check whether I could prod it when the afd came down. MLA 14:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for games made up during school. Dr Debug (Talk) 15:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Why oh why can't that be a WP:CSD? -- Krash (Talk) 15:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above and the fact that I have no sympathy for articles where the creator pulls the {{prod}} tag without making even the slightest attempt to improve it. --Aaron 15:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable game, WP:NFT refers. (aeropagitica) 15:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 16:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Isotope23 17:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as made up in school. "Breakfast themed game"? Huh? Are there lunch- and dinner-themed games? Maybe, but not in any gym class I ever took. Daniel Case 20:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear WP:NFT. --Kinu 21:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NFT Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn social phenom/game.Blnguyen 23:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is non sense. Elfguy 13:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zooball[edit]

Delete as non-notable game, per above. The creator also removed this {{prod}} tag without comment. --Rory0 96 15:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without comment. -- Krash (Talk) 15:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and the fact that I have no sympathy for articles where the creator pulls the {{prod}} tag without making even the slightest attempt to improve it. --Aaron 15:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:51Z

Delete per nom. Avi 16:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Isotope23 17:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and everyone else. Daniel Case 20:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. --Kinu 21:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn social phenom/game.Blnguyen 23:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is also non sense. Elfguy 13:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:DragonflySixtyseven. P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 15:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boner![edit]

Non-notable, unreferenced game. Borderline speediable, although I couldn't find any criteria under which to do so - perhaps this is an example of WP:IAR. In any case it's here now, it's unreferenced, it's non-notable, and it's original research.-- P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 15:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dimes - I am afraid I completely disagree.

This is a real game. and whilst the rules written in a slightly tongue-in-cheek manner (i.e very verbose language was used) it was the best way to describe a relatively complex game.

I agree it is unreferenced, because we invented the game! How else will it get referenced without a start point at which to document it?

Bit of a catch 22 huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.7.38.54 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waffleball. --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 15:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep moink 00:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worden, Germany[edit]

Even though it is very hard to search for Worden since it's a common word, it does not seem to appear on any map, German wikipedia and the only mentioning I could find is a weatherstation and I get the impression that the weatherstation is most of Worden, Germany. Listed here since {{prod}} was removed. delete Dr Debug (Talk) 15:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any maps apart from here[41], and here[42]. Real place Keep obviously. Jcuk 16:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The real name seems to be "Wörden" with an umlaut, and apparently there are several of them, one here: de:Finnentrop, which doesn't seem to be the same as that on the maps above. And boy, are they all small. Lukas ^(T.|@) 16:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Worden is a real place at those coordinates, at least if you trust Google Earth. Suggest puting it on dated cleanup and if after 90 days nobody has added enough to even make a workable stub, AfD it again.--Isotope23 18:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it's a real place, it ought to be kept. It should be expanded, though. Royboycrashfan 20:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Maybe also move & redirect to Wörden, Germany if that's confirmed as the name. Snurks ^{T C} 20:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can determine, the name is actually Worden, sans the umlaut.--Isotope23 21:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a real place. Elfguy 13:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Discussion appropriateley moved to WP:RFD. Peyna 21:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Medicine[edit]

Page points to stub on the French institution; considering that the articles which point to the page suggest that the intended target is an American institution, for which a page does not exist at the moment. Folajimi 18:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should probably be listed at Redirects for Deletion, where I would vote speedy keep, since it is the English name of a notable French org. Youngamerican 18:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Considering the literal translation that you have alluded to, perhaps it would be more useful to make it a disambiguation page instead? Just a thought... Folajimi 18:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that probably is not a viable option, as that is the name of the institution in Atlanta, Georgia. You can confirm this for yourself at http://www.academyofmedicine.com/. If you see any qualifiers for the name, please let me know. Folajimi 01:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence this English term is ever used for the French organization it currently redirects to. If someone is interested enough to write up an article about the Atlanta, Georgia historical site of the same name (and can demonstrate some notability) I might support a keep.--Isotope23 17:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seeing that I have yet to submit an actual vote, I shall do that now: "I support giving the page the deep six." While I might eventually write a stub for the historical location, I shall refrain from committing myself at this time. Folajimi 21:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the english version got redirected to the french article Académie Nationale de Médecine. This is a real institution [43] worth keeping. Elfguy 13:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just out of curiosity, why all the fuss about deleting a page that simply serves as a redirect??? Perhaps there are technical aspects/mechanics of Wikipedia that I need to be apprised of? Folajimi^(talk)
send to WP:RFD. This is actually an inappropriate/confusing redirect and should be handled with at RFD and not here. Peyna 20:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks for providing detailed instructions about the proper course of action. Cheers. Folajimi^(talk)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modd Squad (SimCity 4)[edit]

No vote. AlabamaLlama was apparently trying to put this up for AfD, but did nothing but put it in the Feb. 8 page, so I'm fixing it up. His reason (given in the edit summary) was, "This can be merged with the "SimCity 4" or the "SimTropolis" article." Rory0 96 16:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please just speedy-redirect to SimCity 4? The encyclopedic information is already there at SimCity 4#Modd Squad. -- Jonel | Speak 02:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create a smaller section on the SimCity 4 article if needed. This is not notable at all. Elfguy 13:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge and redirect to SimCity 4. Stifle 13:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete; information would be totally out of place in RuneScape. Johnleemk | Talk 15:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape Holiday Items[edit]

Delete Fancruft, very useless information which does not deserve its own article J.J.Sagnella 16:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally obscure gamecruft. Could be merged to RuneScape if anyone so desires.--Isotope23 17:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I've heard RuneScape players discuss this Compu te r Jo e 20:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Article is pretty extensive and covers subject well. Of course it needs attention. eLNuko 06:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if anything, otherwise delete, since it's nn otherwise. Elfguy 13:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Fancruft. Merge is possible. Stifle 13:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia isn't a collection of random cruft information. - Hahnchen 13:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sixyeux[edit]

WP:NOT, posiblly Vanity page eLNuko 16:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a bird, it's a plane, it's vanispamcruftisement!!! Royboycrashfan 20:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. The site is "a meeting point for several artistic souls"... not even many? Come on, that's not how you pass WP:WEB at all! --Kinu 21:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Avi 21:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable; artistic souls are never appreciated in their own time ... Adrian Lamo ·· 03:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a blog. Elfguy 13:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas Truth[edit]

Non-notable blog. Alexa rank of 22 is misleading, as it's hosted on blogspot. An IP who has never made any edits before removed the prod tag without comment. Rory0 96 17:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blogcruft. Notability equals that of my blog, which isn't saying much.--Isotope23 18:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blogcruft per Isotope23. At least try to look notable and legitimate by springing for your own domain. --Kinu 19:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dete as blogcruft. Royboycrashfan 20:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Isotope23 Avi 20:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Removal of {{prod}} tag without comment or any attempt to improve the article = instant vote to delete from me if it comes to an AfD. --Aaron 21:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn .Blnguyen 23:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its a blog... Elfguy 13:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STFG[edit]

Neologism. Fails Google test with 109 unique results. Vizcarra 17:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Longhair 17:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Aaron 17:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A better one is Google Is Your Friend (GIYF) Ruby 19:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above... a better one for people who post non-notable neologisms is STFU. :P --Kinu 19:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would replace it with DTFA (Delete The Fucking Article). Royboycrashfan 20:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Royboy :) Avi 20:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef, made up in school. Who the hell uses the definite article with Google anyway? Daniel Case 20:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn dicdef.Blnguyen 23:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-sense. Elfguy 13:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filolidia[edit]

Delete as a neologism. One Google result, which is completely irrelevant (it's part of an email address). Even the breakdown of the name makes no sense, why would someone use Greek and English in a word? The prod tag was removed by the creator without comment. Rory0 96 17:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mangojuice 17:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism, though Greek and English is not necessarily a valid reason for deletion. Royboycrashfan 20:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Oh, please. Avi 20:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People need it Sorry, if we made any insertion or correction in a wrong way having no real ideas how it had to be done. Anyway, this term really exists and already included in several printed dictionaries in Russia. It's very common already among plastic caps collectors all over the world. This type of collecting is brain new (several years only), but already have clubs in Russia, Japan, Chili and other countries. These are arguments. Anyway, its up to you to take a final decision. It would be pitty to leave people without the name of their hobby (try on eBay or other places the search for "caps" and you will see how many colectors of plastic caps are in the world). Thank you for your patience to read my pearl to the end.
Delete with 1 google hit, I doubt it is even in Russia. Regardless however, it's not a known english word. Elfguy 13:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No Vote. Could this be in any way related to pog collecting? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it can be re-created at a later date if there are signs of actual usage.Bjones 13:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't see anything encyclopeic here FloNight 13:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This comic shouldn't have been deleted, according to guidelines for webcomics It meets the #1 requirement for being at least in the top 30, on Top Web Comics every month, and #6 for being the first actual pokémon webcomic.--70.185.237.167 13:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon-X[edit]

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

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

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

Pokemon fan fiction webcomic, found here. It's hosted on Comic Genesis, which if you don't know is like the Geocities of the webcomic world. Although the main author of the article keeps on insisting that the webcomic is popular in the article, I see no evidence of this. The alexa report for Comic Genesis do not even mention this comic, as seen here. How is this random website notable? How is it more notable than a typical blog, geocities personal or random fan fiction? I don't think it is. - Hahnchen 17:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Answer: "It's hosted on Comic Genesis, which if you don't know is like the Geocities of the webcomic world." - Keenspace or as it's called now Comic Genesis, is a well established and respectable webcomic hosting service and is nothing comparable to geocities. "How is this random website notable? How is it more notable than a typical blog, geocities personal or random fan fiction?" - Random website? Wow, really reaching there, aren't you? First off this isn't anything like a blog, it's an established webcomic that's been around a pretty good amount of time. Geocities personal? You of all people should know the difference between a geocities personal (You've posted enough) and a webcomic. Random fan fiction? Well let's see here, first off.. it's not a fan fic, it's an adaptation, definitly not a fan fic, so if these are the reasons that notorious webcomic basher Hahnchen, has to delete this article, and these are the reasons behind this whole AFD, doesn't it seem a bit pointless, I really don't think Hahnchen has even checked out this website to verify anything.--70.185.237.167 03:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No Vote/Comment — Comics are similar to copy & paste material, and content of latest comic is rather crude and immature. Inclined to vote delete due to non-existing alexa ranking, but will hold off until other editors drop by. Kareeser|^Talk! 20:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: - How is this comic similar to copy and paste material, I don't see any evidence of that at all. Unless you're refering to how the frames of the comics are the same everyday so he must be cutting the images from his own source and pasting them into a template or something with each page. And what exactly did you think was crude, was it when Brendan said "I'm going to go on deck and play with my rod?" Yes, Brendan is a bit crude, that's how he is as a character. --70.185.237.167 03:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, comicruft. Royboycrashfan 20:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promo. Daniel Case 20:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete Alexa doesn't list individual comics from comic genesis or keenspace, only keenspace or comic genesis in general, I've worked hard on this entry at the request of several members of this comics fan base.--CrazyWaffle 21:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Alexa gives a break down of where the incoming users visit on Comic Genesis, and it's just that Pokemon X wasn't there which was why I mentioned it. I know that you've worked on this entry, and I'm sure that the comic has it's own fan base, but so does every comic out there and I didn't see anything here which made it stand out from the masses. May I direct you towards Comixpedia, the webcomic encyclopedia? They'll gladly take your contributions, even if it gets deleted from Wikipedia. - Hahnchen 21:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fanfic.--Isotope23 21:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete This comic contrary to what you may think is quite popular, all of it's fans are very loyal to the comic and the comic is very funny!-Rick_Xeros

Comment — Please note that Rick_Xeros is a newly created account editing only this discussion. Treat as a sockpuppet. Kareeser|^Talk! 00:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether the comic is funny or the fans are loyal is immaterial. This comic is neither popular nor widely discussed, and as such is not noteworthy or encyclopedic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hanchen, you have been told repeatedly in the past that alexa is a poor indicator of popularity. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I know how Alexa works, and am reminded of it with constant patronisation. I have also mentioned to everyone who mentions it that Alexa ranking is a circumstantial thing. I provide a link for people who are interested, other website nominations normally do so, why should webcomics be treated differently? - Hahnchen 06:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question: - Why do you hate webcomics so much? --70.185.237.167 01:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why do you guys want this deleted so badly? What do you have against this comic? --CrazyWaffle 01:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. I'm enjoying watching all the Don't Deletes pile on, though; it makes it easy to see which people have never even heard of an AfD before. Ikkyu2 02:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB guidelines. -- Dragonfiend 02:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Instead of being negative and biased, why don't you people suggest ways to make the article more suitable to what you want?
- Same reason you don't sign your comments: we don't know how. Ikkyu2 03:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually "he of little maturity" I know how to add sigs, I guess it just slipped my mind to hit the sig button at the end, too bad they don't make a button that would fix your problem.--CrazyWaffle 03:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fanfic, doesn't meet WP:WEB.--み使い Mitsukai 06:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete I went to go read this comic after seeing this dispute, it doesn't really qualify as "fan fiction" as for popularity, since everyone knows Alexa doesn't list individual comics hosted by keenspace or comic genesis, you can't really check through them, this comic has been around a long time, updates frequently and has a pretty big fan base according to the amount of people registered at its forums, I think before you condem this article, you should work on better ways to prove it's not notable, rather than Hahnchen going off his hatred for all webcomics.--70.185.237.167 07:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute Delete. Pretty much your standard Internet fad AfD, complete with the nerfherders suddenly appearing in its defense, no doubt alerted by whatever party put the article up in the first place. For the record, once an article is on AfD, the burden of proof is on the "Keep" side. Articles are Delete-worthy until proven otherwise. --Agamemnon2 08:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete: I see no evidence supporting that this ISN'T popular. All I see in support for deleting this page due to it's so called lack of popularity is this Alexa rankings page, which has been said by multiple commentors to not be an accurate ranking of a comic's popularity. I also see one commentor saying that Hahnchen, who appears to be the creator of this delete motion, has a hatred for all webcomics. Isn't this a bit biased? I believe one should have to provide more proof than an inaccurate rankings page and his/her hatred of webcomics. And just because YOU haven't heard of Pokémon X before doesn't mean the comic isn't popular. I feel more proof should be provided as to the status of popularity (and on that note, popular to who? The entire population of the earth? Wikipedia users? Web comic readers? Please clarify this.) before a deletion occurs. Mjc0961 13:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm a fan of these comics. This comic is running for two years and a half now, and even has its own small cult following it around. Nevertheless, I don't see many claims of notability provided on the world wide web...I actually don't see any at all, apart from some minor webcomic-lists, such as Top Web Comics. It received 67 votes last week..that's not enough to justify a keep in my opinion. Therefore, delete.Soothing R 13:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: - How many votes did Megatokyo recieve last week?--70.185.237.167 01:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: Considering that Pokémon X is rated 36 and Megatokyo is rated 43, I'd have to say less votes. I can't actually find where SoothingR got the number of 67 votes for the week, but if Megatokyo is lower, Megatokyo got less votes. Mjc0961 12:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Take in mind that the Megatokyo comics actually went on print, and Pokémon-X is most probably never going to be printed.Soothing R 18:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - That's not because of popularity though, Pokémon-X probably can't go into print because pokémon holds the copyright, and also because it's a sprite comic, I don't recall a sprite comic ever going print, even if it has original sprites like A Modest Destiny.--70.185.237.167 19:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Elfguy 13:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point: - I don't think it really matters how popular this webcomic is, the point is this, it's an established comic, that much is obvious, it's been around almost 3 years. It has over 400 pages, and it has a lot of history behind it. It may not be mentioned all over the web like some webcomics, but it does have a rather large following. And if some of you would take time to read it, it's actually a quite inventive adapataion of the games.--70.185.237.167 01:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - Alexa seems to be a very unreliable source to base this judgement on. bigbboy1234 22:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT dELEtE!!!œ

Delete nn webcomic; it always makes me smile to see "do not delete" from the astroturfers Ruby 04:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Seems to me there's just a lot of arguing going on both ways without anyone giving any actual proof of anything. Alexa's rank means little, as Comic Genesis hosts many extremely popular comics, meaning a comic could actually become quite popular without getting a mention on Alexa. What this page actually needs is some reference to notability, and possibly a report of how many members reside in their forums. The only things I've gathered from this discussion are that it's not mentioned on Alexa, and it's been around for 3 years with a large archive. I took a look at it myself and while I'm not a fan of sprite comics it's certainly on the higher end of the quality spectrum. I will vote upon further proof of notability but for now I'd lean toward keep. Zaron 18:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer In my experience only about 1/3rd or less of the people who become fans of a comic actually join the forum, but I went to check for you, Currently the Pokémon-X forums at Proboards has 807 members. --70.185.237.167 01:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on the above information I see much more reason to keep the article than to delete it, even despite the ballot stuffing. -- Zaron 03:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Aggrement - I agree with Zaron, all of Hahnchen's sockpuppet/friends who keep voting for deletion without reviewing the facts or even looking at the comic.--CrazyWaffle 08:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I've vaguely heard of it, somewhat well known, at least, within the pokemon sprite comic community. But dear god, please get rid of the midi on the site! Having a midi automatically play on your site is something of an automatic decrease to your notability, I'm afraid. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This webcomic is of great quality, has a consistent plot, and owns a reasonable fanbase who cares about the comic and its author. I began reading it four days ago under suggestion from a friend, and I was surprised to look it up here and see that it is in danger of deletion. This comic has been in the works since 2003, and although I know there are people like myself who are willing to read though the whole archive, a Wikipedia aticle will benefit those who want to just start at the current page, by providing the in-depth information on the characters and plot the site itself cannot produce. For those who have been reading it for a long time (and from I have seen, there are quite a few), an article can also provide any information they might have forgotten. I find it ironic that for a comic that is "unpopular," its article is quite a bit longer than say... Inverloch, which nobody dares to challenge. I am aware that there are WikiCities or the like specifically tailored for webcomics, but in my opinion those are more aimed towards those who read a large number of comics and/or have the patience to even find those sources. Finding the article on the main Wikipedia site is quick and easy. -Sarranduin 23:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The quality or consistency of the comic is absolutely irrelevant, and I see no evidence that the fanbase is significant. If the author wants a description of the plot or characters to bring readers up to speed, the author can do so on his or her own site; being Cliff Notes for webcomics is beyond WP's scope. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then how is this different from what the other webcomics that aren't be questioned doing?--70.185.237.167 09:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. HotWings 01:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet webcomic notability standards. Savidan 05:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Annoyance - We've already gone over the notability issue.--70.185.237.167 09:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The adventures of Gumbo[edit]

Is http://www.lazywally-hq.net/2.html a popular notable website? What about a webcomic hosted on Lazy Wally, is that any more notable? I don't think so, Google doesn't seem to think so with 20 or so links the majority being wikipedia, and nor does Alexa, which doesn't even rank it. Let's get rid of this please. - Hahnchen 17:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable Avi 20:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 20:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB notability guidelines. -- Dragonfiend 02:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Elfguy 13:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zaron 23:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve's Shades of Grey[edit]

A webcomic, found here. The site it's hosted on, the gamespact network is apparently a blogging portal and community, with its forums garnering a rocket 115 members (mostly non webcomic related). It has zero Alexa rank. Now, I wouldn't even think that the Gamespact community is notable enough in itself for a wikipedia article, yet alone the webcomic hosted on it. - Hahnchen 17:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Aaron 21:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Not every webcomic is 8BT Avi 21:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While the comic to date is short, the article seems to be well written and I see no compelling reason to delete. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB notability guidelines. -- Dragonfiend 02:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. It's just a blog. Elfguy 14:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InSONICnia[edit]

Sonic the Hedgehog fan fiction webcomic, found here. It's hosted on The Mystical Forest Zone, a Sonic the Hedgehog fansite, do you think that website is notable enough for wikipedia?! Google gives just under 50 links. I don't think this fansite or its webcomic are notable enough for wikipedia. - Hahnchen 17:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alexa ranking is just 584,494- it's not nearly notable enough for WP. --Rory0 96 17:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - May I add that the Alexa rank is for the fan site it is hosted on. This is just a small portion of that fan site. - Hahnchen 18:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 20:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:VSCA. Royboycrashfan 20:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB notability guidelines. -- Dragonfiend 02:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fanfic, doesn't meet WP:WEB.--み使い Mitsukai 06:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another nn webcomic. Elfguy 14:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 08:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn of the Deli Creeps[edit]

Non-notable album from non-notable band Nv8200p talk 17:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 18:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 20:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Royboycrashfan 20:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
umm Keep absolutely passes WP:MUSIC by virtue of Buckethead (a former member of Guns N' Roses, a notable band) being a member of the Deli Creeps. Jcuk 23:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen 23:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jcuk; Buckethead is pretty notable. -Colin Kimbrell 17:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Don't see that this is a notable album at all. Jonathunder 14:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 09:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deli Creeps[edit]

Don't meet notability requirements of WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 17:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 18:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 20:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. You could have nominated the two together. Royboycrashfan 20:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:MUSIC by virtue of Buckethead (a former member of Guns N' Roses, a notable band) being a member. Jcuk 23:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen 23:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jcuk; Buckethead is pretty notable. -Colin Kimbrell 17:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of Buckethead. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Eagle[edit]

Hoax society - see talk:Royal Eagle. If the author manages to get the University to list it, the the deletion grounds become non-notable student society. -- RHaworth 17:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. No Guru 17:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not WP:V.--Isotope23 18:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable, and non-notable anyway. — TheKMan^talk 18:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's well written etc. but this part makes me suspicious: "less-than-dignifying "humper" of love". James Kendall 18:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax and non-notable per nomination Avi 20:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Royboycrashfan 20:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - see also Adelaide University Engineering Society.Blnguyen 23:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the article itself says, it is a chauvinistic student society with no measurable impact on the world at large. No doubt concocted somewhere between the fourth and sixth drink during a Friday night sometime in November (of an unremarkably bad year) by people whose academic achievements are limited to how many courses they can fail simultaneously and how obnoxiously drunk they can be and still retain their 40-point IQs. --Agamemnon2 08:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- After receiving (and replying to) a rather sarcastic message from a spokesman of said organization, I retract my vote to avoid impartial voting from taking place. --Agamemnon2 07:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo I just wish they would let me in...
Delete, per nom. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither notable nor verifiable. --Srleffler 01:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . No proof that this group really exists. If we do find source(s), article should be limited to facts that can be sourced, otherwise I could add that "all members must be less than three feet tall" and assert that I have inside knowledge that this is true. If we are unable to substantiate anyting other than its existence, then simply delete and list the society on Secret society article. MPS 02:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Vaknin[edit]

Copied from Article's Discussion Page:

With the exception of one small book of short stories in Hebrew, which may have been formally published some time ago in Israel, he is entirely self published ("Narcissus Publication" is registered in his wife's name and produces Sam Vaknin's works exclusively, always in soft cover).

It seems to me that, if there were an Hebrew Wiki, there might be a case for his inclusion in a Hebrew Wiki. There is certainly a case for his inclusion in http://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/ where regular users are better placed to assess his real validity, but apart from that, it seems to me that if there is a place to draw the line between valid articles and vanity this is it, as Sam Vaknin would seem to me no more than one of the droves of people who use vanity presses and self promotion on the internet to chase their "15 minutes of fame". --Zeraeph 10:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Narcissism is all about superfluous vanity, and attention-seeking. It is in keeping with the nature of the behavioral disorder to simultaneously utilize and attack a source of narcissitic supply; in this case, Wikipedia. This site is simply another object to exploit for the sake of self-gratification. The deletion of Sam Vaknin and his tiresome reposting of innumerable links to his articles would be tantamount to doing the world (and Wikipedia) a great service, high Amazon sales ratings notwithstanding. --72.16.41.16 06:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_______________________________

Delete A superfluous vanity page created by a user currently involved in attacking Wikipedia in the online Press see: http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=1590&cid=1&sid=19 --Zeraeph 18:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Adam ^(talk) 18:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, may satisfy WP:BIO as an author; I'd need to see some sales figures to determine that. Otherwise a clear delete as non-notable. Pretty funny that someone who attacks Wikipedia's value would be such a frequent contributor though. It's also a bit suspicious how close his userpage bio is to the text in this article... --Isotope23 18:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can't believe that just because one of his columns involves Wikipedia it's given a separate section. How is it more notable than any other column he's written?! This is the kind of self fetishisation that Wikipedia doesn't need, I'm sure that if he had published a critique of Britannica, it'd be absolutely ignored. Anyway, this isn't a vote from me, he has a phd, so I'm guessing he's published some books. You'd have to examine them a bit more for an informed decision. - Hahnchen 18:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep. Currently published author with relatively high Amazon sales rating, extensive editorial reviews [44], and well over 150,000 pertinent Google hits. Hard to see this as anything but a bad faith nomination. Wikipedia is not censored to eliminate mention of its critics. Monicasdude 19:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

The PHD was purchased from a recognised degree mill (Pacific Western University).
The google hits are the result of years of deliberate self promotion and search engine manipulation.
Is there any evidence, apart from his own assertion, for the Amazon Sales figures?
I know, in one sense, the article (that really IS more a blatant attack than a critique) shouldn't matter, but it really is extreme, and is open to charges of being some kind of "reaction" to[45]
The "reviews" are largely the work of two people using several identities, and if you read them, rather obviously so
"Bad Faith"? Can't argue with that, but trust me, he EARNED it.

--Zeraeph 19:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response. My reference to the Amazon sale ranking is based on the Amazon pages, not on anything the author may have said. And however fake the customer reviews at Amazon may be, the "editorial reviews" are, according to Amazon, selected by Amazon itself from outside sources, not user submitted. Monicasdude 02:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-promotion. He's got a user page, that's enough. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The frequent contributions to Wikipedia and simultaneous attacks against Wikipedia, made by Sam Vakin, are simply a presentation of NPD in action. SAM BE GONE... Delete, delete, delete. senihele 21:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zeraeph is absolutely right in his assertions. Vaknin has been a known entity for years to just about anyone who's ever been part of any online site even slightly related to psychological issues. But that's not a very large community overall. And for the record, the number of unique Google hits he gets is only 386. --Aaron 21:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If his PhD. gets referenced in his article, I want my degree-mill D.D. referenced in mine ... Adrian Lamo ·· 23:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Most of the delete votes seem to be based on the idea that the subject doesn't deserve to be notable. That's not an encyclopedic criterion. If applied evenly, next up on the deletion list should be Paris Hilton, Ann Coulter, a fistful of serial killers, and most of the US Congress. Informally, the real "notability" criterion here ought to be "Is this a person who someone might reasonably want more information on, and look up in Wikipedia?" By that standard, it doesn't matter how much of the subject's prominence comes from self-promotion, or whether the number of unique Google hits out of the 150,000+ is 3, 300, 3000, or 149,999. If somebody rummaging around the web can find him in 150,000 places, that's the relevant number for assessing notability. Monicasdude 02:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Damn you, Monicasdude, for making such a reasonable argument that I'm forced to agree in principle, despite my gut saying this gentleman should go :) . Adrian Lamo ·· 02:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's a funny man, that article was quite a nice read, although the ending was off: In the absence of such third party accreditation, the Internet risks both irrelevance and disrepute. Now, I don't know about standards at Mr Vakin's social circle, but where I come from, the Internet already IS irrelevant and disreputable, and justly so. --Agamemnon2 08:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Is this a person who someone might reasonably want more information on, and look up in Wikipedia?" With 150,000 self produced and promoted, frequently duplicated hits, on Google WHAT ON EARTH would anybody want further information for? Seriously? Since it was posted this article has remained a promotional stub, almost identical to his user page, so there can't be very much more anybody wants to know or say about him, including himself. There are some nasty (in various senses) people who are "notable" but they have all actually achieved some aspect of that notability offline, the only thing Sam Vaknin is notable for is artificially generating an huge internet presence under his own name. There are several MLMs that have done the same thing and we don't have entries for them? --Zeraeph 10:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep if you look at the google hits that author does seem to be notable. Elfguy 14:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABSOLUTE Delete Wikipedia is being used as propaganda for a verifiable fraud, charlatan and diagnosed nutcase! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.121.233 (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

349 Broadway[edit]

A NN New York building MNewnham 19:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nine story building with only some of the floors field researched Ruby 19:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Isotope23 19:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Buildingcruft? hahaha... (Just kidding). Delete per nom. Kareeser|^Talk! 20:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Avi 20:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as just another building in New York. --Kinu 20:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Emporis built 1897, architect Robert Maynicke, I would be the first to defend a building article but this one's not famous or remarkable in any way that I can tell. --Lockley 22:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lockley. I ran a quick search to see if this building was of any architectural significance, and nothing came up. If this article survives, I might as well write an article about my own house. --Aaron 22:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen 23:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 347 Broadway and it doesn't even say what is on the 4th, 5th, 7th and 8th floor. Dr Debug (Talk) 01:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already! --Liface 23:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Patrick[edit]

Notabilty appears to fall short WP:BIO criteria for notability. Was listed {{prod}} but this was contested, so I'm bringing it to AfD.--Isotope23 19:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nomination.--Isotope23 19:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 20:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN and looks like the original author is the article's subject. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. {{PROD}} removal w/o honest attempt to improve the article or hold a discussion = automatic vote to delete on AfD. --Aaron 22:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen 23:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was the initial PROD nominator, will Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V my reasoning here:

nn documentary maker and radio and television presenter. Google search for "sean patrick" "AFN Europe" -wikipedia iraq brings 6 unique hits. Movements of a single infantry division in a large-scale war are not notable and neither is reporting on them. Zunaid 07:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. W.marsh 00:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Penis Enlargement[edit]

This article is a very small joke. Ruby 19:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Penis enlargement. Not so much a joke as a pointless, content-light version of an existing (if poorly written and sourced) article. Jelqing already redirects to Penis enlargement. No reason this shouldn't too.--Isotope23 19:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Isotope23. Smerdis of Tlön 19:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per above --light darkness^(talk) 20:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. PJM 20:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, what a useless article.... Royboycrashfan 20:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the phrase itself will generate extra Google hits, I fear, for the sort of people behind this chestnut spam topic. "This article will be updated on a regular basis with as much info on Natural Penis Enlargement as possible"? Sorry, I've already heard more than enough. Daniel Case 20:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to redirect, IMO Avi 21:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Sometimes redirects avoid articles being re-created, which I is a good thing in this case. Makemi 21:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to prevent any regrowth of the article. Carlossuarez46 01:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PrivateEquityCentral.net[edit]

Non-notable commercial spam. Choess 19:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant ad Ruby 19:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatent ad by those who don't know when to turn bold off.--Isotope23 19:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — Adspam, and treat as such Kareeser|^Talk! 19:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per above.Bjones 19:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, not sure that it falls under a speedy category --light darkness^(talk) 20:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Editor also created related article just now: Private Equity Central Kareeser|^Talk! 20:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Isotope23. Daniel Case 20:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopædic Avi 20:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. -Aaron 22:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen 23:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Censorship of UFO Reports"[edit]

Obvious POV fork. None of information verified; if verified, info could be added to Unidentified flying object and daughter articles could be created from there in a way that does not violated wikipedia's forking policies. Savidan 19:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UFO conspiracy theory is the proper article to merge into ... with the caveat that I think only the parts of this article that are verified should be merged.--M @r ē ino 19:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to UFO conspiracy theory--Adam ^(talk) 20:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
History is a moving target. Read the appended sources before you act rashly, lest you become a censor yourself! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twhansen (talk • contribs) 15:51, February 8, 2006
Delete POV conspiracy theorism. Just remember kids, Google Earth shows great pictures of Area 51!.--Isotope23 21:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Isotope23 and because of unsigned silliness above from the article's creator. --Aaron 23:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Adam abakharev 07:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, it's silly to believe a bunch of politicians that couldn't stop the Soviets from yoinking the plans to the Space Shuttle and building their own knockoff, or assassinating Fidel Castro, could be able to perfectly maintain the cover of secrecy over what would be the most spectacular finding since Ug and Ook invented fire back in the neolithic era. --Agamemnon2 08:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Okay, the shuttle thing didn't really happen, but neither did the UFOs).

Delete as POV fork. Stifle 13:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article with such a title just cannot be NPOV. Elfguy 14:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hate when the black helicopters fly so low. — Indi ^{[ talk ]} 22:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see what there is to merge. There is a list of haphazard "references" at the end but its not clear what, if any, of the material is derived from those. Savidan 05:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. {{db-empty}} Shanel 20:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NatSe[edit]

Delete, not informative and has no place in an encyclopedia Jim 20:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, and at best belongs in Wiktionary, probably someone just made up ikh 20:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 00:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defeat in detail[edit]

Paul August deleted my prod tag without comment. Wikipedia is not a usage guide, or slang and idiom guide. James084 20:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverified, non-notable, no context, etc. Avi 20:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep After doing some more research, it does seem to be a well-known maneuver, and while the article needs cleaning up, it should stay. See Maneuver warfare, and here http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/midway/mid-4k.htm for examples -- Avi 21:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and unverifiable as a legitimate tactic. Sounds more like a strategy for Command & Conquer. --Kinu 21:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a common military term gets 15,600 Google hits. Wikipedia should definitely have an article on this classic military strategy. Paul August ☎ 21:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete common enough term, but that's just it... it's a dicdef for a slang term.--Isotope23 21:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "slang term" see for example its use in the following Britannica article: [46] Paul August ☎ 23:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, if it's in Britannica, then it must not be slang...--Isotope23 03:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could support a merge & redirect to Maneuver warfare.--Isotope23 21:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ unless better verification shown, or cleanup if kept. Little more than a dicdef as it stands, and one which makes contradictory usages of another term. Not really a strategy or tactic or operational consideration that can be expanded to encyclopedic scope. Unsourced. The first two pages of Google hits are about a pair of books by a single author and about a single wargame, with only one hit relevant to the article's topic among those twenty items. In truth it sounds like little more than "wipe out one squad and hope the other ten brigades are all on lunch break at the time." Barno 21:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to merge and redirect per Isotope23. It's a well-known term (I was familiar with it from wargaming and military studies), but it's really just an idea, not a specific maneuver tactic. If your primary strategy is "defeat in detail", and if your tactics are aimed toward that end, you will almost certainly lose unless the opponent is heavily outnumbered or heavily damaged. Barno 00:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very well-known military term describing an important tactic/strategy. Why do you think there there is a "pair of books" and an "wargame" named after it? There are innumerable references to this term. Besides the Brittannica reference above, and the others provided by Avi above, see [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57]. I could go on and on. It would probably be easy to find thousands more. Paul August ☎ 23:49, February 8, 2006 (UTC)

If it's so easy, and you clearly have references up the wazoo, why can you not be bothered to improve the article by adding some? That would be more productive in terms of making the case for keeping than sniping at people in AfD. —rodii 03:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my view while the links above are sufficient to show that the term is legitimate, none of them are a very appropriate reference for the term. An appropriate reference would be some authoritative book on military tactics, strategy or history, unfortunately I don't have any such reference at hand. As for making any other contribution to the article, as I said below, this is not my field of expertise and I'm unqualified to add anything to the article. The only contribution I feel I'm qualified to make, is to try to insure that this article doesn't get deleted. I apologize if I've been "sniping". That hasn't been my intention. Paul August ☎ 04:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, OK, me too, sorry. :) —rodii 04:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Paul August ☎ 04:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If you just toss out the {{prod}} tag without bothering to improve the article in the slightest or engage in any discussion, then you don't deserve to survive an AfD. --Aaron 23:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. I'm the person who removed the "Prod" template. There is no obligation on the person who removes the the prod template to improve the article. I have engaged in discussion. What do you mean I "don't deserve to survive AfD?" This is about the article not me. Whether Wikipedia should have an article called "defeat in detail" has nothing to do with anything I do or don't do. Paul August ☎ 23:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, improving the article is "optional", but I agree where the template reads "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so." The "Defeat in detail" talk page is blank, so you didn't discuss it until after the nominator brought it here for proper process. Removing the prod template without doing something proactive to advance the discussion isn't grounds for "don't deserve to survive AfD", but it's likely to cause other editors to discount your assertions. It looks more like edit-warring than consensus-building. Despite this, I'm modifying my vote slightly given the further citations. Barno 00:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Barno above. At least leave some kind of comment when the prod tag is removed to explain why the article deserves to be kept. Furthermore, if you feel strongly about keeping an article that, at least in this case, is little more than a dictdef, why don't you feel strongly enough to improve the article a little bit? Just coming in here and voting to keep and improve doesn't seem to get these articles impoved in any way; thus, leaving a hoard of bad articles. BTW, I would like to point out that the reason that I nominated the article for deletion is legitamate and until the article is improved it remains legitamate. James084 01:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I know just enough about this term to know what it means, and to know that it is a very common and important military term, and consequently to know that this topic deserves to have an article on Wikipedia. However military strategy and history is not my field of expertise, and without going to the library and doing some research, I am unqualified to make any real improvements to the article. That an article needs to be improved is not a legitimate reason for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Paul August ☎ 02:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I would refer you to WP:NOT to point out what Wikipeida is not and that is it is NOT a dictionary. This article was a dictdef. James084 02:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And I'm well aware of WP:NOT, which says "if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia." Thus, that an article only contains a definition is not a legitimate reason for deletion. A lot more can be said about this topic than just a definition. Paul August ☎ 03:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This vote seems to conflate the editor and the article. Just because there is disagreement over the tag and you dislike one editor removing it does not mean that the whole article irredeemably needs to be deleted. You can vote as you like, however, I urge you to reconsider this particular stance. Georgewilliamherbert 03:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a important and well documented strategy. A few examples of its use; Gallic tribes attempted (and nearly succeeded) in defeating Caesar's army in detail at the Battle of the Sabis, and more famously, none other than Napoleon tried to do it at the Battle of Waterloo. There are numerous other cases that I can't think of off the top of my head. The article is poorly written at the moment, but should be kept and improved, not deleted. I'll give it some attention when I have more time. Robth^Talk 00:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Legitimate military tactic. Expandable beyond dicdef. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: but should be improved significantly. It is an important aspect of military strategy, operational art, tactics, etc. I don't agree with redirecting to Maneuver warfare, the terms aren't synonymous, though they are related. I am going to start improving it in my spare time. Georgewilliamherbert 02:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been Cleaned Up significantly. I've done a couple of passes through the article; I suggest anyone who voted Delete might want to re-read it now and reconsider. It's not done but it's a reasonable first pass now, IMHO. Georgewilliamherbert 02:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above.

above unsigned Keep apparently by User:Pypex - Georgewilliamherbert 02:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per aboveMike McGregor (Can) 03:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Robth, and work to expand and improve it, rather than just rub it out. --Loopy ^e 03:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with thanks to Georgewilliamherbert. —rodii 03:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup, expand and improve, but don't delete. This is an important military concept which deserves its own article. Perhaps the one who made the "Command & Conquer" quip, should read more books and play less video games.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it's indeed a well known military tactic then it is encyclopedic. Elfguy 14:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup, expand and improve, as RDH says. Just because you haven't heard of something, or it sounds suspicious to you doesn't mean it's a fake. Let the military historians take care of this, please. LordAmeth 20:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid military tactic and strategy, but concur that article must be expanded. As WikiProject Military History has just gotten rolling, it may be slow going. Please bear with us. --Habap 22:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is similar to Big Wing. User:Noisy | Talk 14:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Deb as patent nonsense. - Bobet 23:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duckduckmoose[edit]

Page describes a site that is not notable Jim 20:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry, i dont follow you, could you re-phrase? The Site is there, just in the stages of a re-shuffle. ok. is it still ok to leave this here, and update when the site is back in working order?

Delete and re-include when it is notable. Part of the problem is that the website isn't well-known enough to be listed here. WP:WEB for the guidelines for gauging notability. (Signed: J.Smith) 20:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Thue as a resume of a non-notable person. - Bobet 23:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill_Ogletree[edit]

Looks like someone wanted to post their resume... Jim 20:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and refer him to monster.com. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-bio (or userfy) Avi 20:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Symetrism[edit]

Non-notable political ideology. Probably with no existence outside the life of User:Symetrist. -- RHaworth 20:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. Choess 20:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Boy is this a no-brainer. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified, non-notable, possible hoax Avi 20:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I (the author of this article) am insulted by the presumption of these pseudo intellectuals. Just because YOU haven't heard of something does not mean it is a hoax. YOU are neither omniscient nor are you by any means an absolute authority. tell me this...aside from having a bunch of people flood wikipedia with requests for this...how would you suggest I prove symetrism is a valid political ideology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symetrist (talk • contribs) 18:05, February 8, 2006

Please note the use of the word possible. Without verification, there is no reason to assume that you are not trying to create a concept for the purposes of self-aggrandizement or plain tomfoolery. Anyway, if you have created it, it violates WP:NOR; if you have not, it needs sources. Until such point as you can bring adequate and verifiable sources, it is a possible hoax. My apologies for inadvertantly hurting your feelings. -- Avi 03:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Avi and per AfD etiquette vio by Symetrist. --Aaron 23:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be hard on the guy - his comment is no more a violation of etiquette than calling the idea a no-brainer. Symetrist: how do you prove it? I will weaken the criterion I gave on your talk page - have a Symetric Party candidate stand at any election and receive more than a derisory number of votes. -- RHaworth 01:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above.Blnguyen 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made-up ideology with 40 Google hits, the first of which is a Yahoo! profile. Adrian Lamo ·· 00:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search for Symetrism "flat income tax" yeilds no results; article's author gives a link to what he describes as "the only symetrism website I've seen" and it's on Geocities. (Even the most lunatic-fringe political groups that I've encountered manage to shell out seven bucks a year for a URL.) Plus, the article has already been userfied Ergot 01:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ftp Search Engine[edit]

This appears to be an advertisement. It was linked earlier to File Transfer Protocol. I say delete. - CorbinSimpson 20:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable web "directory." Probably doesn't pass WP:WEB if its Alexa rank is 334,439. --Kinu 20:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VSCA. Stifle 13:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article seems created just to advertise that one site. Elfguy 14:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD ^e✉ 02:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Student Linguistics in IIT Kharagpur[edit]

Non-encyclopedic. delete UtherSRG (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Boy is this a no-brainer. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft of non-notable and WP:NFT neologisms. --Kinu 20:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Something for Urban Dictionary. It's a weighty piece of work, and would be a shame to waste. James Kendall 21:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu.--Isotope23 21:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let the author put it on a subpage of his user page, but this is not wiki material, IMO Avi 21:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge contents with IIT slang or IIT lingo. deeptrivia (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep: I decided to put up a wiki page of this topic after discussing it in Esperanza's discussion page. I wanted to know if wikipedia policy allows such material to be posted inside wikipedia or should such things be kept aside for just external links. Only after I got a few positive comments did I write the artice on wikipedia. Please dicuss this issue in detail before deleting it. Things I wanted to know (in case a deletion is decided upon) are:
1. Is there any other platform over wikipedia where it would be suitable to write.
2. Should it be merged with some other title.
3. Where exactly should one ask before writing such articles. I hoped Esperazna would be a good forum, but even after a positive reply, I am faced with the challenge of defending my article.
After reading the wikipedia guidelines for deletion and the meaning of tags, I admit that the page is a listcruft (a list of interest to a specific group of people), but its possible to de-cruft it by removing items that are specific to IIT Kharagpur(i.e. deeptrivia's suggestion). This way, it can become quite general article on IITs in general and can be kept(IITs are the most famous engineering institutions in India, and hence will have a lot of relevance to groups outside). About Neologoims, I am not very sure as this isn't about just one word. While some fall into the category, others don't. User:Ambuj.saxena formatting edits by UtherSRG (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To further defend my work, I can quote a external source for my work. The IIT Foundation is a well known worldwide alumni association and has been very active in improving the student life in IIT Kharagpur. The page indicated has existed long before my work and my work is an expansion of it, though not completely Ambuj 13:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

To take up some of your points. The external source happens to be the IIT Foundation itself, and the main problem with your dictionary is that it is merely of interest to students of the IIT Foundation. You may be aware that many schools and colleges develop local slang. It serves no purpose for the general community if every school in the world made lists of their own slang and then used their own school website as a verifiable source.

You point to the internet slang list which you feel is comparable with your own list. It may help you understand why people are rejecting your dictionary while accepting the internet slang dictionary if you consider how many people use the internet as compared to how many people attend the IIT Foundation.

It would seem that a reference on the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi page linking to the page on slang would be sufficient in this case. SilkTork 00:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete creating an article with just this list serves no purpose. You should put the list in context inside an existing article on the subject. Elfguy 14:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved to author's subpage here: Ambuj.saxena/Student Linguistics in IIT Kharagpur -- Avi 14:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found another wikipedia entry on Internet slangs which looks a lot similar to my entry. In fact, the linking from the parent article is wierder than mine. What's more surprising is the fact that it quotes urban dictionary as its source/reference. Why are you adopting double standards? As regards to the point of writing in context, I have linked the article from IIT Kharagpur's page which is quite bulky in itself and adding something like this would make it even more awkward looking. Ambuj 16:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Would the list be acceptable if he made it into an article if it looked more like the Leet article?
Delete and merge contents with IIT jargon ot IIT Lingo per deeptrivia. Arundhati bakshi 17:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why are all of you silent about the Internet slangs article that is quite similar to mine. All the tags like non-encyclopaedic, no brainer and Listcruft of non-notable and WP:NFT neologisms all apply to that also. Should I put a delete tag to that entry also. Anyway, I am an inclusionist and not a deletionist, so I will never do that. But I have all right to demand fair treatment. Ambuj 06:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now to address the point raised by SilkTork, I would like to add that just by knowing that there's a word faccha in the lingo of IITs is not sufficient unless you know that it refers to a first year student, which the IIT Foundation's site doesn't quite do. About the Internet slangs article, I feel that we should compare the utility of the article and not the scope. What I mean is that instead of comparing how many people use the internet, we should see for how many people this page would be helpful. Obviously you can't include those who use the internet for only e-mails and googling into the audience of the article, but definitely include those who use usenet groups and discussion forums. Compare that to the IIT Slang page which makes the social fabric of the IITs. If you are inside the IITs, you have to know what these words mean to really be able to talk to any student. I am not saying that the student are rude, but many a times they don't realise that they are using the slangs. At any point of time, there are 25000 to 30000 IITians studying in the campus. Add to that the 4000+ students who pass out every year. Seeing from an alumni's point of view, suppose you are an alumni from a batch that passed 30 years back and you want to get nostalgic about the student life you had, then each and every word will be invaluable (this work is not made up in class one day, but is a tradition of over 50 years). Take a look at the statistics that the IITs have been functioning since the early 1950s and you will understand the target audience I am refering to is enormously huge. For those who still don't understand the importance of IITs, take a look at this video. I know that giving examples is not quite relevant as some might say that they are exception, but I take the liberty of quoting one for those who might be interested. This incident took place some 15 years back in an auditorium in Los Angeles. There was one IITian who was sitting in it and was not very happy with the movie projector's focus. He became increasingly irritated and blurted out Tarapado, focus as he used to do in his IIT days. Within a few seconds, a voice came from 2 rows behing that said Which Hall?. 203.110.243.21 07:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that it is sufficent that we are aware that a particular school, website, village, hobby, etc has developed local jargon. We don't even need to know any of the words, let alone the meaning of them. Once involved in a school, website or hobby you might need to know the meaning of faccha for IIT or lege for RateBeer. But the rest of the world doesn't need to know. That the IIT website does not have a glossary itself is even more argument against including one on here as this is not the place for original research. I suggest you approach the IIT website with your work. I am sure they would find it of value. And that is truly where it belongs. You may notice that I am not voting against your article. I am only here to engage in the debate you requested. SilkTork 09:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to know most of the stuff in Wikipedia. Including the material in Internet Slangs, marijuana slangs, or in the Jargon file, all of which have entries here. Nonetheless, they may be of use to some people. Arundhati bakshi

The argument pointed by SilkTork will lead nowhere. I can apply the same thing to the Internet Slangs article and say that we only need to know that the internet users have developed a slang of their own. So let all those websites/discussion boards that have users frequently use these slangs maintain their own listing of such slangs. I will now give a gist of what I believe should be debated upon.

Given the fact that the Wikipedia community considers the atricle on Internet slangs worth keeping, then it can be concluded that the claims that the page under consideration is non-encyclopaedic and no brainer do not hold. The debate should actually be on whether it is a listcruft or not. That is, whether the people who might be interested in this article big enough to grant it a place in the encyclopedia. Furthermore, if its not, will merging it with an article on IIT_Lingo or something equivalent will make it satisfy the criteria. When deeptrivia suggested that I go ahead with making an article general to all the IITs, I considered it well before deciding to start an article on Kharagpur's Jargon alone. This was because it will require significant editing and morover will discourage people from other IITs to start such page. Even now I feel if the article is deleted, it should certainly be made a part of a larger article involving all the IITs. The reason why I felt that IIT Kharagpur itself merits such an article is that the IIT community (comprising of students, professors, workers, etc.) is 20000+ strong at any point of time. And since the culture of this jargon dates back half a centruy, a lot many non-students have also started to adopt to a good part of it. The only argument that feels that can go against it is that most of the workers here don't use the internet. But I feel that this should hardly be the reason for not allowing this article to be posted. This is because if it doesn't get posted, when these people WILL start using the net, they will refrain from making such a page because they would come to know that such a page was not allowed to be hosted before. Unfortunately I will not be around for the next 3 days, the time when the fate of this page will be decided. It that happens, and is decided on polls rather than merit, here's my choice sheet for the single transferable vote: 1) Keep.

or 2) Delete and merge with IIT Lingo.

or 3) Delete and move to user's sub page.

Ambuj 11:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too specific topic, and more importantly, Wikipedia is not a slang or usage guide. If there is a general academic slang in India in general, it would merit a mention or even its own article, but this is way too academic-crufty. JIP | Talk 19:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Except here and here and here and here. Shouldn't rules be enforced consistently? Why is English boarding school slang OK but Indian IIT slang not OK? Arundhati bakshi 21:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of the articles you listed, while I feel all are more notable than this IIT Kharagpur thingy, none meet my criteria above. So my opinion is that if this article is deleted, then the first three should also be proposed for deletion (I thought the list of sexual slurs would be fairly long and complete, but it turns out it's far from it), and the last should be stripped of its slang section. JIP | Talk 23:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's one of my points. Why is this list being singled out and the others not? And why is British schoolboy slang more notable than Indian IIt slang? Arundhati bakshi
      - Pointing to examples of bad use of Wiki is a very poor argument. I would be more inclined to vote to keep if I was shown a good argument for the value of this particular dictionary of school slang. SilkTork 09:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        And why is it a bad argument? If the rules of Wikipedia apply to one article shouldn't they apply to others as well, or is that only for certain users to decide? I would prefer to see the list incorporated into an aticle maybe of IIt culture -- then it would make more sense -- but if this one goes, why should not the same criteria for deltion not be applied to similar articles of no greater value? Arundhati bakshi

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan (character)[edit]

Delete. Non-notable webcomic character Oldelpaso 20:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Boy is this a no-brainer. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Kinu 20:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh dear lord in heaven, why do people think that ANYTHING at all has to be immortalized in an encyclopedia. You know what, we should start a wiki-type database called crapapedia or something and just tw all these entries there. This way, people fill their Andy Warhol complex and we can have a decent work. <end rant> Avi 21:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this probably-well-intentioned entry that misses the mark of notability. Avi, I sympathize. --Lockley 22:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I needed that :-) -- Avi 04:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. -- Dragonfiend 02:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That's what Wikicities are for.--み使い Mitsukai 07:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we delete this article here, will that mean that it gets deleted in the webcomic, too? Interesting. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movescope.com[edit]

Looks like an ad to me. Delete. — Ливай 20:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable website, with Alexa rank of 1,445,880. --Kinu 20:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an ad... I've recently used the site for my move from NY to San Francisco. There is nothing wrong with posting about a new, "non-notable" site. There are many other postings similar to this...such as another move quote site I used uship --Leinheib 21:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia:Notability (websites). — Ливай 21:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uship's Alexa ranking is 48,519, which makes it more notable. Also, it is customary to identify yourself as the author of the article in question. --Kinu 23:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WEB and Alexa rank. JHMM13 (T | C) 21:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 22:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essca[edit]

NN Corp, on Dead-end pages since July 2005 MNewnham 20:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious company literature, using 'we'. James Kendall 21:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable company advert.--Isotope23 21:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:VSCA of an otherwise non-notable company. "We have offices"... should read, "We have first person pronouns!" Text is exact copy of that on their website. --Kinu 21:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertising. Also, copyvio from company page - tagging it as such. —ERcheck @ 02:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 02:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 22:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Moorlock[edit]

Hoax or non-notable. Only mention google finds of this famous philosopher is a guest book signature on a gaming site. Google finds no mention of the book "Should we praise the deaf?". Was prod-ed but tag was removed without comment. Weregerbil 20:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is this easy or what? ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Only one book of his was published, 'Should we praise the deaf?', which was limited to 200 leather-bound copies." I bet it's self published. If he's real, he doesn't seem too notable to me. --Kinu 21:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu. JHMM13 (T | C) 21:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see rant under Alan (character) Avi 21:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to Rajkumar. The massive ill-formatted stuff posted at this title was probably a copyvio. -- RHaworth 21:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. RajKumar[edit]

Now come on! What is there to say, this is one of the most need-to-be deleted articles :-)

Redirect, and RHaworth already beat me to it. This is the common sense move and unless anyone has a reasonable objection this AfD can be withdrawn.--Isotope23 21:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 22:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Five Star Painting[edit]

The creator of the article (User:MA77) bears a username similar to that of the owner of the business the article is about (Matt Anderson). There are only 177 Google hits for '"Five star painting" Minnesota', and the creator of this page has edited the Painter and decorator article to include this business. [58] This seems very much like an advertisement/vanity page for a small business. — Indi ^{[ talk ]} 21:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:VSCA. The company's website (Alexa: 4,591,364) doesn't make it seem too notable. Reminds me of the "Five Star Cleaners" down the street from me... which is about as encyclopedic of a subject. --Kinu 21:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Blatant Advertising Avi 22:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertising. New, nonnotable business. Not even a listing on BBB. —ERcheck @ 02:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious vanity/advertising. Elijya 17:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as per CSD A7: unremarkable people or groups. --M @th wiz 2020 22:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Long[edit]

Delete this minor English schoolboy's vanity page G N Frykman 21:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity page. — Indi ^{[ talk ]} 21:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kinu 21:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per A7. JHMM13 (T | C) 21:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7.--Isotope23 22:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete db-bio Avi 22:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Sceptre with the reason "csd a7". - Bobet 23:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent Inc[edit]

No assertion of notability. Apparently a consulting firm.

D Fawcett5 21:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't seem to find anything especially notable about this company. JHMM13 (T | C) 21:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to assert notability...or much of anything for that matter. — Indi ^{[ talk ]} 21:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Blatant Advertising (company version of db-bio/club/band) Avi 22:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thievery[edit]

how-to guides are inherently POV and non-encyclopedic ➥the Epopt 21:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a webspace provider.--Isotope23 21:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vani spas cruft or whatever that is :) Avi 22:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen 23:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a fit article for an encyclopedia. Camillus (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with possible creation of redirect to theft to discourage recreation. -- Jonel | Speak 03:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion. I removed PROD from the article on the basis that a currently running AfD should take precedence. Ikkyu2 04:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Under Heaven[edit]

86.128.193.98 deleted my prod tag without comment (Which, by the way, is getting very annoying). The article itself admits that there the importance or noteriety of the subject is not known yet. Perhaps we should wait until we do know? James084 21:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable gamecruft. At best this could be a redirect to Halo, but in my opinion it is even too obscure for that.--Isotope23 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Oh please. Avi 22:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cruft, shmruft. There's no bloody information here, just some speculation. (If there were any info, I'd be suggesting it be merged to Pillar of Autumn, though.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Kinu 23:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen 23:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is it just me or is it pretty useless to use ProD because they just get deleted and thus necessitate AfDs? --Agamemnon2 09:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wondering about that too. Seems to be an initial step to AfD most of the time...--Isotope23 18:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a certain utility to PROD when an article is obviously going to lose on AfD but doesn't quite fit the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, which are rather strict. Ruby 14:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pillar of Autumn.--Kross ^Talk 14:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per A Man In Black Ruby 14:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion A7). howch e ng {chat} 01:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dual 4Mat (demogroup)[edit]

Page about a demo group, doesn't establish notability, 73 unique google hits. - Bobet 22:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn Avi 22:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion G7, author request). howch e ng {chat} 00:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vncscan[edit]

Non-notable software. No mentions on either Slashdot or OSnews. Lots of Google results, but they seem to all be simple listings on software directories prompted by the company itself. Couldn't find a single independent review. Delete AlistairMcMillan 22:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. —Ruud 22:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete? 71.13.81.74

Why keep? —Ruud 22:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should atleast provide a reason, such as per nomination, not notable, etc. Mike _{(T C)}

23:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam and lock it so the article can't be recreated chowells 22:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is that one spam and the other commercial links are not? Sbostedor 22:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because those are widely-recognized, widely-discussed, widely-known tools, and this isn't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I'd be very happy to see RM-X_General_Purpose_Control and possibly a few of the others on AfD too. chowells 23:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam for a non-noteworthy software tool. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam, plain and simple.SFC9394 22:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ruud. "Why keep?" *applause* --Kinu 23:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Why do people think that their programs belong in an encyclopedia? Would you find mention of it in a traditional encyclopedia? Probably not!! Mike _{(T C)} 23:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ok, I stand corrected. I had no idea that this opinion was held by the majority here. I am sorry for causing this stir and I'm sorry for going over the top on Alistair. I am clearly in the wrong here. I will delete the VNCScan wiki and I will also delete any negative posts that I made about Alistair. Sbostedor

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 22:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Web Content Solutions"[edit]

Appears to be nothing but an advertisement, company non-notable, page is also an orphan - no link to the company website is given, but the article is still an advertisement SFC9394 22:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. --Aaron 23:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable web company with Alexa rank of 114,806; reeks of WP:VSCA. --Kinu 23:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spammy. No Guru 00:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam Dr Debug (Talk) 01:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, bacon, and spam [Insert Vikings Here]. Sheesh. Avi 04:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete for reasons given by nominator. (if kept should be renamed without the quotes) --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Avi. — Indi ^{[ talk ]} 22:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam. --Tokachu 23:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Space: 1999. Despite the low voter turnout, the consensus of those who did vote (even the nominator) seemed to be to merge. And doing so cannot permanently harm the encyclopedia, so I decided it was adequate. moink 15:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Woodgrove Trilogy[edit]

Glorified dicdef and neologism; could probably stand to be merged in to the Space: 1999 main article. Otherwise, the content in this article has no place on Wikipedia. Thus, delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 22:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, no real need for it's own page (given the very small amount of information the page contains), 3 google hits. SFC9394 23:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge extreme fancruft, note: is this verifyable? Can the phrase The Woodgrove Trilogy be shown to have entered into use even in this small group? Pete.Hurd 00:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - you cannot dismiss Kriss Akabusi as "some fitness guru" but you can dismiss this article as some schoolboy's ramblings. -- RHaworth 00:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ak Pride[edit]

I'm not really sure what ak pride is, but Google says it's a musical group, the article also says it "aims to get into the oxford dictionary by 2010". Go figure. O bli (Talk) 22:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looked to me (from going to the linked site) to be some fitness guru. I say delete. there's no earthly reason that this could be even remotely called an encyclopedia entry. Pat Payne 22:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see Kriss Akabusi CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Jolly mix of nonsense, protologism, and call for attack against "celebrity idiot {person's name}". Weregerbil 22:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Weregerbil. --Aaron 23:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was dealt with as copyvio. W.marsh 22:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anal sacculitis[edit]

Given this user's history (Seinfeld01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), this appears to be nonsense. -Jcbarr 22:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently a real thing; I've heard of it before. Google it if you have a strong stomach. --Allen 22:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- changing vote per Elfguy --Allen 23:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A real disease. —Brim 23:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Allen is right -- Google it. This is legitimate information. Anyone who would try to dispute this is just vandalising for personal purposes--Seinfeld01 23:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Google gives plenty of good sites about this. Royboycrashfan 00:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Copyvio: I'm sure it does ;). Copied from here~~ Delete per Elfguy Ck l o stsw o rd|^queta! 10:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rewrite~~Delete — Content may be a copyright violation from an internet source. Vote changed per ElfguyKareeser|^Talk! 01:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you don't just keep or modify a copyvio, you delete and recreate, if someone cares to. Elfguy 14:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, decision to merge should be handled on talk page. W.marsh 22:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Race trivia[edit]

Unencylopedic article about trivia from the reality show, The Amazing Race. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Delete Pepsidrinka 22:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever is worthwhile into The Amazing Race; Delete the rest. --Aaron 23:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything of value into The Amazing Race and its respective season articles; then redirect to The Amazing Race if necessary by licensing or delete if not. Otherwise, delete. --Kinu 23:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Most of these details were originally on The Amazing Race or one of its related season-based articles. However, they were moved onto this page so that more detailed trivia could be included, since the main article was climbing over the 36 kb threshold. --Madchester 00:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"A Detour is a choice between two tasks, each with its own pros and cons. Your choices: Merge It or Purge It. In 'Merge It', the most significant (or least silly) trivial bits not from the original articles are added to the appropriate articles, and the least interesting trivia in those sections are ~~Philiminated~~ Eliminated. In 'Purge It', the entire article under discussion is simply wiped out, and editors can deal with ranking the trivia from scratch." --Calton | Talk 02:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page was created more or less as a parallel to the Survivor Trivia page, which lists a LOT of trivial info, but is nonetheless interesting, and worth reading. If those little details about "best Fast Forward lead" were encyclopedic enough to stay on the main article for so long, then they're worthy of staying here in order to keep the size of the main article down. The same goes for any other similar info. --CrazyLegsKC 05:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ditto above. --HansTAR 05:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Amazing Race. Elfguy 14:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but what makes the Survivor Trivia page any different from this one that it doesn't merit deletion but this one does? --HansTAR 22:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well frankly, it is because I found this page and not the Survivor trivia page. Pending this AfD, if this AfD results in a "keep", then I'll accept that as consensus that the Survivor page should be kept as well. On the other hand, I will follow through with an AfD on that page if this results in a "delete." Pepsidrinka 22:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Breaking large pages into separate pages should be encouraged, not discouraged. Turnstep 16:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page was created to reduce the size of The Amazing Race, based on the Survivor Trivia precedent. Radagast 03:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Radagast. Royal Blue 05:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 21:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By Iamnotanumber[edit]

not a notable phrase. Maybe this could belong in Wikiquote, if well-known. —Brim 22:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense. The article is largely indecipherable. --Aaron 23:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia says, "I am not a repository for nonsense." --Kinu 23:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not amused Avi 04:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 21:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with attention deficit disorder[edit]

Indiscriminate, hard to verify list, of little value. Also delete List of famous people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder which is just a redirect to the subject of this AfD. Peyna 22:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Previous AfDs on 21 January 2006 and 8 August 2005, both of which resulted in a delete. Relevant talk page for the redirect above can be found here. Peyna 00:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hard to verify. I don't know if a verified list would be of little value, but in its current state, it is a liability more than anything else. Schutz 22:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Unverifiable, and a libel suit waiting to happen. --Aaron 23:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Look at all those marked "citation needed"... more like, "citation will never be found." Clear liability per Schutz. --Kinu 23:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no theoretical reason why a list on this subject can not be done correctly. I prod tagged it because I was hoping it could be steered in the right direction. Given the amount of activity that was immediately generated, I think the process was underway and should be given time. -- JJay 00:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Schutz. Forbsey 00:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize biographers can identify sources in each biography and include or not as appropriate, assuming that ADD is a meaningful way of categorizing people (For now, given every other disease or mode of death has a list, I'll assume it is). Carlossuarez46 01:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aaron. Adrian Lamo ·· 01:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can be verified, but difficult to do so for most of the people who could probably be included. The list itself stretches the definition of "encyclopedic". Schutz and Aaron are definitely correct in that it poses libel issues. At the very least, no name should ever appear without a source, even if the list is kept. -- Jonel | Speak 03:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Schutz Avi 04:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Aaron. Essexmutant 10:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable, possible legal infringements, and a list created just for the sake of having such a list, i.e. listcruft. Also possibly A6 speedy. Stifle 14:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too many lists, too little time. Elfguy 14:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the original list was well-explained as speculative, but we have already been through the Afd process. Vaoverland 18:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 21:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baloonkaz inc.[edit]

Advert article for some comic book with no references and no hits on google. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Kinu 23:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ads.Blnguyen 23:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising. Forbsey 00:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "There [sic] comics are soon to be in the markets as a mass production." WP:NOT crystal ball. -- Dragonfiend 02:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly advertisement. Elfguy 14:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above, author keeps removing AFD and adding nonsense aswell (And has vandalized my user talk page). --light darkness^(talk) 21:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. 3H 05:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 21:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Moy[edit]

Advertisement. Delete —Brim 23:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More than likely WP:VSCA. Creator of article has no other contributions. --Kinu 23:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ads.Blnguyen 23:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - while the article as stands does smell rather as an advert, the products are unquestionably developed by him, and are recommended by many skin-care companies, as evidenced by a Google search. Notable enough for me. Camillus (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertisement - note that name of creator is same as new product ingredient. Original article as "Dr. Moy" corresponds to name used in advertising for his products. —ERcheck @ 02:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable yet, informercial-type articles notwithstanding Avi 04:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --F a ng Aili 17:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 21:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hexagonalism[edit]

nonsense original ¿research? stuff-- -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research if not outright hoax Choess 23:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Choess. --Kinu 23:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete neologism, hoax, original research, etc. Avi 04:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non sense. Elfguy 14:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 22:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat piss man[edit]

Neologism, gets 345 google results [59]. See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Apparently the phrase was used in some self-published magazine but that's about it. W.marsh 23:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's fairly often used on web forums, e.g. rpg.net([60]); that's where I first encountered it.Bicornis 00:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable dicdef.Obina 23:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A6. Royboycrashfan 00:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the speedy tag. I don't think this qualifies. It's a neutral description of a negative word. howch e ng {chat} 01:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism Dr Debug (Talk) 01:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable neologism, and it smells Avi 04:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep approx. 329 references on Google. We had a woman like this at work but she was just called "Cat Piss". THB 23:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, Possibly Speedy per norm. 3H 05:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Mirabello[edit]

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

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

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

Delete ~~Original Autobiographic, wikified by others, still~~ not notable. Has published three unnotable books, furthermore nothing worth mentioning at the level of importance for wikipedia. See also the discussion about one of his books at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Odin_Brotherhood for more discussion on this. Page about him from before has been deleted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mirabello KimvdLinde 23:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Changed my obvious error --KimvdLinde 02:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP subject is mentioned in wikipedia by others, has notable published works yet is considered not important enough by a user happy to include a page on Drosophilidae, even though he states himself that nothing much is known about this subject, i quote "The knowledge of the phylogeny of this family is incomplete". 82.23.107.27 23:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

feel free nominate Drosophilidae for deletion. But we are not talking about me, but about the Mark Mirabello article. References to where he is mentioned are appreciated, did not find any that pointed at him when searching wikipedia --KimvdLinde 23:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject of article is, among other things, author of two nontrivial books published by non-vanity presses, one of which has five editions, indicating satisfaction of notability criterion for published authors. If publishing lousy books was grounds for deletion, let's start with the Jackie Collins' of the worls, and the guy who wrote the Da Vinci code nonsense. Monicasdude 23:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KimvdLinde you've edited your earlier thing. that's bad. i got told off for that you know. i've never heard of mark mirabello, but clearly having 3 books published is kind of a good thing and worthy of recognition. he appears to be a professor of some repute on at least two continents and is in need of inclusion as much as your remarkable collection of studies into flies. 82.23.107.27 23:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "subject is mentioned in wikipedia by others" - dubious - only mentioned in article on The Odin Brotherhood, book by Mark Mirabello, also up for deletion. 82.23.107.27 - your case is not helped by trolling KimvdLinde, and reference to Drosophilidae is completely irrelevant to this discussion. (You won't get far if you try to say that that article is a candidate for deletion). Please try to come up with a better rationale for keeping the Mirabello articles, rather than launching ad hominems. Monicasdude comment is pretty lame too - although I agree both authors mentioned are trash, they're read by tens of millions throughout the world, so are obviously notable. (No Vote as yet) Camillus (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if KimvdLinde has read the books in question then I am happy to retract my comments but as I suspect she hasn't then surely her comments that the subject in question's works are not notable and nothing worth mentioning are, as you say of another user's comments (hypocrisy eh, gotta love it) pretty lame. Not having heard of something cannot possibly be a verifiable reason for deletion in a worldwide encyclopedia. You'd have to be an ubermensch of the highest variety to KNOW and be able to comment on the notability of everything in the world. Carry on though. 82.23.107.27 00:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC) (change of sex edit btw)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet WP:BIO for professors. The books were published by what is likely a vanity press [61] and have low Amazon.com sales ranks. Peyna 00:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peyna. --Kinu 00:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peyna. Carlossuarez46 01:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the subject is not notable, I've got a whole list of other biographies and authors on wikipedia who should be purged as well. Book sales do not equal impact upon sub-cultures or their academic worth. If this entry ends up remaining, I will probably add to it later after doing further research, as it is relevant to a future article I am working on. HroptR 01:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I realize no one here probably cares, but the person who authored the Mark Mirabello entry Stege1 has commented at the talk page. To wit: Mark Mirabello did not write the entry as stated in the nomination for deletion. HroptR 01:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, my error. Remains nn. --KimvdLinde 02:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Monicasdude. Adrian Lamo ·· 03:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable professor. JohnnyCrabcakes

This was user's fifth edit. --Craig Stuntz 21:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep articles should not be deleted on the basis that a webspazzer has not heard of the subject AwagMoordown 11:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was user's first edit. --Craig Stuntz 21:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete few google hits, seems not notable. Elfguy 14:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several arguments here are ad hominems directed at me (primarily by new editors), but whether I (or the new editors for that matter) have heard of the person is irrelavant. Arguments should be independent of that. The argument that there are other comparable articles is irrelevant (they might indeed qualify for deletion as Not Notable), inclusion in Wikipedia should be based on more objective criteria, as outlined in Wikipedia:Notability_(people). Based on the criteria as a professor, I should be able to find at least a substantial number of references to his work from other scholars, such as in Web-of-Science (zero hits) or google scholar (1 or 2 hits) or google itself (found one, missed maybe some, but likely less than 5 hits). Notability as a writer, even for a subculture (who especially interact at the web) should result in substantial mentioning of the author at the web beyond book reviews, sales lists etc and that is fairly limited. I surely believe he is a nice person (based on what people write about him and from his email), and that he is liked by his students and such, but that does not make someone of encyclopedic value in my opinion, who's main entry at the page is the courses that he teaches. --KimvdLinde 14:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The guy is clearly a respected and published academic, which is more than can be said for most of the cretins who moderate this site who apparently think a Transformers convention is notable. "Judge not a man to be non-notable lest he goeth awag in a bad way on your face, mother bitch" --BCFC Dan 18:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was user's first edit. --Craig Stuntz 21:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment JEEEZZUS are we really so neanderthalic on Wikipedia that we have to use words like Spazzer!? Nigger is not acceptable, Ho Tart Bitch or whatever are not acceptable, but its still acceptable to take the piss out of people with disabilities?! a very pissed off JCUK 18:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.152.156 (talk • contribs) [reply]

The word was "webspazzer" you benny. --BCFC Dan 21:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sadly, the act or condition of having an exceptionally annoying fanbase hasn't made its way into CSD yet. I'm confident it's an oversight, however. Adrian Lamo ·· 21:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My reason for voting keep earlier was due to the fact that in order to become published, the professors work needs to have undergone peer review and as such this makes him notable within his field of work. For this to have happened 3 times adds weight to this argument. I do not see how google's failure to bring up references to an academic is relevent in this case. JohnnyCrabcakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.125.1.112 (talk • contribs)
- - comment While that was unsigned, it was actually made by me, but I forgot to log in before makign the comment.JohnnyCrabcakes
- Response. While I agree that Mirabello's publications make him Wikipedia-notable, his works, like The_Odin_Brotherhood, are issued by trade rather than academic publishers and were not peer-reviewed. Monicasdude 00:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please consider that Wikipedia has articles on extreme ironing. Is that randomness more notable than a 3times published professor who has delivered talks on his work as far as San Diego? (Note Mirabello's University is in Portsmouth, Ohio) User:stege1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.85.232.71 (talk • contribs)

Dudes, seriously, he's a non-notable professor who writes non-notable books and none of the arguments for or against can distort those facts. Fails professor test and author test. The simultaneously hilarious and sickening newbie / sockpuppet / meatpuppet fest going on here, the total failure by more experienced users who are apparently independent of Mirabello and claim expertise in said field to show why any of this is notable or wikify the articles plus the huge amount of spidering these pages are currently getting (ka-ching!) leave me exactly where I started with the Odin Brotherhood. Strong Delete. If people want to nominate other articles just because something they have an interest in was deleted, go ahead and they too can be judged on their merits. Just because you think extreme ironing is nn but wouldn't be deleted is not a reason for keeping any other article, nominate it and see what happens. If people think it's more worthy than what you're into, that's just something you're going to have to deal with. ++Deiz 02:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Note that generally listing other articles for AfD, because someone listed your favorite article for AfD is considered a violation of WP:POINT. Peyna 03:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's true Peyna, y'all play nice and don't listen to everything uncle Deizio has to say... It has to be said that nominating Extreme Ironing for deletion just because an article about an obscure occult book / author was put on the block would be pretty spectacular. ++Deiz 04:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    - I have no intention of nominating anything I dislike for deletion. Its not my place to determine if Extreme ironing is meritorius, only I am using it as an example to illustrate the content on this site and how Mirabello is appropriate. User:Stege1
      - That's generally bad logic. Most of the time when someone says "Well page X exists, so why can't page Y?", page Y has never been nominated for AfD; OR is in no way analogous to page X, so it is an invalid comparison. Peyna 14:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From my little experience, this debate should purely be about this reference, the relevance or irrelevance of other articles is a separate isssue. This article is well written, informative and fully has a place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not Google's little brother, who gives a damn if the author is not massively referenced on there? Google is a corporate whore, a behemoth of the internet which makes it's own rules. When people use the 'lack of google points' reason for requesting a delete they are striking at the very heart of what they are supposedly defending. Wikipedia is the anti-thesis of Google, and will in time slay it like Saint Dan slew the dragon. In the words of JFK, "ask not what Wikipedia can do for you; ask what you can do for Wikipedia" -- Ruth User:Daley_Lama — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.42.58 (talk • contribs)
- - I agree with Daley_Lama, I won't bring in any outside references. Note: I recently edited the page with More info on Mirabello, apparently he is also a Kentucky Colonel. A distint honor given by the governor of the commonwealth of Ky. Other notable recipients are John Paul II, John Glenn, and Dave Thomas. stege1

Delete. Not enough information available on Mirabello to write an NPOV article. His historical claims strike me as highly questionable, but I can't find a critical appraisal of them online (other than Wikipedia's), or indeed, any appraisal by someone with relevant academic qualifications. Also, his reputation as an academic does not serve to shore up his reputation as a writer of works of "dark horror fiction" with "hardcore, X-rated content." I would support an article on Mirabello if either A) his historical theories attracted attention within the academic community, or B) he became well-known for his fiction. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 19:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His book “The Odin Brotherhood” is relevant to many topics. Norse mythology and neo-paganism, secret societies, Nazi occultism (which is heavily influenced by Nordic culture) and cults are sources of scholarly attention around the world. The articles on Mark Mirabello and his book help contribute to Wikipedias ability to have information on the wide spectrum human affaires.— Preceding unsigned comment added by zoddoom (talk • contribs) (user's first edit)HroptR 21:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "The Odin Brotherhood" is well known by followers of Odinism. The man has appeared on odinist programs and given lectures. If he appears to be too obscure, this may be a result of the obscurity of Odinism (at least the present incarnation). However, make no mistake that he is well known and respected for his work on the subject. - Dunglemagne (user's first edit)HroptR 21:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per peyna Ruby 22:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete nn professor. mikka (t) 03:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to new editors[edit]

There appears to be many editors who have edited anonymously or have created a username solely to vote on this issue. While we appreciate your concern and passion about this issue, unfortunately the input of new users does not have much weight in these matters, because you are not yet a contributing member of Wikipedia.

Also, it is expressly against Wikipedia policy to create more than one user account to affect the outcomes of deletion discussion or AfD. This is called sock puppetry. This practice is highly frowned upon by your fellow Wikipedia editors and is expressly discouraged by Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines.

Furthermore, every computer on the internet has a unique IP address, which in most instances, can identify the specific computer and the physical location used to make edits. If numerous editors in a vote all have the same IP address, this is evidence of sock puppetry, and your votes will not be counted. You could also be blocked from editing in the future. You are not completely anonymous!

From Wikipedia:Sock puppetry:

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

I encourage you to stick around Wikipedia and contribute to the project, regardless of the outcome of this vote. - HroptR 22:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note I should add that some of the votes considered sock puppets are from Shawnee State University.I do not know much about IP address but I think since all 4,000 students are on the same network at the school, and there are only so many computers on campus, some may log in at different times from the same terminal. I ask that you consider this. stege1

Note I would like to add that I am neither a sockpuppet or a student of Shawnee State University, if the above user would like to check my IP address he/she will find that I am resident in Europe at the moment. I stand by every point that I made.

Regards

Ruth User:Daley_Lama

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (speedy deletion criterion A7). howch e ng {chat} 18:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes of Ivalice[edit]

From its proposed deletion: "doesn't seem notable, it gets ~20 unique google hits, forum has just 136 users". PROD tag was removed by an anonymous user without comment. Fails WP:WEB hard. Nifboy 23:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as forumVSCA. --Kinu 00:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and tagged as such. Substantially concerns a group of people, rather than the game it happens to mention, and as such is deletable under CSD A7. Adrian Lamo ·· 02:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-club sounds good Avi 04:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. Don't know why people bother taking these to AfD. enochlau (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 21:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bookcase Store[edit]

Tagged for {{prod}}, but was removed. nn local business. Adrian Lamo ·· 00:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just another store, no claim of notability. - Bobet 01:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 01:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. —ERcheck @ 02:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Aaron 04:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Blatant Advertising. corporate equivalent of db-bio Avi 04:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly advertising. Elfguy 14:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bobet, Avi. DVD+ R/W 21:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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