Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 1 January 3 >

Purge server cache

January 2[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Keep WhiteNight T | @ | C 18:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central Bank of Cuba[edit]

There's no such thing as the "Bank of Cuba". It's actually called the Central Bank of Cuba. Alr 00:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename Banco Central de Cuba, the name used on the official webpage. Bkwillwm 00:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll do that now. Still, in it's current form, this article is a dicdef. Alr 00:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletions. -- Rob 01:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep may be very short at the moment, but surely both encyclopedic and capable of expansion without much difficulty. Dicdefs should not necessarily be deleted, providing they are likely to expand into more than just dicdefs. PatGallacher 02:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, major national institution. Should remain in English as this is English Wikipedia. Gazpacho 02:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong Talk 03:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY KEEP Basically what the nominator is asking for is a move, which AfD is not needed to do. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per PatGallacher. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per CanadianCaesar - the nomination intended a move, not a delete, and there have been no delete votes cast. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per CanadianCaesar. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-02 10:29Z
  • 'KEEP I'm unsure if this meets the speedy keep criteria --Chazz88 12:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the copyright notice on their official site [1] Put a redirect on the Spanish/Portoguese name. We're an English Wikipedia. - Mgm|(talk) 12:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, obviously notable. I'm not sure about the direction of the redirect; Category:Central banks appears to show that there isn't a clear policy in this specific field. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Videogame List[edit]

Non-notable website, sort of an ad but more of a speech. but Alexa rank is about 560,000. Delete. CastAStone 00:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The site is older than similar sites listed here (Klov, MobyGames) and the content is wider. No reason to delete (User:Kamehamehaaa)
  • Delete pn! - FrancisTyers 01:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. — JIP | Talk 09:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-02 10:30Z
  • Keep --Chazz88 12:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tim Pierce 13:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 14:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 22:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Sorry, but not notable enough. The information available at KLOV, MobyGames & GameFAQs already trump this site. It doesn't matter how old the site is if it's a poorly developed concept. The size/scope of its list of games is duly noted, but the coverage of said games is nothing but flimsy and unsubstantial. Searching for Super Mario Bros. on the NES, just look at the spareness of the information in the resulting games. All 5 of those games barely have any information, and Super Mario Bros. 1, 2 & 3 are arguably the most popular games listed in the database. No reason in my mind to keep this article as "notable". - Liontamer 22:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Liontamer. You can call me Al 14:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. Incognito 05:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Quarl. Stifle 15:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up, remove POV, then Keep per Kamehamehaaa. Notability is not based on the quality of a website, but on how well-known or important it is. It would seem that this site is far more notable than many other websites that have articles (and should also be kept). -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 15:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. I've cleaned, wikified, added some more info and tried to remove POV Kamehamehaaa
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The J&P Sports Network[edit]

I bring you a site with a whopping grand total of

36

Members!!!! (Does not meet WP:WEB for the pedantic) WhiteNight T | @ | C 00:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...a new sports site created in early December 2005. Created by friends Paul & Joe..." Obvious delete, although I wish them well and maybe someday they will rank an article. bikeable (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pn! - FrancisTyers 01:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedied <font color="#2e8b57">Peregrine</font>[[User_talk:PeregrineAY|<font color=#006400><sub><sup>AY</sup></sub></font>]] 03:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 08:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Native Guns[edit]

This appears to be a non-notable rap group. They have no listing on allmusic, and the small number of links returned by Google are mostly either geocities or myspace pages. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The second half of this article is a copyvio of their MySpace webpage, http://www.myspace.com/kiwi Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article appears well researched and deals with an important Filipino hip hop/rap group. Yes, it's absolutely correct that non-USA rap (or any non-English language rap for that matter) is not generally covered by All Music Guide, no matter its quality or importance to its local culture or subculture, all the more reason such groups be covered here. Badagnani 12:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please review WP:MUSIC. Which inclusion criteria does this group meet? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, these musicians are born and raised in California, what do you mean by non-USA rap group? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • An Internet search shows that the group is well known and performs widely in Filipino and Asian Pacific American cultural festivals, and that it is one of the more active and well regarded hip hop groups in the Filipino American hip hop subculture (probably the third most important hip hop subculture in the U.S. after African American and Puerto Rican American). Further, the group's work frequently appears in Filipino and Asian Pacific American print and radio media. Has also toured throughout the U.S. and Canada. From WP:Music:
        • "Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre."
        • "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture."
        • "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour over notable musical venues in at least one large or medium-sized country[1], reported in notable and verifiable sources."

Badagnani 00:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC based on the article, and I can't find anything that would show otherwise. And there really is no systemic bias against Californians. - Bobet 13:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lets start a systemic bias against Californians! (actual reason: fails WP:MUSIC per above). --Pboyd04 15:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article on the Native Guns should not be deleted on the grounds that they are a not only a staple in current Filipino-American hip-hop culture, but of independent (indie) hip-hop music and are also well known activists for human/Asian Pacific American rights. They are known within that community and yes while they are NOT on allmusic.com, so aren't Francis Magalona, or Andrew E. who's impact in the history of Philipppine-based Filipino hip-hop cannot be disputed. Neither are even "Asin" or Florante who are national stars and heroes and whos anti-Marcos songs such as "Upuan" and "Balita" played a big role in the inspiring the famous 1986 EDSA People's Power Revolution and also have had their songs along with Freddie Aguilar translated into more than 20 languages and have become hit songs in other countries other than the Philippines. What these artists meant to Philippine-based hip-hop and rock then is exactly what the Native Guns mean to the Filipino-American hip-hop community now. It should also be noted that the Native Guns' Kiwi, (born Jack DeJesus) went to high school with the world famous Black Eyed Peas' Apl.de.ap (Allan Pineda) as well as Will.i.am and was one of the influences young Allan had upon moving here from the Philippines. Furthermore the Native Guns have been featured in numerous magazine and newspaper articles, and were named one of L.A.'s "Top 10 Most Intriguing Bands" by the L.A. Alternative Press. Links:

Native Guns featured in Canada's Vancouver Georgia Straight Weekly-[[2]] Named one of L.A.'s "Top Ten Most Intriguing Bands"-[[3]] Featured in asianweek.com- [[4]] Fil-Arts Fest- [[5]] sfweekly.com- [[6]]

The duo was also featured in Jointz Mag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.251.125.85 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 30 December 2005 User:Wikipedian13

  • Keep Well written article. I see no reason this should be deleted. Check two you 23:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm amazed- this is an incredibly informative article on the underground asian hiphop scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.7.193 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 1 January 2006
This AFD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hey this is Kiwi of the Native Guns. i just found out about all this recently, so bear with me. anyway, as far as the article, yes there's some cut-n-paste, but whatever's written about us looks satisfactory. not sure how else to go about this. we're also mentioned in an article on wikipedia regarding filipino hip hop [[7]]. i can clean it up if need be, but for the most part, it's accurate. if you need me to add or clarify anything let me know groundworkmusic@yahoo.com. as far as whether or not we're 'worthy' of being on here well that's not my decision but i think the track record speaks for itself. sorry if i didn't follow the format, i never even heard of wikipedia until now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.4.166 (talk • contribs)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- Rob 01:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably qualifies as band-vanity.  ALKIVAR™ 12:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:V. If we can't verify what you say is the truth, then we can't have it in the wiki.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 14:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on writeups in regional music and culture magazines. Tim Pierce 14:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above comments. Jcuk 15:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am a doctoral student writing about cultural studies and social transformation at UC Berkeley. Native Guns and Kiwi are one of the top hip hop groups within that APIA community, and in terms of messaging, bridges everything from the personal to the community and the international. Native Guns is well known and loved in the community from LA to the Bay to NYC and Chi-town. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.134.213 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Falls under:
  1. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city
  2. Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.
Information is verifiable under multiple sources (specifically within the APIA music and activism scene), including:
  • Locus Arts- [[8]] Vancouver's Under the Volcano- [[9]]
  • APAture- [[10]]
  • UCLA's Ethnomusic archives (call #200305_0005)- [[11]]
  • Festival of Phillipines ART & Culture- [[12]]
  • East Bay Express- [[13]]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bankuei (talk • contribs)
  • comment - Some people make bad-faith copyright violation nominations, in order to do an end run around the {afd} procedure. An article I started was on the receiving end of someone willing to take advantage of the three week long backlog in addressing copy-vios. So I checked this assertion. The copy-vio assertion is solid. I went back to the beginning of the article, to see whether rhe article could be saved by reeling back to an earlier version that was not a copy-vio. The very first contributor's version incorporated material from its external links.
    • This does not mean there should be no article about this band. If the original author of the material on the myspace web-pages that has been incorporated into this article releases it under an appropriate liscence, or puts their material in the public domain, the copy-vio concern goes away... -- Geo Swan 22:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Excellent article, seems notable enough. Kevin 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks notable to me. A.J.A. 00:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well researched, needs some help with the style, but overall no way that this should be deleted. Soo 01:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong Talk 14:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. enochlau (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Takis Fotopoulos[edit]

Like the things he links to at the bottom of this page, which reads like a resume with a legal threat at the end, with links to other nn articles related to him that were deleted. Let's get rid of this vanity page as well. Delete karmafist 00:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(legal threat from anon article creator deleted). karmafist 04:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep We'll write about you whether you like it or not, thank you very much. This article contains verifiable, notable information. Ashibaka tock 03:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 12K Google [14] is pretty notable. I guess just make sure it stays npov and there's not any unverified stuff or potential slander in there. Blackcats 04:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see nothing wrong with this page. - CorbinSimpson 10:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - as per those above. --Chazz88 12:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 'Vanity page' can be abused as a deletion category. Charles Matthews 13:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While his individual projects may be of debatable encyclopedic value, the fact that he's pulled them together, and with whom, tends toward notability. (As long as his associates can stop violating WP:OWN). --SarekOfVulcan 22:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM

Since yesterday’s announcement some of the main points we made in it have already been confirmed! Thanks to the technical work of some administrators who showed that they function without any political agendas against us but instead attempted to find out the truth, Paul Cardan (the disgruntled ex-member of the journal with a vendetta against us who was the main cause of the first AfD against Democracy & Nature through his repeated vandalising attacks against it) and User:DisposableAccount (who proposed the deletion of the successor journal to D&N and with the support of two (2) administrators managed to have it deleted), Llbb and Bbll (who persuaded other administrators to keep the page deleted) are all the same editor! [15] Meanwhile, other administrators still doubt whether the present announcement is a genuine Editorial Board announcement. Here is the proof: [16]

The Editorial Committee of The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy 10:30 (UTC) January 2, 2006

User:Narap43

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Ichiro 02:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Softness[edit]

Can this ever be any more than a dictdef? Grutness...wha? 00:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Most dictionary nouns are also worthy of being included in an encyclopedia. I find it ridiculous that people try to save vast amounts of ancient discussions in archives and the most worthless trivial subjects but delete the most basic subjects. Bensaccount 01:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. If there's anything to it, it can go on Soft matter. Tom Harrison Talk 01:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Soft matter is a completely different subject - It deals with matter that can not be categorized as liquid or solid. Bensaccount 01:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 01:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know it is easy to delete things if you call them dicdefs but please think about what you are doing. Just being a dicdef, or just being short, does not warrant deletion. Bensaccount 02:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • FWIW, I sort through 100-150 stubs per day. Of them, I rarely nominate more than one per day here - and after a few hundred stubs you can usually spot the ones which are or are not savable. So yes, I did think about what i was doing to nominate this. I far more frequently fix up things other people had nominated here. This one, though, looks like just a dictdef is all that it could be - and disctdefs belong in Wiktionary, not here.Grutness...wha? 10:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it is easy to delete entries that don't conform to Wiki policy, Bensaccount. Please see WP:NOT. PJM 23:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being a substub article that can never be expanded, or being an outright dictionary article that cannot ever be other than a dictionary article, does. This article isn't a dictionary article, because it is an article about the concept of softness, not an article about the word softness. But if you want to argue that it is a stub that can be expanded, then demonstrate that, exactly as I did at kindness. There's no better argument that an article can be expanded from perpetual stub status than a stub article with substantial references and further reading. Uncle G 06:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cyberevil 02:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hardness. A notable property of rocks and such. Blackcats 04:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to hardness. – Seancdaug 10:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have articles for Light and Dark whats wrong with Hardness and Softness ? Jcuk 10:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article on electromagnetic radiation and an article on the absense of illumination (The article is actually darkness, as per our naming conventions.) are not two sides of the same coin. Uncle G 06:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I cant see that defining softness as being a lack of hardness is any different to defining darkness as being a lack of light Jcuk 15:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please read our articles on light and darkness to see what they are actually about. Uncle G 17:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand or (if not expanded) redirect to hardness. Karol 11:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a dictionary. plain old policy, no matter how much you beg. Werdna648T/C\@ 12:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hardness per above. Ben's claim that most dictionary nouns deserve articles may be true, but they should contain encyclopedic material, not dictionary material. - Mgm|(talk) 12:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The demarcation of which you speak is entirely imaginary. Encyclopedic material is often the same as dictionary material. A compendium of information must include definitions. Not only must it include them it must strive to make all its entries definitive concise and eloquent - as much like definitions as possible. Bensaccount 21:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is probably a mechanism for changing Wikipedia policy. If you think Wikipedia must be a dictionary to fullfil its mission, changing that policy might be a good thing to try. Tom Harrison Talk 22:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The distinction between a dictionary article and an encyclopaedia article is quite real, and is the use-mention distinction. That some editors get that distinction wrong, despite the good advice to avoid having "X refers to" and "X is a word that means" in encyclopaedia articles that is given in the Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, does not mean that there is not a distinction. See also encyclopaedic dictionary. Uncle G 06:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hardness per above. Perhaps with a little note for the irretrievably dumb that the opposite of hardness is softness? Dan 18:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great so not only can we save an entire page worth of space on Wikipeida (which can instead be put to good use for something like Nidoking), we also get to insult anyone who follows a link to softness by making them look at the entirely opposite subject and making them fill in the rest. Bensaccount 21:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just as with ugliness and beauty, yes. Uncle G 06:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well... softness is a dictionary definition, that's all. Hardness is a scientific term of which softness is a lack of the same. Dan 17:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hardness per above. I'd say merge but there isn't enough content. --Bletch 00:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. This didn't need to come through AfD. Soo 01:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per above. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 16:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)--Alf melmac 12:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect works for me. --Alf melmac 12:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O'Loughin's Restaurant[edit]

Non-Notable restaurant. No claim to notability, Google search revealed that article creator spelled the restaurant name wrong. Wrong spelling gets 18 hits, correct spelling gets 99 hits. VegaDark 00:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Couldn't this have been speedied? TheRingess 00:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish it could have been. However, article 7 only allows for people with no claim to notability to be speedied, not places. VegaDark 00:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A7 has been expanded to cover groups and bands. PJM 02:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That still does not cover locations, such as this.VegaDark 04:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't implying that A7 covered establishments. I was only pointing out that it had been expanded to cover more than people, i.e. biograhpical articles. PJM 06:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with extreme prejudice. Unfortunately, CSD only covers non-notable people. Alr 00:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As well as groups and bands. PJM 02:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pn! - FrancisTyers 01:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 02:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a directory.--FloNight 04:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • XFD, you guys are debating the qualifications of CSD7...yeah, let's delete this. - CorbinSimpson 10:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see a debate. The expansion of A7 is very recent and there are editors who haven't discovered that yet. I just added information to previously made statements, despite the fact that A7 irrelevant here otherwise. PJM 16:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-02 10:32Z
  • Delete Per nom. I must note that I'm partly prejudiced by the use of the word folks. Argh. Dan 18:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 22:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Looks like vanity. --Terence Ong Talk 14:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ranvir Bassi[edit]

Unverified (and unverifiable) and poorly formatted. It looks for all the world like a hoax. I was half-inclined to put it up for speedy deletion, but I'm not sure it fits comfortably into those guidelines.... – Seancdaug 00:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Your search - "Ranvir Bassi" - did not match any documents. , also the formatting made my eyes bleed ;_____; - FrancisTyers 01:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per page, "No Doubt when certain people have found this article it will be deleted." Tom Harrison Talk 01:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per author "No Doubt when certain people have found this article it will be deleted." --FloNight 04:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. VegaDark 07:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax, troll. -- (aeropagitica) UK 10:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-02 10:35Z
  • Speedy delete as attack page CSD A6. If true, the subject would not want this known! -- JimR 10:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per page, or Speedy if we can get it under A6 Werdna648T/C\@ 12:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's horrible. The bad grammar! I can feel a migraine coming on. Dan 18:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Those who should know why, already know why. (Top-secret reasons such as unverifiability :) --Raistlin 23:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the reason Raistlin listed.  :) Ekpardo 03:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revenger skulls of triton[edit]

Non-notable, perhaps mythological, band whose name gets a whopping zero google hits, despite three albums (?) listed in 2002 (allmusic hasn't heard of them either). I am marking parallel article Revengers skull of triton as CSD (empty). Delete. bikeable (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep, because merging requires keeping and the consensus is to merge this someplace. Merging isn't the job of AFD, though, so any interested party can feel free. —Cleared as filed. 21:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baroque metal[edit]

This article repeats both Power Metal and Symphonic Metal. It is well worded as such, but essentially is still a stub repeating a full length article. It also focuses on only certain bands of the form, coming across highly as somoene advertising their favourite bands. This article as such doesnt warrent an article, and a redirect should be left to the Power Metal article. Leyasu 00:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. When the article gets a distinction in which the difference is explained between baroque metal on one hand, and power metal and symphonic metal on the other, I'll change my vote. But for now, I don't think that it's possible since the styles seem pretty much the same thing.SoothingR 00:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Symphonic metal. As much as it is fashionable to cull back on metal articles currently in the Wikipedia, the article is still well-written (bar the final paragraph in my opinion) and should not be totally overlooked either way. Hauser 07:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How on Earth does this warrent being merged into Symphonic Metal when, A) Symphonic Metal is nothing alike this, and B)The article nominated for deletion repeats Power Metal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leyasu (talk • contribs)
  • Merge. I'm with Hauser on this one. Rhapsody (baroque) is the same as Stratovarius (symphonic) to my ears. It's just proving a point. Perhaps, merge, then redirect, change the first paragraph of Symphonic Metal to acknoledge Baroque Metal? - CorbinSimpson 10:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Read both the Symphonic Metal and Power Metal articles. Also note that Stratovarius and Rhapsody are both commonly known as Symphonic Power Metal which is mentioned on the Symphonic Metal article. When suggesting to merge, it is normally a good idea to merge pages that have relevance to each other, and are not mostly void of each other. Leyasu 16:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As a grammar nazi, I have to note that Stratovarius is probably what Leyasu was meaning to link to... - CorbinSimpson 20:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC) All fixed now!!! - CorbinSimpson 07:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 02:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Hauser, and somebody take the entire metal fan community out and shake them until they can come up with a set of agreed objective genres instead of the endless stream of "Reformed flower power thrash death symphonic badly played metal" nonsense genres with one band each. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still expect a reason as to why merge into Symphonic Metal and not Power Metal, when the article being merged repeats power metal and is completely unrelated to Symphonic Metal's article. Leyasu 15:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a derivative of Symphonic Metal, IIRC. Merge WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take from the Baroque Metal article:
Power metal totally differs from 1970s metal styles, since it adds important elements of depth, classical arrangements, complex scores and intrincated melodies. Whereas most genres of metal focus largely on personal experience, historical incidents, social commentary, or other aspects of "real life", baroque metal always treats fantasy, aristocratic, castles, battles and kings themes.
It actually calls itself Power Metal, which shows it is not a form of Symphonic Metal, it is a repeat of the Power Metal article. At best, part of it could be conisdered to reference Symphonic Power Metal. Leyasu 23:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Ellis: Founder of the VS[edit]

Seems like unverifiable nonsense..and Google agrees, apparently.SoothingR 00:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Darnell - Male Gigolo Extraordinaire[edit]

Hoax. Google gets 139 hits, none about this supposed person. Contributor's only other article has an AfD pending for the same reasons. VegaDark 01:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 21:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interwise[edit]

Was tagged for speedy as "non-notable company" (and actually deleted, then listed at WP:DRV), but it's not a candidate. No opinion from me. —Cryptic (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 02:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, jaredwf has established notability, no need to relist. Kappa 04:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Tom --Eeee 06:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like an advert. Atrian 06:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apparently notable—tone needs work, but it's definitely salvagable. --zenohockey 06:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 130 employees, it's not Microsoft but it's no tiddler, and the Chairman of its board is Jim Manzi, former Chairman, President and CEO of Lotus Development Corporation, who steered the corporation from the debacle after losing the spreadsheet market to Microsoft towards its groupware (Lotus Notes) strategy. I see no good reason to delete this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Jim Manzi connection does it for me. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand - notability established by jaredwf Cactus.man ✍ 16:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 20:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. MAZO 20:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Being the one who listed it for WP:DRV while on deletion patrol - I will say that while technically short of the corp standards here it may be notable in and of itself as a project of the notable people connected to it. Another idea is just to merge the article with Jim Manzi. Anyway, I'll let the community decide. WhiteNight T | @ | C 23:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magicomm[edit]

Non-notable business vanity. -- Longhair 01:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaps -- Can I help with this? -- I am the author of this entry and it my first foray into wikipedia. I used this company (I am an employee) to illustrate an example anoto service provider should anyone need to go any further. I was struggling for information after this article was flagged as needing more content??!!?? so I copied some of our sales blurb. I would welcome some guidance. Thanks

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

The result of the debate was delete

GOBI ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTION[edit]

Advertisement. No sources cited, and a cursory Google search fails to establish any notability. – Seancdaug 01:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 01:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark 06:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this Article. It was very helpful to me. GOBI is an entity that has made a significant difference in ripoff world of multimedia. Also they have made cutting edge changes to the editing world and the way we see television today.User:Tim Goebel 11:06,1 January 2006 (USA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.249.206 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Tim Goebel, would you by any chance be related to Timgoebel, who wrote the original article? - CorbinSimpson 10:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable corporation. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-02 10:42Z
  • Delete per nom. Ifnord 16:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Oh how I shudder when I see capitals abused like that. Dan 18:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this Article. It was very helpful to me. GOBI is an entity that has made a significant difference in ripoff world of multimedia. Also they have made cutting edge changes to the editing world and the way we see television today.{{User:Tim |} 11:06,1 January 2006 (USA)
  • GOBI Entertainment is an excellent company with cutting edge technology and high standards of customer service. They have made a difference in the industry. I have dealt with a lot of production houses, and I trust this one the most. - R. Carter.
  • Delete yawn TheRingess 07:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable FredOrAlive 18:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Timgoebel (original creator of the article in question) was been repeatably blanking any negative comments from this vote. FredOrAlive 21:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of science writers[edit]

Whatever this article tries to do, categories will do better. Subject is also ill defined - are pseudoscientific writers supposed to be included? How technical can an author be? How serious is serious? Finally, just way too general. At least, that's what I think. Fangz 01:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A list that includes both Isaac Azimov and Richard Dawkins as 'science writers'? Categorisation is a more efficient way to define people like this. This list will not assist researchers. -- (aeropagitica) UK 10:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What am I missing? Asimov certainly wrote "serious nonfiction about science aimed at a general audience". And the Dawkins article says he's a "popular science writer". -- JLaTondre 03:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Use the categories, whoever wrote it, use the categories Werdna648T/C\@ 12:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThis is what catergories are for. Kcordina 13:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect (User:BenAveling created a redirect to Leichhardt, New South Wales 2 days before I closed this afd, and I'm assuming that is the concensus here) --Ichiro 02:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leichhardt plaza[edit]

The article itself points out that it is a "very small" shopping center, which does not speak highly of its notability. – Seancdaug 01:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge -- anything useful into Leichhardt, New South Wales and redirect - Longhair 02:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the same user that made this article, already put the info in the suburb's article as well. However, I removed it, as I could not verify it. If it's verifiable, you may wish to put it back. --Rob 03:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Rob 02:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. Big shopping centres good. Medium shopping centres good. "Very small" shopping centres bad. Ambi 02:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: From Googling, I suspect the article is mistitled. It is probably the Norton Plaza Shopping Centre which is on Norton Street and in Leichhardt. But, there is no way to know this. Given the lack of context and content, it arguebly qualifies as {{db-empty}}. The fact "plaza" was not capitalized may mean the editor just meant "the plaza in Leichhardt" and not "The Leichhardt Plaza". Rather then guesse, a speedy delete would be more appropriate. It's not like we'll be loosing information here. If an editor doesn't tell what an article is about, we shouldn't guesse, and waste time debating the signficance of an unknown entity. --Rob 02:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rob. Sarah Ewart 03:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Leichhardt, New South Wales. There are actually 3 shopping plazas in the suburb, and information on any of them could better be covered there. While not necessarily small, this one (Rob above is correct in deducing that this should actually be called the Norton Plaza Shopping Centre), is the smallest of the three. None of them are formally called "Leichhardt plaza"- the others are Leichhardt Markettown and The Forum- but since it is a noted shopping precinct the phrase could be left as a redirect to the suburb's article.--cjllw | TALK 04:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Leichhardt, New South Wales per cjllw. Thanks for confirming what it was, as I really was guessing. --Rob 06:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's called "The Forum" but the "Italian Forum". That would be notable, it is an interesting place in its own right. But this article is not worth keeping. Non-speedy Delete, don't redirect or merge. Ben Aveling 06:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Redirect Ben Aveling 06:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Roisterer 10:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is there in the article to merge? Ben Aveling 01:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree there's not much to actually merge, other than mentioning the centre's existence. I've now added some descriptions of the shopping centres to the suburb's article, so nothing else to do. As a generic term Leichhardt plaza could still be turned into a redirect, but deleting it probably wouldn't hurt either.--cjllw | TALK 04:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done. I've taken the liberty to turn the page into a redirect. I think we're done here folks. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA 02:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hijacking Guild[edit]

Admins will take into account if certain editors do not have many edits before voting on this AfD. So creating an account to vote or using multiple IPs will not help. For further info, please read Wikipedia is not a democracy and WP:SOCK

This is a page about a nn group of spammers. It seems similar to GNAA but less notable DeleteCastAStone 01:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with extreme prejudice. I have more google hits than these guys. Why not delete the GNAA while you're at it? -- Vary | Talk 01:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How bout no, what does it matter to you? We are spread over various sites so I really doubt that you have more "hits", not that it matters in any case. Way to kill freedom of speech...—the preceding unsigned comment is by 172.145.15.152 (talk • contribs) CleverScreenName (talk · contribs) later substituted his/her own signature in place of the {{unsigned}} notice; it was CleverScreenName's third edit, the first two being to his/her user page.
  • Keep because Vary and CastAStone need a life and need to learn to leave other people alone—the preceding unsigned comment is by 152.163.101.11 (talk • contribs) ScarfaceEvaStar (talk · contribs) later substituted his/her own signature in place of the {{unsigned}} notice; it was ScarfaceEvaStar's first edit.
  • Delete per nom. Cyberevil 03:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow - 43 whole google hits! [20] Delete. Blackcats 04:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gren グレン 04:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because we have much of a right to tell about ourselves as this group of software crackers Phrozen Crew does..way to hand out "liberty and justice for all"—the preceding unsigned comment is by 72.146.65.79 (talk • contribs)
You have every right to self-promote, but it doesn't follow that you have a right to do it on Wikipedia. You submitted an article, community consensus is tending towards deletion. These things happen. Try again later -- when your Google hits aren't in the lower three digits, you're not bereft of mainstream media coverage, or you're otherwise objectively noteworthy. In the meantime, if you're passionate about free speech and all that, why not improve other Wikipedia articles? Adrian Lamo 01:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this is supposed to be an impartial encyclapedia. They havent done any harm, so there is no reason to censor them. Freedom of speech dosent just imply freedom from government censorship, but also from censorship by a few offended individuals. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 205.188.117.70 (talk • contribs)
Harmless, non-noteworthy topics are still non-noteworthy. Even if "freedom of speech" guaranteed everyone a Wikipedia article, it's not so much that anyone here is "offended" by your work as it is that it's "not relevant" to the vast majority of users outside GameSpot.
Adrian Lamo 01:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep,Freedom of speech.This is not a dictatorship so let them stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.2.16 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 2 January 2006
  • Delete, per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, forumcruft. "Freedom of speech" does not mean complete anarchy. — JIP | Talk 09:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually yes it can, read the Bill of Rights sometime, or in fact go to elementary school - either one will work
  • question couldnt care less one way or another whether this stays or not, but whats the difference between this group and the Phrozen Crew they talk about? IE why have one and not the other Jcuk 10:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Elementary. Phrozen Crew is/were (don't know if they're gone or not) famous. This lot isn't. --Agamemnon2 12:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps Elementary if you know about such things. I dont. Never heard of either of 'em. Jcuk 16:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-02 10:44Z
  • Delete it reads like the braggings of a group of school children. Of no use or notability doktorb | words 11:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And please, Meatpuppets, leave this alone. Werdna648T/C\@ 12:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I have a better idea, nn groups meet CSD A7 =) Werdna648T/C\@ 12:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under the expanded CSD A7.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 14:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In no way are we affilated with racist or any type of 'hate' groups, many people we know consist of different races, religions, and sexual preferences. We have our page up for a damn day and a big group of people jump to conclusions, we are not bad people at all...you are —the preceding unsigned comment is by 152.163.101.11 (talk • contribs) -- Vary | Talk 22:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if "bad people" were the criteria for deletion, this wouldn't be an encyclopedia. I'm sure there's a list of [something] groups somewhere on Wikipedia that you can add your name to, eh? G'day.
Adrian Lamo 02:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, delete, delete, delete, delete. Tim Pierce 14:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JIP. Dan 19:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non notable hacker orginazation Deathawk 19:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep We are not hackers— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.155.106.168 (talk • contribs) 20:23, January 2, 2006
      • I really don't care weather or not your hackers the fact of the matter is your group is Non Notable if it weren't than people outside of your group would be defending you as it is your the only ones defending this page, and I think that speaks volumes about the notability of this group.-Deathawk 03:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable fancruft. Kevin 22:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sure the architect of this AOL IP-originated article [not that there's anything wrong with that] feels strongly about the topic, but the details and twists of message forum politics are very rarely noteworthy. Also, if you've been in existence since "mid 2005" in the first days of 2006, you're better off not mentioning dates at all. Seriously guys. Even if I take you at face value and accept that you aren't 'hackers' or 'terrorists' you're still not noteworthy outside of GameSpot. That said, you produced an extended article on a non-noteworthy topic -- have you considered honing your writing on other articles? Also, cite your sources :) Adrian Lamo 01:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Liontamer 01:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable — EagleOne\Talk 02:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. --OntarioQuizzer 03:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, this wasn't AOL IP-originated.Hijacker 04:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you're right. My mistake. Adrian Lamo 06:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you people seem so concerned about Google hits just put in some of the names we mention and they will add up possibly past the triple digits CSN
    • Btw I get 18,900 alone - [21] -CSN
      • 344 - a-man27 [22], 90 - ScarfaceEvaStar [23], 15,800 - C-GHOST [24], 1,830 - pegasus seiya [25], 222 - Lu_Bu01 [26], 237 - nobuggs [27] CSN
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 02:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedied. r3m0t talk 02:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monocore[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:Music Esprit15d 01:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 01:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI, but that doens't prevent expansion in the meantime. I'll add it to the transwiki log. -Splashtalk 01:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acidophobic[edit]

This is an adjective and could that should be transwiki'd to wiktionary if it were verifiable. I placed a request for verification on the talk page of this article in March 2005 and there has been no response. There do exist articles on the internet that contain information about this term, but they are uniformly mirrors or derivatives of Wikipedia. Therefore, I request that the article be deleted in order to drop false-positive (or self-fulfilling) contamination of the internet with the article title and term definition. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (re-signing after revision)[reply]

  • Move to Wiktionary - although it's not a common word, the word has been used in previously published papers: Google search -"wikipedia" - look at the PDF links in there, and other links like this. --└ Smith120bh/TALK┐ 04:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wiktionary uncommon, but useful definition. Kcordina 13:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand - if there are interesting properties of acidophobic organisms then this is a place to hear about them. If the article can't be expanded in any meaningful way, then move to Wiktionary is appropriate. Tim Pierce 14:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary per Smith. Werdna648T/C\@ 08:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Stifle 01:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cremator (wrestler)[edit]

Tagged a speedy with the reasoning

"Unsourced, unwikified, non-notable."

No opinion. WhiteNight T | @ | C 02:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, Google search for "The Cremator wrestling" gives over 1000 hits, but I'm pretty sure there are several pro wrestlers that go by this name in those results. Add "British Colombia" to the search and get over 400 hits. Hasn't made it to the big feds yet but seems notable enough to keep, I wouldn't mind it if we went the other way on this though. VegaDark 04:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found and added a profile of this wrestler from SomethingCool.ca. Tim Pierce 15:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per rewrite Jcuk 16:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Needs to be cleaned up substantially. - Liontamer 21:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename to whatever his actual name is. Youngamerican 04:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. enochlau (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wisbech Grammar School[edit]

Non-notable school. —ERcheck @ 02:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - school with no assertion of notabiity. —ERcheck @ 02:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Keep and expand: Current expanded article now provides context and notability. (At time of nomination, only content was "Wisbech Grammar School is an independent school in Wisbech, Cambridgeshire.") —ERcheck @ 19:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable indeed. Cyberevil 02:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. As one of the oldest schools in England (established 1379) there should be more to say about it. -- JJay 04:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep quite notable, its 700 years old. However does need some expansion to meet WP:SCH.Gateman1997 04:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep age is quite notable, even for British standards. And I'm sure someone at Schoolwatch would be quite happy to expand it up. --└ Smith120bh/TALK┐ 05:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - historicaly school which must have ample info available to expand. --Rob 06:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This appears to be a notable school by even the most critical standards. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regardless of whether or not schools are notable in general, being formed in 1379 makes this a very notable school. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. In ERcheck's defense, it should be pointed out that the article's content at the time of the AFD tagging was "Wisbech Grammar School is an independent school in Wisbech, Cambridgeshire." Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep We keep high schools (btw, is that the English 'High School' or the American 'High School' we keep?) Anyhow a Grammar School is pretty much the same thing (ok not EXACTLY the same, but close enough it should be a speedy keep) Jcuk 10:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nearly 700 years old, and is said by Jcuk I agree ComputerJoe 10:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable, and has been expanded since afd notice to meet WP:SCH. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-02 10:47Z
  • Keep, even I would be embarrassed to see this deleted. Gazpacho 11:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per Sjakkalle --Chazz88 12:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, over 700 years old and has notable graduates mentioned. Unless the nominator provides extensive reasoning to back up his nomination I cannot possibly vote to delete this. - Mgm|(talk) 13:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, could someone remove the word "now" in the enrollment sentence and replace it with a year? - Mgm|(talk) 13:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just so we stick to the facts here, I'd like to point out that the school is not 700 years old, nearly 700 years old, or over 700 years old. It is approximately 626 years old. -- JJay 14:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How can a 700 year old school not be notable? There were very few schools around back then and even fewer have survived until this day. That alone amkes it notable. Evil Eye 14:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: At time of nomination, the article had only one sentence ("Wisbech Grammar School is an independent school in Wisbech, Cambridgeshire.") and had not been edited since its creation over 10 days previous. Expansion with more information now provides context and notability. —ERcheck @ 19:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's older than my school which has an article; not that i've ever heard of Wisbech. Dan 19:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- Rob 17:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep non-solely-primary schools regardless of notability. Regardless, this school now has notable information. -Rebelguys2 22:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly notable. Calsicol 14:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please the school is over 625 yrs old Yuckfoo 02:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Eminently notable and encyclopaedic, needs expansion though. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 03:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crime Family Clothing[edit]

Non-notable business vanity. -- Longhair 02:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 02:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ehud Segev[edit]

"largely unsubstantiated or unverified content" (User:Tiksustoo). bumped from speedy. No vote. r3m0t talk 02:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry this article was nominated incorrectly. Next time, I'll use {{afdx}} - honest! :) r3m0t talk 02:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week delete. The google hits are borderline. But I can't seem to find much coverage in mainstream media, and the article is atrociously written. Blackcats 04:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep the guy has played 'off broadway' whatever that means, and has made it into the New York Times [28] Jcuk 10:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Chazz88 12:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was nominated before Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_21#Ehud_Segev. I remember checking up on his name. Please give me the time to look up the discussion I had about him in the magic (illusion) article (or help me find it). I also contacted a magic magazine during that time, please let me dig up that email as well. - Mgm|(talk) 13:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Segev's show has been written up in New York theater magazines and he's apparently performed at city functions. I have edited out the nonverifiable promotional buzz (which, unsurprisingly, was most of the article) and added a source for the rest. Tim Pierce 15:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with thanks to Tim for the work. - Mgm|(talk) 11:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just saw his new play ANOMAL in the American Theater of Actors in Times Square in the heart of the theater district. If that's not enough to keep his bio on wiki then he has a schedule of TV appearances in the box office - Kristen Shaughnessy from NY1 interviewed Segev and it'll run during the first weekend of January, Montel Williams booked Segev for his national TV show on January 19th. Also, google ANOMAL, his new show to find articles at PLAYBILL, BROADWAYWORLD, New York Times, and many others. I heard him live in GOOD NEWS BROADCAST where the interviewer mentions he saw Segev performs around the world and loved his performance, he also mentioned Segev's new written musical Legend that Segev recently wrote... and I also found ALL references to his press in his MEDIA>PRESS page at mentalizer.com with original scans of the articles! Just click on VIEW CLIPPING at the bottom of each article The New York Press, New York Magazine, PAGE SIX in the POST, a full item with a picture in 'WHAT'S HOT THIS WEEK' in the post, Daily News, and so many more from around the world (Not only US based newspapers, many from Asia and Israel). Didn't you see it BEFORE you edited his bio?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied by Zoe. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 03:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travis steffens[edit]

Tagged a speedy with the reasoning

vanity article

I think the article says it all

"Young Entrepreneur who made $100,000 in his first 2 years of business, all profit."

Delete as advertising and non-notable. WhiteNight T | @ | C 02:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied, nn-bio. Zero Google hits for "Crime Family Clothing". User:Zoe|(talk) 02:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ajjan[edit]

Article is an extensive biographical sketch of a candidate who lost a bid for election to the US House of Representatives. Are all congressional candidates encyclopedic? - squibix 02:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes. maybe not in tiny Britannica but in wikipedia. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think that being a candidate automatically makes one notable. Few Google hits. Blackcats
  • Delete as per above. Reads a bit like vanity/promo. Acyso 07:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep the article could benefit from a bit of cleanup though. --Chazz88 12:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (Additional comment: I think this article passes the College professor test --Chazz88 12:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
  • Delete -- Longhair 13:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tim Pierce 15:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No, candidates are non-notable. Unless the subject meets another criteria (which doesn't appear the case here). Ifnord 17:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN. - Liontamer 01:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I say it is encyclopedic... Now if he had lost the primary that would be different... Could use a cleanup though... --Nick Catalano (Talk) 17:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari 23:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete doubt if the subject passes WP:BIO, but don't think that he is quite notable enough to warrant an article. Bjelleklang - talk 00:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this is kept (which seems unlikely), it should be moved to George Ajjan. -Colin Kimbrell 16:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep move to George Ajjan . Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Blackcats. JeremyA 02:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pear calendar, 1 Vernal[edit]

Nonsense? Hoax? Self-promotion? Vanity? I can't find anything meaningful for the term "Pear calendar". User:Zoe|(talk) 02:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably vanity or some unknown revision of the French Republican Calendar. But it could be legitimate... JRP 02:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it certainly could be, but with zero Google hits, it's not something we should have in the encyclopedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Speedy delete JRP 03:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absent verification, and 1 Vernal too. Gazpacho 03:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no verification, no locateable verification --└ Smith120bh/TALK┐ 04:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find anything relevant on Google. Acyso 07:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable - couldn't find anything either. Possibly original research. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-02 10:53Z
  • Weak delete I think this article could benefit from being verified. However, I can understand and allow the above intentions/comments. --Chazz88 12:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can be verified. Then it'd be nice to know where it's from and who devised it. Dan 19:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • verify plus reference. this is reminiscent of the zoroastrian calendar and persian calendar -- Marvin147 04:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified. -- jaredwf 06:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virji Corporation[edit]

  • Delete - Says 'will be updated', but currently contains self-promotion. Writer (Avirji) has history of self promotion. No Google results for company - I don't see how it could possibly pass WP:CORP. └ Smith120bh/TALK┐ 03:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google search for "virji corporation" returns no hits. Acyso 07:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable and non-notable corporation. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-02 10:54Z
  • Neutral at the moment it is merely self-promotion. However, wikipedia articles is to improve rather than delete. Nevertheless, the article can be recreated later to a higher wikipedia standard. --Chazz88 12:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 16:58, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's non-notable and self-promotion, with very little prospect of it becoming otherwise. No offence intended Avirji. Dan 19:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cruft. - Liontamer 01:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. spam. Incognito 05:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borislavia[edit]

Hoax? Zero Google hits, no source. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesn't have zero Google hits, but it's awfully close. This article doesn't show any sources, and Google isn't helping us establish any notability, so for now, I'd say we delete it. JHMM13 (T | C) 03:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Borislavia in this article has zero Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete No hits ComputerJoe 10:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as non-notable or unverifiable. References look plausible, but can't find anything on the Internet. Might be archaic translation of name or just obscure. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-02 11:08Z
  • Delete per nom. Werdna648T/C\@ 12:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 16:58, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete we need a historian to verify. It should probably be merged with the duchy of Saxony if it is correct anyway. Dan 19:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified. -- jaredwf 06:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 03:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Technobabes & Technobabes (redirect)[edit]

Social and professional networking vanity of some sort. Non-notable community meetup. -- Longhair 03:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy kept. AFD is not required for merges and redirects. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 04:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Way of the Peaceful Warrior[edit]

Book non-notable by itself. Makes more sense in context of author's page at Dan Millman Rorybowman 03:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outbreak_(game)[edit]

The Outbreak website meets none of Wikipedia's website notability criteria - it has a very small user base, ranks below four million on Alexa, and has received no media attention.

Its Wikipedia page is a self-promotional link (User:Nlindstrom created the Wikipedia page, and is also the creator of the Outbreak site) that was made at the same time as a number of blog-comment spams advertising the game. Bub27 03:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom. Werdna648T/C\@ 12:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tim Pierce 15:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I must say that I adore "à la Doom" though. (Chuckle) Dan 19:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 23:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Stifle 02:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations in Teen Titans (animated series)[edit]

Several of these locations are actual places for which there is nothing to say about them here, and several of the names ("Underwater") are outright made up. As I mentioned in a previous AfD, this show isn't known for making a big deal about their locales. And, since the show has been cancelled, it's essentially garenteed that this page will either remain in its current contentless form or be padded with pointless fancruft. Delete as a crufty stub with no hope of expansion. --InShaneee 04:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Obina 12:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, otherwise it would be a precedent for countless similar articles for other TV series, cartoons, books films etc to have pointless articles about the locations mentioned within them. Evil Eye 14:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ' 15:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable listcruft. Tim Pierce 15:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 17:00, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Evileye Deathawk 19:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Liontamer 22:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 22:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppix[edit]

This article was written by Oppix and is quite clearly a company vanity and an advertisement. Alexa gives it no traffic rank. Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 04:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    04:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hi JHMM13 and Jwestbrook. We wrote this article but we DO NOT tell anyone to buy anything from us! We describe a vision of augmented experience from the comfort of your couch. We believe that people are interested in getting information and this article is informative. This article is part of our effort to bring the immersive technology and the virtual tours to consciousness. Hope you care and understand. Please do not delete this article or provide me with guidelines on how I can write this article that will be suitable in your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.98.91 (talk • contribs)
    • No matter how well written an article is, if the subject is non-notable then people will propose it be deleted. This is an encyclopedia, not a web directory. Ifnord 17:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. 627 google hits, many seem unrelated. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Werdna648T/C\@ 12:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a total disregard of what an encyclopedia even is. --Agamemnon2 12:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Agamemnon. Wow.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 14:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppix should be deleted. Oppix is not liked much by me. Oppix is vanity. Oppix will not lead a good life. ' 15:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tim Pierce 15:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 17:01, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and non-noteworthy. Ifnord 17:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. JeremyA 03:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Essany[edit]

Autobiography. Subject is only 23 or 24, username is "messany" - identical to subject of article. Anabanana459 04:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • subject of article has some notability, an E! talk show, but seems that is only possible reason to keep the article, delete per WP:BIO  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    04:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
per disscussion below week keep  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    15:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he has an IMDb entry (added link), has his own show, and appeared on Late Night with Jay Leno. Gilliamjf 05:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, it's bad form to write an article about yourself, but he's got his own TV show and an IMDB entry, which make him notable, clearly. Also, his age is irrelevant. I've seen notable 11-year-olds. -- Mgm|(talk) 13:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as above. Evil Eye 14:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:at first glance I though I was going to vote for delete. I'm a little dissapointed. Though it is bad faith to have your own autobiography I don't really see anything wrong with this article. According to WP:BIO#Alternative tests there is however a question of what is notable. He does past the google test. however I am hesitant on the 100 year test -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful? Another key element to look at is the WP:BIO#People still alive:
  • Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:
    • Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers
    • A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
    • An independent biography
    • Name recognition
    • Commercial endorsements
These elements should be discused in the article. I believe it is possible for this to be included. I also believe that this is an example of failing to discuss the issue on the appropriate talk page for the article. (one of the first steps for resolving a bad article) --CylePat 15:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Essany is notable for having a successful cable talk show before he had graduated from college. It's not well discussed in the article but I'll look for references. Agreed that it's bad form to write or edit an article about yourself, but he is notable nonetheless. Tim Pierce 16:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If written in a neutral tone, I see nothing wrong with starting your own autobiographical article, given that it meets our established criteria for notability and verifiability. Even Jimmy Wales has tailored his own article on Wikipedia several times over. As for this article, it appears to be notable enough for inclusion based upon WP:BIO. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny looking Katie.jpg[edit]

I was simply trying to figure out how to use wikipedia and was trying to upload an image. I picked a random one of my friend and didn't realize I wouldn't be able to delete it. It's pointless to keep here now so I think it'd be better to be deleted.

  • Then you don't neeed AfD for this. Put {{db-author}} on its description page, and an admin can speedily-delete it. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 05:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broham[edit]

I'm not entirely sure if this deserves a full {{nonsense}} speedy, but it seems a bit nonsensical, and definitely worthy of deletion. JHMM13 (T | C) 04:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're crazy, I've definitely heard of broham before in several situations. Please, just let it stay on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bustercard (talk • contribs) 2006-01-02 04:59:15 UTC
  • Delete - unverifiable/neologism. --Hurricane111 06:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article tells us outright that the word "broham" was "made up by one, unnamed person". This is original research, plain and simple. This is no doubt derived from an attack on someone with the surname Broham (for which we don't need a name disambiguation article since we don't have anyone with that surname in the encyclopaedia). Please note when researching that this is a common mis-spelling of Bromham. Delete. Uncle G 06:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable neologism. — JIP | Talk 09:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what's there, possibly use the name as a redirect to Brougham (carriage) Grutness...wha? 10:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Per Uncle G Werdna648T/C\@ 12:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The definition/manner of usage isn't even correct, AFAIK. Pointless article. - Liontamer 01:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real Republic[edit]

Fails WP:WEB with an Alexa rank of above 900,000. Anabanana459 04:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mages Guild, The Arena Guild, The Fighters Guild, The Dark Brotherhood, The Thieves Guild[edit]

Guilds for online MMORPG, delete  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    04:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment- Actually, they are guilds in a single player PC/Xbox 360 game yet to be released. That barely helps the case for keeping them though. VegaDark 05:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you missed two guilds in the same series, which I added above. -- Megamix? 05:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thanks  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    06:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsalvageably incoherent. Gazpacho 11:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non Notable.Obina 12:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gotta whack 'em all! I choose YOU!  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 14:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Destruction. ' I can't click that! contribs 15:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 17:01, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
  • Other than the arena guild, they're all present in Daggerfall and Morrowind, as well as Oblivion. The articles as they stand, though, are an incoherent attempt at a game guide. Even if cleaned up, at best they would belong on Wikibooks, but there's no need to transwiki content as poor as this. Delete (and also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Brotherhood). —Cryptic (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - These subjects are notable enough for a wikipedia article. These are major factions which have played a large part in the Elder Scrolls universe. We have articles for some of the races of the series, like Dwemer, so if these articles were of reasonable quality, I'd definitely vote keep. The Elder Scroll series of games have a very rich history, there are literally pages and pages of texts within the games, most of it is lore and background detail. One could build up a very comprehensive article on each of the guids mentioned here. It is a shame that these articles really aren't very good, but I really don't think they should have been lumped together in an AFD like this. I mean, the article on The Dark Brotherhood is actually coherent, and so is The Thieves Guild, however, the other three by User:Daedric Prince are not. So Keep those 2, and delete the rest. - Hahnchen 02:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The content is very bad, but the topics are as notable as any other game elements. -- jaredwf 07:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only if they are in game elements. I can't really tell at this point. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as gamer guild vanity. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:12, Jan. 4, 2006
    • Comment: Just to let you know, they are not gamer guilds at all. They are in-game factions with in-game lore for a series of single-player games. They are not vanity for the same reasons that Jedi and Sith are not vanity despite appearing in games. Jedi and Sith are more notable so these guilds might be deleted for notability, but not for vanity. -- jaredwf 02:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable rubbish. Incognito 05:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn fancruft Werdna648T/C\@ 08:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied under CSD A7. Don't know who did it

Ian Kelly[edit]

Apparent vanity. No relevant Google hits, no linking pages. Dyfsunctional 05:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable enough with information given. VegaDark 06:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for non-notable bio of real person. —ERcheck @ 06:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, as per WP:CSD A7. --Hurricane111 06:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tusin[edit]

This game, "tusin", appears to be neither notable nor verifiable. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just caught this comment left by Curps on the talk page of the person who created this article. Probably nonsense, but I don't believe there is a means to speedy delete this unless it qualifies under WP:CSD G3. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA 03:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Business slut[edit]

Oh joy, yet another rant poorly disguised as the explanation of a non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary and all the supposed "facts" about what 'business sluts' are like are original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per own nom. OTOH, perhaps I should try a Google search on "business slut" just to, uh, make sure it really is non-notable, yeah, that's the ticket... -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but only on the grounds that the article contradicts itself, and thus can cause a rip in the universe. See 'A Business Slut is a female' vs. 'A male variety of the Business Slut is also widespread' in the same article. Please delete to protect the future of our human race. Mceder 05:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Business slut is a colloquial term as legitimate as tea bagging or cleveland steamer, both of which are approved pages on Wikipedia. So to some extent Wikipedia IS a slang dictionary. We feel this term should have the same documentation. We question the supposition that Google is the best means for determining the notability of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.adamg (talk • contribs) 2006-01-02 05:59:24 UTC
  • Suggestion duly noted Much thanks to Mceder, the potential dimesional rift in the entry has been partially corrected. We commend your efforts to maintain the structural integrity of our dimensional fabric.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.adamg (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nomination. —ERcheck @ 06:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. — Kbh3rdtalk 06:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perhaps Antaeus Feldspar should refocus his attentions from denying the world's expansion of slang vocabulary to adding to his bio page.MR.AWESOME 06:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. "MR.AWESOME" is a newly-created meatpuppet. -- Curps 06:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. -- Curps 06:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article cites no sources and, searching, I can find no sources. (Antaeus Feldspar probably found the results of xyr search to be disappointing. ☺) Notability isn't an issue. The article is simply unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 06:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. Gazpacho 06:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism, OR. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-02 11:15Z
  • Delete per nom. Sceptre (Talk) 11:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. Werdna648T/C\@ 12:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as above.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 14:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 17:02, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nominator. Ajwebb 22:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, term is not notable. Cedars 06:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless without pics ;) Fagstein 07:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, though Mceder's reasoning is amusing. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as everyone not anonymous wrote. GRuban 20:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verify, and NPOV.-- Marvin147 02:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Marvin147 (talk · contribs) has 33 edits, of which 25 are to AfD or MfD discussions.[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pietre-Stones_Review_of_Freemasonry[edit]

because it is an article that is self-referential to itself only, and is therefore advertising MSJapan 05:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Advertising - the only reference is to the publication being described. No notable information on that publication. Kcordina 13:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 02:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. OCNative 06:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to Bliss Blood. Ichiro's relisting is not quite right, since we don't relist until consensus or we'd never get anywhere. -Splashtalk 01:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Dreambox[edit]

Non-notable band with 0 allmusic entries and 55 unique google hits (including many yahoo directory hits). Unverifiable other than the author(subject)'s personal website. Possible redeeming factor is one of the member Bliss Blood had been accepted as "notable" per AfD vote (see Talk:Bliss Blood/delete) Hurricane111 06:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete NN Bands can be speedied under CSD A7 if no claim to notability is given Werdna648T/C\@ 12:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect per WP:NMG: [[A band is notable if it] Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. - Mgm|(talk) 13:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note the word extremely. That would surely mean a Bono, a John Lydon or a Paul McCartney. --kingboyk 16:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content with Bliss Blood and leave a redirect. She survived VfD, but that does not men ever project she belongs to gets it's own article. WP:MUSIC states "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." If they ever merit inclusion on thier own then remove the redirect and recreate the article. I have merged Bliss Blood's other projects into her article and will do so with this article if it survives AfD. Movementarian 14:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Movementarian. -- jaredwf 06:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 02:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn or merge since Bliss Blood survived an AFd. --kingboyk 16:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firre[edit]

Delete. Non-notable, appears made up - zero google hits. Tufflaw 06:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep with the intent for development. Whoever gets "0" hits on Google did not try very hard. I got 612,000 but that should not determine viability alone. Kmac1036 08:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Needs major clean up and sources. My brief investigations sugests this term is not used by the army, but by one company (Force Protection Systems) for their system. If true, this may turn into an advert. I hope the author can clean up. If there are no sources that show this is a general term, then I'd go with delete. Oh, and perhaps it should be renamed to FIRRE.Obina 12:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I get several hits on Google. [29] and [30] (scroll to the mid-bottom of the 2nd link]. [31] is also a good resource and there are more... --Naha|(talk) 20:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Obviously most of the Google hits for "firre" are not related (and Kmac1036, I only get 30,000; don't know how you get 612,000). Zero google hits for "Family of Integrated Rapid Reaction Equipment", but 133 Google hits for "Family of Integrated Rapid Response Equipment". Here is one reference: [32]. I have changed the name in the article. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-02 21:25Z
  • Weak keep per above Werdna648T/C\@ 08:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to Bliss Blood. I don't think you'll get away with a speedy for that! -Splashtalk 01:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's How[edit]

Non-notable band with 0 allmusic entries. Google search is not feasible due to the fact that Here's How is a common term. Unverifiable other than the author(subject)'s personal website. Possible redeeming factor is one of the member Bliss Blood had been accepted as "notable" per AfD vote (see Talk:Bliss Blood/delete) Hurricane111 06:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete NN Bands can be deleted under CSD A7 if no notability is claimed Werdna648T/C\@ 12:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect per my Delta Dreambox vote. - Mgm|(talk) 13:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content with Bliss Blood and leave a redirect. She survived VfD, but that does not men ever project she belongs to gets it's own article. WP:MUSIC states "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." If they ever merit inclusion on thier own then remove the redirect and recreate the article. I have merged Bliss Blood's other projects into her article and will do so with this article if it survives AfD. Movementarian 14:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Movementarian. -- jaredwf 06:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nn-band. Stifle 02:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to Bliss Blood. I'm starting to think this is getting a bit silly. -Splashtalk 01:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonement Jazz Band[edit]

Non-notable band with 0 allmusic entries and 29 unique google hits (including many yahoo directory hits). Unverifiable other than the author(subject)'s personal website. Possible redeeming factor is one of the member Bliss Blood had been accepted as "notable" per AfD vote (see Talk:Bliss Blood/delete) Hurricane111 06:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge content with Bliss Blood and leave a redirect. She survived VfD, but that does not men ever project she belongs to gets it's own article. WP:MUSIC states "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." If they ever merit inclusion on thier own then remove the redirect and recreate the article. Movementarian 07:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete NN Bands can be speedied under CSD A7 Werdna648T/C\@ 12:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Movementarian. Maybe I should change my vote on the related entries...- Mgm|(talk) 13:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have merged Bliss Blood's other projects into her article and will do so with this article if it survives AfD. Movementarian 14:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Movementarian. -- jaredwf 06:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS on all pending further work. -Splashtalk 01:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel R. Anderson, Rachel Barr, Lori A. Custodero, Claire Lerner, Claudia A. Saad[edit]

I speedied these articles for being nn-bio (no claim of notability) but they were restored by Zanimum (original author), so bringing to AfD instead. howcheng {chat} 06:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I see no way to debate all these people in one nomination - this is not a bunch of related hoax articles, or vanity articles on a group of schoolfriends, but bios of academics who may each well have legitimate claims to notability. However, I would expect an experienced wikipedian such as Zanimum to do better in establishing the academic notability of these people. I added an external link to the webpage of Anderson, and he seems to have quite a few publications (and has been advisor to some notable TV shows). u p p l a n d 07:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all, for now. I prefer, for the time being, to assume the good faith of Zanimum (talk · contribs), the experienced Wikipedia editor who has created these stubs, and should be given a chance to improve them. He hasn't edited since the 30th and I think it would have been a good idea to give him a chance to work more on these articles before nominating them (and definitely before speedying them, as was originally done). I also strongly disagree with this group-nomination. The nominator has not attempted to show that the notability of each of these individuals is in any way dependent on that of the others. They should be judged as individuals. I notice, for instance, that some of these have hits on Amazon, others do not. u p p l a n d 13:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that these were not well served by being grouped, but understand why it was done. Who has assumed anything other than good faith, by the way? If someone removes a speedy tag, they aren't doing anything other than saying "I disagree." This is perfectly acceptable, as is bringing the article to AfD afterwards. As to articles needing to be "worked on," once they enter into main space they must stand on their own. - brenneman(t)(c) 14:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point taken. If the consensus is to keep, I'll come back to the articles in a month or so and nominate them individually if I feel it's necessary. howcheng {chat} 22:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My feeling is that these should merge with Sesame Beginnings, but if not keep because as much as I respect the nom, I don't understand how people like this get speedied. -- JJay 08:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change vote to Keep as I fully agree with u p p l a n d's comments above (added after my vote), and the original editor can merge later if needed. Or perhaps I aim for the low side when it comes to academics and board members. -- JJay 14:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put top amazon sales figures in soon, brenneman(t)(c) 08:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What difference do sales figures make to academic psychologists? What matters is whether they have made anything regarded as important by their peers, i.e. other people in their field. You can't tell that from book sales. Many things today are in any case published in academic journals, which few people buy, as they are available through electronic subscriptions at every university. u p p l a n d 10:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was simply trying to find a criterion under WP:BIO that any of these people could pass. So, how do you propose that we determine if they are notable? - brenneman(t)(c) 13:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest returning to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics, trying to agree on what the notability criteria should be for academics. Meanwhile, let's have a moratorium on the nomination of all these "nn professors", who very frequently turn out to be kept in the end anyway. I have made my personal view clear in many of these debates already and I'm not sure if this is the right place to have a more genreal discussion of the issue. u p p l a n d 13:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, trying to get a moratorium on nominations until some way can be worked out for things to be kept doesn't sound to good to me. WP:BIO represents the consensus view of lots and lots of wikipedians. - brenneman(t)(c) 14:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, forget the moratorium. The point is in any case not to get a moratorium "until some way can be worked out for things to be kept" (my italics). I'm not sure why you assume that. The point is to get a guideline reflecting the actual consensus of deletion discussions, which has been to keep in a large number of cases where the nominator has had nothing more to say than "nn professor". As should be obvious by now, WP:BIO doesn't say anything practically useful on the notability of academics. WTF is an "average college professor"? u p p l a n d 15:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My superficial reading of your contribution amounted to the words "moratorium, kept". I do apologise for any slight I rendered. Yes, the guidelines should reflect the results of AfDs, although there is some dynamic tension between the micro-level discussions here and the macro-level ones on guideline talk pages. If we could have some examples of other academics who fail the current BIO test but were kept, that would be good. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is not that academics are kept despite failing WP:BIO, but that WP:BIO is too vague in this case to be useful. We need some set of criteria comparable to WP:MUSIC and other similar guidelines. u p p l a n d 12:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they wrote any books that sold well, it aids their notability. - Mgm|(talk) 13:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it may aid notability, but not having published a bestseller does not detract from academic notability. u p p l a n d 13:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an encyclopedia, not a comprehensive list of every PhD working at every University. Some academics are notable. These are not. Obina 12:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obina, are you aware these people are not just random PhDs working at Universities, but also on the advisory board of a major international brand? -- user:zanimum
Comment Firstly, I can agree to 'weak keep' for Anderson - but the article should list just his notable achievements and not every boring academic publication. (I was mislead by the blanket AFD, my mistake). The others seem like great people, but so are 99% of the academics worldwide. Being on an advisory board of a brand such as Seasame Beginnings is not notable. Nor does "being involved with" things. Brands have lots of advisors, year after year. And academics are all on lots of panels and committees, and make lots of publications. I think the idea to discuss outside this AFD is wise. Obina 10:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tim Pierce 16:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If no one else, you must keep Dr. Anderson, I've found that he's nearly a legend among the children's television industry, for both program creators and advertisers. He's involved in the creation of the top three rated programs for 2-5 year olds (Diego, Dora, Blue's), and been involved in all-time classics (Sesame, Kangaroo). The others are still notable, though not as accomplished, relatively. This is a spin-off of one of the world's top 10 preschool brands, just the fact they were chosen to be on the board should make them notable. -- user:zanimum
    • Please put some work into improving these articles now. Tell us not only that someone is a PhD and on the faculty of a certain university, but exactly what position they have and how long they have had it. Dig up more on their publications and try to find reviews or citations that tell something about their influence on other people in their field. Are they members of editorial committees of important journals? Fellows of prestigious scientific societies? I'm voting keep for now, largely because it is a group nomination which doesn't really give any opportunity for a detailed discussion of each one of these persons, but I can easily see some of these being nominated for deletion again if they are kept this time. u p p l a n d 17:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh man... this is overkill, and doesn't actually tell us anything. I do appreciate the effort that has been put in, but an academic's job is to make publications, and this doesn't tell us anything about the notability of these publications. A better approach is to find what other people have written about the academic in question. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • How does this skimmed down section look? It's only partially done, but it gives the idea. Just the journal, and every year he published in, with whom. -- user:zanimum
          • No, don't waste your time doing that. A real bibliography has to include the article titles - that's the important part. However, I suggest that you limit yourself to his books and the most important articles. Look for citations and reviews to see which those are. And I don't think you should redlink all the book titles. Most books are not in themselves important enough to write individual articles about. If you are reading them, use them to improve Anderson's article. u p p l a n d 19:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • RE: "one of the world's top 10 preschool brands, just the fact they were chosen to be on the board should make them notable." If this were a discussion of the board of directors of Nestle, one of the largest food companies in the world and all the articles said were, "Joe Schmoe sits on the board of directors of Nestle. He has an MBA from Harvard Business School and previously served as CEO of the company," wouldn't that get speedied? I consider this the same. howcheng {chat} 22:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Daniel R. Anderson and Claire Lerner then Merge the rest with Sesame Beginnings. Anderson and Lerner seem more notable from my googling. -- jaredwf 06:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broader discussion[edit]

I've made a placeholder at Wikipedia_talk:Notability (people)#Academics. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Burn Hoodia[edit]

  • The name is trademarked and trademarks are not easily granted. For a new industry [hoodia] this entry appears to be of importance. Someone should clean it up but the add should remain. There are no hyperlinks to any promotional site so the entry is clearly not commercial in nature


Looks like a non-notable diet pill. Passes the google test with flying colours (10,000 hits)[33] but I'm not sure if it's just ad spam. Anyhow, it's poorly formatted, so it's up for AFD. If I knew more about it, I might have not, but then again, the original author didn't give us any context. Weak delete. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 07:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advertising. Wikipedia already has a comprehnsive article on Hoodia. Movementarian 07:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. Furthermore, the last two paragraphs of Hoodia look like ad copy from the same source (although not the same editor). Snurks T C 07:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Movementarian Werdna648T/C\@ 12:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. Notice the creator of the article has "Hoodia" in his user name and he vandalized Bruce Lee to promote the product. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 13:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 03:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cartwright band[edit]

Non-notable band vanity. -- Longhair 07:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Longhair 07:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, I was just about to list this. Snurks T C 07:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non notable garage band -Drdisque 07:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Isn't it possible to speedy this under the newer rules? - CorbinSimpson 07:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adjum posted this unsigned comment on this page's talk page: "why does it have to be deleted, wikipedia is free for what ever, what rule does it violate. it may not be notable to you but again your page isnt "notable" to me."
    • Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not several things. One of those is "free for what ever"; Cartwright band does not pass WP:MUSIC, which is the accepted guideline for what bands are considered "encyclopedic". If you can provide information that shows Cartwright band is notable and worthy of inclusion, then by all means do so! Otherwise, wait until you've got an album or two on a major label. :) -- Snurks T C 09:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, band vanity. — JIP | Talk 09:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable band. -- (aeropagitica) UK 10:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete NN Bands can be Speedied under CSD A7 Werdna648T/C\@ 12:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 17:03, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete, you fucking racist. Seanation 2:16 PM, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - if a band can't make it in the real world, they can't make it here doktorb | words 20:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator. Ajwebb 22:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable musical group. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 02:46Z
  • Comment: don't delete cartwight....have pity. non-notable? non-notable? you're non-notable! - User:Zlclark
Preceding unsigned comment from User:Zlclark -- Longhair 07:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yeah, I know I'm non-notable. I'm also not trying to promote my band through Wikipedia. - CorbinSimpson 07:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: From talk page: "Let's see. Well the mother of the lead singer was Ms. North Carolina in 1969/70. She is a voice lessons teacher, so there is your connection to something famous." -Drdisque 02:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:: Corbin Simpson is homosexual! -Seanation 06:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The AfD notice was taken down by Zlclark. Not cool. I'm putting it back up immediately. Those notices are not to be changed until the discussion is closed. Consider this an informal warning to not do it again. - CorbinSimpson 03:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:: From talk page: "Not cool? You're not cool!" -Seanation 06:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Vandalising user pages, on a wiki even, isn't cool either. -- Longhair 22:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ohhh, did I hurt your feelings? -Seanation 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Cry me a river. -Seanation 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not at all. We don't mean to hurt yours either. -- Longhair 00:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
but by your deletionist comments you do so. You hurt people. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Warnings against vandalism hurt people feelings? You know what my thought is on that? Tough. Vandals don't have any feelings, or they wouldn't try to destroy things that people work to build up. Your choice of the word "deletionism" hurts my feelings. Care to retract that? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here's a free tip. You're probably hurting your band more by refusing to accept your band isn't notable enough for an article and bringing all this unwanted attention to your immaturity. Spend more time rehearsing perhaps. Who knows, all that practice might make us want to change our minds one day, and maybe, a fan might just pop an article in on your behalf, once you've earned it. -- Longhair 02:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: yo momma aint notable -penile disease
Comment: At risk of being redundant, my momma ain't got no Wikipedia article. - CorbinSimpson 03:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A message from Cartwright themselves: No member of cartwright put it up. one of our fans did. its our fans that our arguing for the wikipedia page, which we didnt ask to be put up, but still appreciate. just wanted to clear that up.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snipsville, New York[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion, but doesn't qualify. Speedy rationale is used below as the AfD nomination. howcheng {chat} 07:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no reference to a Snipsville cartoon on google. The article was created by a new user with a single edit to a single article (this article) - called snipsville. I suspect it's either so nn that it doesn't show up on google or bollocks. Megapixie 07:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I tagged it as speedy - but I support it's deletion through due process. Megapixie 08:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Only if the show can be proven. There is one for "Mayberry" from the classic TV Show "The Andy Griffith Show." (oops, keep forgetting) Kmac1036 08:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An imaginary location, from a non notable cartoon.Obina 12:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Megapixie. Movementarian 13:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find anything related to a Snipsville cartoon either. Only 3 non-notable hits to the supposed creator, Zack VerVynck. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-02 21:35Z
  • Delete per Quarl -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greyseason Research[edit]

More deletion patrol - this time tagged with the speedy

non-notable, 8 google hits

No opinion WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Too secret. I was going to remove the speedy tag and nominate this myself, but you beat me to it. The following line is nice: "This firm has operated quitely and in the dark the past five years; purposely avoiding many search engines due to the sensitivity of some of its research." Since the firm has now apparently decided to operate "loudly and in the light", they should continue to do so for a little longer before they warrant a Wikipedia article. --Deathphoenix 07:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the original author. Cleaned it up with more details. I have to get permission from some people to link & make connections to some of the misc papers that have been published by some of the employees. Non-disclosure stuff... Let me know if there's anything else that would help. Update Might be able to get pictures of the Veritas box.69.22.45.103 18:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stub Request May I request this topic become a stub (if I'm understanding this process right) until I have all of my verifiable data together. Understandably I can see the verification issues; however it is not a hoax, the company is just highly discrete. I would like to be able to properly pull together sources and cite papers. Waiting for the firm's new site to go up would help too. If this option is not possible I completely understand the need for deletion. 69.22.45.103 18:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified and possibly a hoax. Only registers 4 google hits all from a forum type sites [34]. No information available at thier webpage [35]. Movementarian 13:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too secret (i.e. unverifiable). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-02 21:43Z
  • Delete unverifiable. Stifle 02:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very low google hit and no Patent hits Rjayres 19:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied. r3m0t talk 04:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NSA eavesdropping[edit]

Not really something that belongs in an encyclopedia. As the writer even admits, it's purly speculative. Judging from the lack of wikilinks, it may even be a copyvio. --Spring Rubber 08:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AmiciPhone[edit]

Non-notable project, every google hit seems to be a very widely distributed press release. Article written by developer self. Haakon 08:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable piece of software. Google only finds press-release based articles. Kcordina 13:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable promotion. Tim Pierce 16:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as non-notable. Alexa ranking for company website is 1,998,968. May become notable in the future; recreate then. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 02:43Z
  • Delete advert. Stifle 02:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was The result of the AfD was SPEEDY DELETE because it had been deleted earlier in the week. it was deleted by CLW, not myself, I am merely closing the AfD. CastAStone 19:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wehatetech[edit]

fixing orphaned afd, no vote -- MisterHand 17:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kancho sense[edit]

I nominate Kancho sense because

  • It is a term a person made up on their website.
  • It only relates to one website.
  • Its history page has many people trying to speedy delete it.
  • Its talk page has one person say it does not belong and that is the only edit so far.
  • I want people to vote on whether to keep it or not (better than speedy which lacks discussion or voting).

StarTrekkie 09:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, if it has only been made up on one website, then it's not notable. — JIP | Talk 09:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sounds like an NN Neologism to me Werdna648T/C\@ 12:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What's an "NN Neologism" and how's it differ from a regular neologism? StarTrekkie 13:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: NN is a common abbreviation standing for "non-notable". As distinct from a notable neologism like, say, chugger. Stifle 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although I've heard of the page before. It made me promise myself I would never, ever, under any circumstances, set foot on Japan. --Agamemnon2 12:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. --DCrazy talk/contrib 17:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with JIP. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 22:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 02:40Z
  • Technically not a speedy, like I tagged it way back when... but I'm wondering how I missed the tag being removed. Delete it a lot, utter nonsense. —Cryptic (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kancho, the webpage (outpostnine) was mentioned in newsweek, so it is fairly widely known, and kancho (and the related sence) are mentioned very often. redirecting would give the stray passerby an idea of what kancho is, and kancho sence should be obvious (to those readers of outpostnine, the main source of the article) from that information. oops, forgot to sign, and yeah, obvious probably isn't the right wordSmmurphy(Talk) 08:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect is fine - the Kancho article was quite educational for me, and the Kancho Sense article makes a certain amount of sense now. However it is not obvious to me from the Kancho article that Kancho Sense is "the art of avoiding Kancho", nor would it mean anything else to me. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 07:33Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, but move to California cheeseburger. I'll do this by moving California Sandwich since it is wikified better and slightly longer, and then redirecting the other one. -Splashtalk 01:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California Hamburger and California Sandwich[edit]

POV original research and Simpsons-cruft offering a unique interpretation of one obscure joke. There are just 106 Google hits for "california hamburger" simpsons and 192 for "california sandwich" simpsons. Both articles are virtually identical. In the unlikely event that these articles are kept, a better title would be "California cheeseburger", which is what the actual Simpsons joke referred to. Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 09:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I find this very offensive to the high quality deliciousity of the california hamburgers I get in the bar/restaraunt underneath the firehouse all the time :-) Search4Lancer 10:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Movementarian 13:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ' I can't click that! (Edits!) 15:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per above. Well known Simpsons reference. -- JJay 15:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Evidence? ' I can't click that! (Edits!) 17:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Justify your vote, please. -- JJay 19:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not what I consider to be evidence. ' I can't click that! (Edits!) 08:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • And I remain totally unconvinced by your vote. -- JJay 18:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would never vote Keep because someone is voting delete. The individual votes do not concern me. However, I will also not respond to someone who has voted without providing any comment or justification for their vote and certainly not as part of a one-word challenge, as demonstrated above. -- JJay 01:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 17:03, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wiki is not paper. Note: an extensive constellation of Simpson's articles is one of the examples in this discussion. Although the article should be under California cheeseburger, if that is the original reference... -- Geo Swan 00:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but then it should be under the original reference along with (Simpsons) as per my note above, in case somebody decides to come along and make an article on that. Search4Lancer 01:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all three to The Secret War of Lisa Simpson. Very little web presence for something that's supposedly in broad usage. Seems too minor to even merge back to parent episode. -Colin Kimbrell 16:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obscurity is in the eye of the beholder. It is verifiable however, agreed? -- Geo Swan 18:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Potentially, though I didn't find any citable sources for it. As for the obscurity concept, you're right about subjectivity, but on some level, all decisions are subjective. The use of community consensus for matters like these helps to ensure that this necessary subjectivity is, at a minimum, internally consistent. -Colin Kimbrell 20:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, move to california cheeseburger. There should be a category for obscure simpsons quotes.--Marvin147 03:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to California cheeseburger and clearly illustrate its connection to the aforementioned Simpsons episode. A Google search came across this transcript which to quote:
Chief Wiggum: " Now, what I am about to show you next may shock and educate you. Hold onto your values as we step through the looking glass into a hippie pot party. [flicks a switch, lighting a mannequin with a joint crudely stuck to his mouth] While Johnny Welfare plays acid rock on a stolen guitar, his old lady has a better idea. [lights up another mannequin, of a woman opening wide to eat a baby sandwich. (That's a sandwich with a baby in it, not a really tiny sandwich.) The crowd gasps] That's right, she's got the munchies for a California Cheeseburger."
The author of the transcript comments:
"Not to trod on Haynes Lee's territory, but I think I spotted an urban legend when Chief Wiggum pointed out the "California Cheeseburger." According to legend, a couple leave their infant child in the care of a teen-aged babysitter and enjoy a night on the town. When they return, the obviously stoned babysitter reports that the baby is fine, and the turkey is in the oven. "What turkey?" the parents ask themselves - until the horrible truth about what's <really> cooking hits them..."
Tom Foolery 22:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Snopes page referencing this legend can be found here.-Colin Kimbrell 01:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI and DELETE. -Splashtalk 20:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paper chromatography of amino acids[edit]

Unsourced, not encyclopedic, unlikely to be expanded, not a likely search term, not required as a redirect. I reccomend delete. brenneman(t)(c) 04:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination did not gather enough votes for consensus, relisting. — JIP | Talk 09:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. From what I can comprehend of the article (chromatography not being my strongest field...), this seems to be more of a "how-to" article than an encyclopedia entry. – Seancdaug 10:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing recommendation to transwiki to Wikibooks. – Seancdaug 17:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WikiBooks Werdna648T/C\@ 12:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. Howto's belong on wikibooks (and I say that as a chemistry student). =- Mgm|(talk) 13:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change recommedation to transwiki. Edgar181 15:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Commodore Comeback[edit]

Speculation about a possible comeback of the Commodore 64, interspersed with something about sucking orange pies. — Gwalla | Talk 09:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, about 75% nonsense and the rest unverifiable. Snurks T C 09:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ::blinks:: Huh. I don't think it's really a speedy candidate, since it's not quite patent nonsense, but it's one of the weirder examples of non-patent nonsense I've ever seen. Definitely delete. – Seancdaug 09:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Amusing, nonetheless. Search4Lancer 10:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lionel Ritchie BJAODN, methinks. Grutness...wha? 11:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, re-create if Commodore-related pie-sucking accepted as Olympic sport. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, some people just don't understand the concept of liquidation. Gazpacho 11:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Translate into English Oh no, it IS in English?! My word, Delete as it appears to be nonsense of a nevertheless amusing degree. doktorb | words 11:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. May be a BJAODN candidate. Movementarian 13:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was move to Criticisms of Microsoft and keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common criticisms of Microsoft[edit]

We don't have "Common Criticisms of General Motors", "Common Criticisms of Apple" or "Common Criticisms of Thimbles" so why should we have this page? This is a general encyclopedia, not a technology encyclopedia. This page is an absolute bias magnet. It does not weigh the criticisms with the common positive attributions, and does not even lead to a page listing Microsoft's positive attributes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theone3 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The section on criticism in the Microsoft article seems more than sufficient for the purposes of a general interest encyclopedia. – Seancdaug 10:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, gossip and editorial magnet. Gazpacho 11:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inherently POV, we have a controversey section on the Microsoft page, why not use it Werdna648T/C\@ 12:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and all of the above comments. Movementarian 13:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Accepted and well-founded criticism should go in the Microsoft article. Currently simply a rant at the company Kcordina 13:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Microsoft is criticized frequently enough. I believe the criticism of Microsoft is noteworthy enough for its own article. Q0 14:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The current microsoft article barely scratches the surface of the issue. The nom also fails to mention that this article was spun out from the main Microsoft article on June 9, 2004. Perhaps this is a coincidence, but the nomination is the fourth edit from this user and the first since June 10, 2004. -- JJay 15:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep why cant we also be a technology encyclopedia? -- Astrokey44|talk 15:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NeoJustin 17:08, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The article is well done and extensive. It is too large to merge into Microsoft Corporation. As long as Wikipedia is noting already publicized criticisms, rather than discussing new criticisms or stating a criticism as a fact, it is NPOV. This is pretty common in Wikipedia. Many articles discuss criticisms. Bkwillwm 17:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem (from this writer's POV as I wrote MS up to FA status) is that that article serves as a dumping ground for criticisms of the company in a relatively NPOV matter. If that article is killed people will drive more and more criticism into the actual MS article sending it to FARC fairly quickly. WhiteNight T | @ | C 18:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Criticism of Microsoft for consistency with all the other "Criticism of X" articles which we do have for many subjects (contrary to Theone3's apparent argument that if we don't have an article on criticism of thimbles we must not have any criticism articles.) Keep per JJay's pointing out that this article was spun out from the main article; there is an obvious problem with spinning out a particular sub-topic because it's so large and then deleting it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename to Criticism of Microsoft per Antaeus Feldspar. Nothing wrong with a seperate in-depth article regarding such a significant company. - Liontamer 21:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, after further consideration, at Criticism of Microsoft. Gazpacho 21:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I use it as a reference. Giftlite 00:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into Microsoft. --cesarb 00:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All Monopoly articles are worthy (and important); and if they have a coercive aspect to there success, then why should that not be examined and explained. It is a subject that is best kept separate in order that it can balances the interests of those that consider themselves to be the injured parties. Trying to do it all in one article would created an impossibly messy triangle of interests.
Perhaps, before things are put up for deletion they should be seconded by someone else who can emotionally step back and consider it purely from a practical point of view. The reason given for deletion is a bit of a non sequitur.
Maybe also, it [the article] should be also categorised with coercive monopolies but I am not too clear on the policy regarding this.--Aspro 01:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If sources are found, this could be merged into Microsoft's article. Soo 01:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Derktar 02:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong keep per Bkwillwm. Rename is fine. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 02:37Z
  • Keep and rename. -Sean Curtin 04:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It does appear to be biased and contradicting the NPOV. -User:Wikiolap 04:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am convinced, keep and rename. Merging with the parent article does not seem like a good idea, as that article is already at FA status. Movementarian 08:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well written and while it's about a POV, it's not written with an agenda. RedMage 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Apple Computer does contain criticisms, and if someone's willing to write them, I don't see why there shouldn't be factual articles criticising Microsoft, Apple, GM, or anyone else. Novakreo 13:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Criticism of Microsoft to conform to naming conventions. Perfectly good article, spun out from parent due to length. -Colin Kimbrell 16:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep first class starting point source for anyone studying pros and cons of restrictive buisness practices. 82.38.97.206 17:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)mikeL[reply]
  • Move to Criticism of Microsoft. The article is reasonable since the parent article would be cluttered with criticisms without it. -- jaredwf 06:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Microsoft is known for being frequently cricised, both by those purchasing from it, and by the law, the article is notable enough. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 19:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Criticism of Microsoft as argued above --Ajdz 22:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Move to Criticism of Microsoft Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above arguments. Microsoft is criticized quite frequently, this criticism is notable, and this article is better of independent of Microsoft than merged, due to its size. I am not against a Move as per above. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 02:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute Keep I will oppose all efforts to have this page deleted. Most of the criticisms on the page are accurate, and deleting this page amounts to censorship. Arbiteroftruth 08:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Criticism of Microsoft. JHMM13 (T | C) 08:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Criticism of Microsoft, as per above.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep microsoft is probably the most criticized company, so that criticism needs to be covered. Bob A
  • Keep Being neutral does not mean to hide the bad side of the things.
  • Keep and rename to follow convention. It can be linked from the main article. Company is too large for it to all fit in one. Stifle 02:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to follow convention. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Criticism of Microsoft. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as per above (What would be an uncommon criticism of Microsoft? That its products needlessly sacrifice usability and functionality for security's sake? It would be interesting to start that article and try to see if you could make it work, but that's not what Wikipedia's for). I heed the arguments about POV forks, but we do have things like Criticism of Wal-Mart (rapidly overtaking MS as the most criticized company in the US) because IMO they are the lesser of two evils (without separate criticism articles on controversial subjects, I believe, you end up with extremely long articles plagued by constant edit wars). Daniel Case 16:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: And CTTOI, why don't we have a separate Criticism of Apple Computer article? The section in the current article seems to me to be so woefully incomplete (there is nothing, for instance, on the way the company set the profit margin on the Mac so high that it did more to create the DOS market niche at the lower ends than IBM or Microsoft could have on their own. Or the way the company balked at Gates's plan in 1987 to license the OS, even after he'd lined up some pretty big clients, again guaranteeing the Windows market would exist) compared to what you could say that if you have (as we should) a separate article devoted to criticisms of Microsoft, to have such a piddly small section devoted to criticisms of Apple smacks of POV on Wikipedia's part in and of itself regardless of how much those articles strive for NPOV (OK, before you ask I would write it myself but I'm not as expert on that as many more people are around here, and I have other fish to fry both on and offline at the moment). Daniel Case 16:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep/move as above. relevant enough as a topic for itself.--Austrian 20:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Rogue[edit]

This appears to be either a vanity page or fancruft, or both. Mike Leaver 09:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity fancruft for a game that doesn't even exist yet. Search4Lancer 10:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeletePer nom.Obina 12:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Reference to game could be added to Roguelike page. Kcordina 13:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable game that hasn't been produced yet. (I wouldn't call it fancruft. The article is about the game itself.). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 02:35Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timekeeper[edit]

Delete. "Timekeeper" is self-explanatory. A person/thing who keeps time. That's the gist of this page. Do we really need an article on it? Other options are merging it with a sports (or whatever) page or moving it to Wiktionary. -- Simpatico 10:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Please note that Simpatico has been a member of Wikipedia for about one week and he has already posted approximatly five {{{AFD}}} tags ! SirIsaacBrock 03:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've been here a long time, but I only recently registered. Am I doing something wrong? Also, I'm a she. -- Simpatico 07:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well, yes, a timekeeper is someone who keeps time, but different rules govern timekeepers in different occupations. This has faint potential to give some details of how a timekeeper in, say, basketball, differs from one in soccer; the history of the changeover from manual to automatic timekeeping in different industries and sports. Note also that there is a specific type of watch called a "timekeeper watch", which could easily become the subject of this article (see [36]). As such, I'd give this a weak keep. Grutness...wha? 11:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take the "he" thing personally; SirIsaac probably just went with "he" because in traditional usage, that's the default English pronoun for a person of unknown or indeterminate gender. -Colin Kimbrell 16:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't, I was just clarifying. :) -- Simpatico 20:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dic def as it stands. If anyone wants to write the article that Grutness mentions, they can recreate.Obina 11:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary, in the unlikely event that it doesn't already exist. Otherwise delete as a dicdef Werdna648T/C\@ 12:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dicdef that already has an entry in wiktionary (wiktionary:timekeeper) Kcordina 13:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand a timekeeper is an instrument or person...just like many other articles in Wikipedia e.g. Referee or Umpire. There should be an {{{Expand}}} tag placed not a {{{Delete}}} tag. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 15:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep -- as per SirIsaac -- Geo Swan 00:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Potential to expand. That's all we require. Soo 01:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . Mark as a stub. Has plenty of potential for expansion. -- JLaTondre 03:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. -Colin Kimbrell 16:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 21:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon Brown[edit]

Mostly nonsense. Subject is adequately covered in article Sea of No Cares Gimboid13 10:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Individual songs shouldn't get their own articles unless of great cultural importance. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no significane demonstrated.--nixie 11:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to parent article to discourage recreation. Movementarian 12:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BALLS Stifle 02:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Body-[edit]

Created by User:Kelvin Martinez - I've speedy deleted 35 or so of his articles today (none of which had any content and almost all of which ended in a dash). This one does include some content, but this song isn't included in the discography at The Jackson 5 so I'm not convinced. There's a link to an external site which claims to be somewhere you can see this video, but I can't see it there (maybe I'm being stoopid?), so again I'm not convinced. Delete CLW 11:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Randall[edit]

This entry is very vague, only one sentence long, and is of an inadequate subject for its own entry. CelticJobber 11:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Jack Randall is the actor that played Midshipman Boyle in the Master and Commander film. I could not find any information to improve the article and according to IMDb, it was his only role [37]. I am willing to change my vote if someone can provide more information. Movementarian 12:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough information on him.--Snakes 01:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complicated vote. I'm inclined to keep the actor stub that's currently here, since Master and Commander was a pretty major film. That said, there are multiple other Jack Randalls who belong in the encyclopedia, including a member of the International Boxing Hall of Fame. As such, we should convert Jack Randall to a disambig page and move this one to Jack Randall (actor) (unless people think that'd open up confusion with Addison Randall, a cowboy actor from the '50s who was often credited as "Jack Randall"). -Colin Kimbrell 17:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: According to [38], Randall is a child actor, born in 1989. If correct, that might explain why he's only got the one film credit; he's still in high school. -Colin Kimbrell 17:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shrimpjaw[edit]

A livejournal blog about celebs, scoring 3 google hits. 4 months old, unrated on alexa. Delete Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theswamp[edit]

Not notable website - Alexa page rank about 806,000 , no information value, not NPOV ==> Delete kernoz 11:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. wangi 00:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriels Fallen[edit]

Tagged as {{db-band}} but claims to have 3 albums. Forwarded to AFD and let others decide. Abstain. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 12:51, Jan. 2, 2006

Comment: Below, User:maxcap has pointed out (and I did not previously notice) that two of the 3 albums listed are actually compilations that happen to contain the same song by this band, thus my position on this matter has changed from neutral to delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:16, Jan. 3, 2006
  • Very Weak Keep They'll need to add the label to which they're signed [or claim to be], and Wiki does not need full sized pics nor logos, but apart from that it appears to be enough to stay. Saying that, Wiki cannot say yes to one "local scene" group who can't be bothered with MySpace, so care and attention is still needed. doktorb | words 20:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added our label to the page, as far as "local scene" it is important to our history to include where we came from, a great number of bands have come from our area including "The Beach Boys", and "Pennywise". The logo has been removed, but as far as the picture goes, I feel it is important to our site, plus I've seen it on a number of other band pages, ie Atreyu. Also we don't claim to have 3 albums, we state very clearly that we have one studio album, one compilation, and are featured on one dvd. Please do not delete our page, I've fixed what needed to be fixed, if there is anything else that needs fixing, please let me know. Thank you, Chris - Gabriels Fallen 12:42, 2 January 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.80.136 (talk • contribs) 3 January 2006
  • Delete Unless inclusion on comps and a song on a DVD count as albums. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC maxcap 22:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the guidelines:
"Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network." BNRX FM did a 45 minute interview with us
"Has been prominently featured in any major music media." The DVD we're featured on pushes aprox. 2 thousand copies a week (aprox. 100 thou. a year) from Best Buy, plus we do the theme song on the next volume, have a music video and feature 4 songs on it.
"Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour over notable musical venues in at least one large or medium-sized country" We're in talks to go out on this years Vans Warped Tour.
In fact just two days ago we preformed with The Violent Femmes and Reel Big Fish.
Chris - Gabriels Fallen.Fiend1138 02:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BNRX is an internet radio station, I'm not sure if that counts. If it does, keep.
The DVD you are featured on is a DVD of street fights..as in http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7575732&type=product&id=1483749. ::(That's Vol.3 I couldn't find Volume 4, has it been released yet?) That's not major music media.
When the Warped Tour line-up is finalized and you're on it OK. But "In talks" is not "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour ::over notable musical venues in at least one large or medium-sized country". That's cool that you played with the Violent Femmes and Reel Big Fish, but there are alot of bands that have opened for alot of notable bands. I don't see how that's relevant. maxcap 02:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Felony Fights vol. 4 is being released in about a week, if BNRX doesn't count, then very shortly we are going to be featured on on of the XM radio stations.

Personally I just don't want to see my page go down, We've had it up for a little while, and we all really enjoy being part of the wiki community, and frankly we don't want to lose it. Honestly I don't think our page is hurting anyone, it's a valuable resourse for people to get more information about us if they choose to do so. I loved the idea of wiki when I first started to use it a long time ago, I wanted to share the information about my band for anyone who is interested. And isn't that the mission of wiki, to have an open encyclopedia where anyone can add information they believe to be relivent others? Wiki is very precious to us, so please let our page stay. - Chris Gabriels Fallen Fiend1138 02:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing personal Chris. I feel the same way about Wikipedia as you. But it's got to have guidelines. maxcap 03:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then technically, in about week when Felony Fights 4 comes out we meet the guide line for "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable", and the XM Radio kicks in for "Has been placed in rotation nationally" can't we just let it stay?Fiend1138 03:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Keep Only keep if authors wish to rewrite the article to maintain a neutral pov, else Delete. Right now, it seems to be too much of a fan point of view. TheRingess 07:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up for a more neutral view point, if not neutral enough, please let me know. Thanks - Chris Gabriels Fallen Fiend1138 15:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The five day lag time ended on the 7th of January. Conditional Keep was the outcome. Can an Admin please remove the deletion tag.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 21:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satan Sam[edit]

Not a notable company by the guidelines at WP:CORP. Tim Pierce 12:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry but I copied over terminology from another wikipedia page based on a similar studio to my own, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallen_Angel_Industries . I used their terminology as they have a page and my previous one was deleted. Please tell me what I can do to get the same privileges as them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mull (talk • contribs)
    • Fallen Angel Industries does not look very notable either, so if you want to nominate it for deletion, go ahead. However, it does look more notable, more established, and less promotional than Satan Sam. (Wikipedians frown heavily on using Wikipedia for advertising; see WP:NOT.) Here is some more explanation why I think the Satan Sam article should be deleted. The SatanSam.co.uk website starts with "1. Blog 2. Real Site" -- that doesn't look professional. Your forums have on average 1 or 2 posts, the highest being 9 in the "off topic" forum, of the "Released games" forums only 1 forum even has any posts -- so this gives a strong impression of non-notability. Websites need Alexa rank 10,000 to be considered notable, and your website is not even ranked, meaning there are millions of websites more notable than yours. Also this article talks about upcoming games. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; information must be verifiable. Also you should not write about yourself or your projects because it is prone to vanity and non-NPOV. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 03:42Z
  • Delete per Quarl - well put Werdna648T/C\@ 08:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Batmanand 08:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary defense[edit]

This is a speculative original essay with no sources for its main content. Delete. Melchoir 13:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:NOR. ' I can't click that! (Edits!) 15:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we don't have a planetary defense so we shouldn't have an article about it. --Pboyd04 19:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep looks good now. --Pboyd04 00:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since there is a real conference for Planetary Defense as this article says, it is not all original research. The parts about aliens is probably original research, but planetary defense against asteroids is something people truly do things about. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 01:56Z
    • Strong Keep. I've completely rewritten the article at this point. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 02:26Z
  • Keep: original reasons for AfD no longer accurate, as article has been revised by multiple parties. -- Adrian Lamo 02:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Quarl. Thanks! Melchoir 02:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goddess Moon, Father Sky, Hollow Soul[edit]

A joke. Promotion about a made-up film in which "directions were given telekinetically" since the director was elsewhere. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew R. Liddle[edit]

How notable is this astrophysicist that he requires a page on WP? This looks like a rehash of his homepage, which doesn't sell his notable status either. -- (aeropagitica) UK 13:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep He is a published author and google turns out many hits. However, much of the article is a verbatim copy of his homepage and should be rewritten. Haakon 13:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find three books by him available in between four and ten Swedish libraries. One of these, An introduction to modern cosmology, has been published in two editions.[40] A search on Google Scholar shows that his most cited paper has 545 cites, and he has another three with more than 400 cites.[41] Why would he be less notable than any random NHL player? u p p l a n d 18:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Uppland Jcuk 00:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 01:54Z
  • Keep per Uppland. WP:BIO met if published book with an audience of 5000. Two editions means he's more than likely exceeded that. JLaTondre 03:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uppland. -- jaredwf 06:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Wands[edit]

How notable is this cosmologist that he requires a page on WP? This looks like a rehash of his homepage, which doesn't sell his notable status either. -- (aeropagitica) UK 13:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard J. Carr[edit]

How notable is this academic that he requires his own WP article? Justification required. -- (aeropagitica) UK 13:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Certainly seems important enough.[43] u p p l a n d 18:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • and yet again....you guessed it Keep good work Uppland Jcuk 00:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs cleanup and expansion, though. -Colin Kimbrell 18:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uppland. -- jaredwf 06:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep LoopZilla 00:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East Ukraine[edit]

The articles is an OR. Frankly to define a geographical category by the results of one particular election is an absurd. The article seems to be offensive to many Ukrainians as it somehow imply that this is a separate country (bordering with Russia, Moldova, etc.}

  • Delete abakharev 13:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 14:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while the article may not be all that well developed nor well written, the idea of west and East Ukraine was very important during the last presidential election there. The result of the election almost lead to a referendum for the area to form it;s own state [44] A Google search provides over 30,000 hists for `East Ukraine` [45]. Evil Eye 14:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This note is both a patent non-sense and a provokation. How many hits for North Germany or East New York? Let's create the articles for East <everything on this planet>?! BTW, is an Evil Eye nick your open troll statement? I suggest to ban this user, particularly for his nickname. Ukrained 12:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per Evil Eye. -- JJay 15:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or move to Yanukovychchyna) A geographic region "defined" by where Yanukovych scored 40% plus in one election? Is there a reference describing the borders of the region where a referendum was "almost" held? Events of the election are covered in "Ukrainian presidential election, 2004" (which article doesn't even attest to "east Ukraine"). —Michael Z. 2006-01-2 17:34 Z
    • I never heard "Yanukovychchyna". This separatist project has been known as "PiSUAR".--AndriyK 16:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it still may become it's own state now Yushchenko has made Russia cut off the gas because it doesn't want to freeze to death and i'll ask the ukrainians i know if they find it offensive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by El fil (talk • contribs)
    • Unsigned trollistic note. Ban this user. Ukrained 12:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Talk:East_Ukraine. In short: an encyclopedic topic for which article can exist but the current (05:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)) content is useless. Unless at least a stub is written by the end-time of this vote, the article should be deleted. Whoever will get to the topic will have to do it from scratch either with or without this "article" in place. --Irpen 05:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. Ukrained 12:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Yakudza 16:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--AndriyK 16:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. AlexPU 23:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (or rather Redirect) per Irpen. An article on East Ukraine is reasonable. The content has to be changed or expanded. --Wojsyl (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The article is certainly valid and covers legitimate devision of the country into two parts which have little in common historically, linguistically, economically, and culturally. --Ghirla | talk 17:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Molobo 17:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Irpen but I would prefer a broader title like Regional differences in Ukraine -- jaredwf 07:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - in the 90ies I read a book and since then I know there is distinction between east and west Ukraine. This distinction was not created by the election, as implied by Michael Z above. No, this is longer lived. And of course you can create an article South Germany!!! or North Germany. Ukrained, go for it! Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The regional differences are already being discussed in a broader article, besides can you provide the border of that region? otherwise it has even less notability than Jesusland, except no laughs there–Gnomz007(?) 01:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, Tobias, you must be referring to either Left-bank/Right-bank Ukraine, or Dnieper Ukraine/Galicia, neither of which corresponds to the "East Ukraine" in this article. —Michael Z. 2006-01-6 09:48 Z
  • Redirect per Irpen –Gnomz007(?) 01:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article cites an article in the Guardian which, if you read it, treats East Ukraine as a region with a specific identity. That seems plenty verifiable to me. Nandesuka 02:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term gained some notability after lame attempts to secede by some extreme politicians.  Grue  09:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete whatsoever, and *Move any useful data to other articles, on Regions. This one looks like an attempt to build a ideological base for a short lived political aventure. But may be kept if clearly states that is an article on political fiction User:Compay 13:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Make this crap go away. There is reason to discuss the regional differences [which were more ethnic-Russian vs. ethnic-Ukrainian than west vs. east] in the election, warranting discussion in Politics of Ukraine, but the article is wrong in its statement that the region was "sparsely populated" (it was emptied of its population by Stalin and large numbers of ethnic Russians purposefully transported in specifically to reduce nationalist sentiment there where it was strongest at the time)... additionally, the region is nowhere definitively outlined, so the entire thing is irrelevant crap. This is nothing paralleling Red state vs. blue state divide and cannot become noteworthy on that level for another 40 years. The premise of the article is that [fraudulent] election-related media hype is a sound basis for inventing article topics. Tomertalk 14:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It was mostly sparsely populated back when it comprised Sloboda Ukraine and the Dyke Pole (later Novorossiya), although Crimea was an Islamic Khanate. But nevertheless, these didn't constitute a single identifiable territory, nor were they completely within the boundaries of modern Ukraine. —Michael Z. 2006-01-6 14:44 Z
Be that as it may, the point you're making is subterfuge at best. What caused the sparse Ukrainian population was a combination of the Holodomor and Stalinist purges, not a persistent state of low population density dating back to the 16th and 17th centuries. Tomertalk 15:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? You're inferring something from my comments which I don't understand. My only point is simply to try to characterize the territory which this article refers to. The best I can do is to say that it was land that was not traditionally populated by Ukrainians, or simply underpopulated, until it was colonized by the Russian Empire (also, that such lands were not a unified territory, and weren't restricted to modern Ukrainian boundaries—i.e. not "East Ukraine"). I did not mean to imply that it was sparsely populated at any time since then. —Michael Z. 2006-01-6 15:54 Z
Delete or redirect to SEUAR (South-Eastern Ukrainian Autonomous Republic, for some reason that almost reads like sewer); or redirect to PiSUAR (Pivdeno-Shidna Ukrajins'ka Avtonomna Respublika) --Berkut 00:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is inherently unencyclopedic based on the rationale implicitly made for its existence. Eusebeus 04:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

this article has potential but needs 2 be expanded — Preceding unsigned comment added by El fil (talk • contribs)

Unsigned trollistic note. Ban this user. Ukrained 12:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why ban a user just because they disagree with you? Maybe the only did register to make this comment, but either way, I think they make a good point. It appears you are the troll judging by your comments on the talk page (taking any comment against you as being a provocation). You have also explicitly said you have changed the article so it is suitable to be speedy deleted, realising the article in it's old form was not suitable for that. To me that doesn't seem honest, nor in the spirit of wikipedia. Evil Eye 12:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:El fil is a definite troll already warned by admin. As for you, I regard every user pushing an evident non-sense over a politically-sensitive issue a provocateur. That is definitely not in the spirit of wikipedia. As you can see, this is not about agreement/disagreement, not even about promoting separatism in Ukraine. It's about your editing approach. If you can't see that eastern Ukraine article is a non-sense, are you ready for being a Wikipedian? Did I answer your question? Ukrained 13:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the following comment on Ukrained's user page in regards to this articles deletion vote:

What is your problem with people who support this article? Maybe you see no relevance with it, other people do also agree with you, but it is also clear others do not.
Please stop calling anyone who supports this article a troll and please stop calling for people to be banned just because they disagree with you (and because you don't like their user names). You claim supporting the above article is provocation, but no one is being more provocaive in regards to this article than you.
I'm hear to ask you to stop trying to cause an argument in respct to the deletion notice placed on this article and show some respect for the deletion process of wikipedia. Let it take it's course with regards to this article. It my well be deleted, it might not be, but that decision is not one for either of us to make on our own, but instead for the wikipedian community to make togehter. Evil Eye 13:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ukrained" Evil Eye 13:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish a fight, shouldn't I cite my answer too?:

A provocation is always designed as "another POV" :). I hope this is clear for everybody despite the denials of provocateurs. BTW, may be you have a POV on renaming the planet or a mankind in English? If you would, should we treat such an opinion of yours with respect? Ukrained 13:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Ukrained 13:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ban ukrained he can't even spell kiev correctly — Preceding unsigned comment added by El fil (talk • contribs)

El fil,

  1. please sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~);
  2. please avoid inflammatory outburtst which is a universal rule.

What's your problem with discussing the issue in a single article, like I proposed? Actually, you can't introduce the reader to the concept of Eastern Ukraine without constantly referring to what in its history and demographics makes it different from Western Ukraine. One article, where the issue is discussed seems like the most convinient solution. What do you say? --Irpen 01:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SportsNet Radio[edit]

non notable high-school radio show. --jfg284 you were saying? 13:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 14:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 01:52Z
  • Delete. Yeah, congrats on whatever success you've had, but this is NN & vanity. I wouldn't list my own radio show in Wiki, that's for sure. - Liontamer 02:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Liontamer. Stifle 02:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep'. enochlau (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SFCG Co., Ltd.[edit]

advertisement WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 13:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn as Tom has adopted page and is fixing it. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 08:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks like it might have had news coverage, but it needs to be rewritten. I'd like to give it some time and see if anyone makes something of it. Tom Harrison Talk 14:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keepplease rewrite this article for the English that a meaning is common to. The reason is because mule, I are weak in English, and it uses translation software, and this article translates an article for Japanese into English why. No use right or wrong to have a foreign person with much one invested in SFCG know the reality of SFCG

I put a link to a Japanese version here. http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/SFCG

  • KEEP. It just needs a serious rewrite, not deletion. --nihon 18:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 21:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-G)[edit]

This page is about a theoretical starship in a fictional universe. It is clearly not notable enough. Philip Stevens 14:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This ship has more notability than say the F, the H or the I as it was considered for use in the TNG TV series. The existence of the J in Enterprise clearly does show that this ship existed at some point in the star trek universe too. The article has also existeted for over 15 months, so why delete it now and not earlier? Evil Eye 14:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fanon. This argument is an old one; the consensus is only canonical Enterprise vessels get their own articles. The -J gets one because it was featured in an episode. The fact it was considered for the TNG series doesn't justify an article; make it a trivia item either under the main Starship Enterprise article or TNG. 23skidoo 15:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment. Please note that no source is cited for the vessel name being considered for TNG. Unless someone can provide proof, for all we know someone just made this up. 23skidoo 00:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP Subject is notable although fictional. --Chazz88 15:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThough this article does not have a lot of info about the ship, someone can update it.Astroview120mm 04:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep as per Evil Eye Jcuk 16:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On August 19 Enterprise-H and Enterprise-I were put up for deletion for similar reasons stated here. See Articles for deletion 2005 August 19. Philip Stevens 16:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Nothing is known about her or her crew." (ESkog)(Talk) 17:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More appropriate for Memory Alpha than WP. -- (aeropagitica) UK 17:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per president of deleting H and I. --Pboyd04 19:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The Enterprise G should not be treated in the same way as the Enterprise I or H as the G apparently does have an importance as being originally seriously considered as the Enterprise to be used in TNG, where as the H and I have not been considered for use as far as any publicly available reference sources says. This alone makes the G much more notable than H or I and hence no comparison o deletion of the H and I should be made when considering the G. Evil Eye 21:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There has been an outstanding request to prove that assertion on Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-G) for almost a fortnight, now. As yet, no sources have been cited that demonstrate that there ever was such consideration, as claimed. Uncle G 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 20:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it stands, the article contains two paragraphs: one that is exactly the same (except for the name change) as the content of USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-H) (AfD discussion) and USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-I), and one for which no sources have been cited after almost a fortnight of asking and which is thus suspect. For the same reason as in the prior AFD discussion, therefore, delete. Uncle G 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. NeoJustin 23:19, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - the ship does not even appear to exist in fiction, why should it be in an encyclopedia? --Ajdz 23:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 23:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see the need for a Star Trek ship that's nothing but speculation and fill-in-the blank dates based on when other actual ships were around. Awfully pointless as a seperate article. - Liontamer 02:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Daveb 02:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is crystal ball stuff and there's no indication as to when or if we ever get around to this chip in canon (or even noncanonical works). Jtmichcock 03:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cutting-room floor trivia, like the fact that Hope class starship was based on a concept for the original Enterprise. Gazpacho 03:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nomination. FredOrAlive 19:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gazpacho -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd say merge, but the only mergable content appears to be unverifiable. -Colin Kimbrell 18:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and update per above. Maybe someone can update the article. Astroview120mm 04:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. Incognito 05:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless canon sources are cited. Speculation and unverified statements are not needed. -- jaredwf 07:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 23skidoo --AllyUnion (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Levin[edit]

Rob (lilo on IRC) says that he isn't really notable enough for here (he's a modest guy). I don't agree, but out of respect I am submitting this to AfD. Unusually for the submitter of an AfD, I'm voting keep, but I'll let the community decide on his notability. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Borderline at best, and I think it'd be a sign of respect to comply with his wishes, seeing as he's happily hosted Wikimedia's IRC channels for years. There is nothing to be gained from keeping this. Ambi 14:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's frequently a source of juvenile and immature attacks by groups such as lilofree and GNAA, it contains very little useful information, and Mr. Levin has expressed a wish to see it deleted. I'm voting for just that because I see no positive benefit to it remaining in Wikipedia. Most of the useful information about lilo is contained in the freenode article anyway :) - Windpaw 14:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ray 17:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - </3 lilo; </3 bloggers -- Hosterweis 07:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Freenode itself is not a major network on par with EFNet or DALNet, and THOSE admins dont have Wiki articles about them. Cptchipjew 08:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - lol no, lilo good, omg you no <3 lilo - Femmina 08:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Prepare to lose your membership Cptchipjew 08:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Prepare to sleep on the sofa tonight - Femmina 08:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - Lol, as GNAA President, I order both of you to kiss and make up. --Timecop 11:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment - Prepare to lose your membership and sleep on the sofa. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not needed --Depakote 11:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nowhere near notable. Proto t c 13:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Unlike other admins of IRC networks, he's head of the PDPC and is a major open-source contributor. I think he's notable. Jmax- 19:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Forallah 02:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Cutler[edit]

Non-notable bio; possible vanity. OntarioQuizzer 14:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sorry, not notable. I'd dispute the claim about his campaign to become mayor of Pelham garnering "unprecedented local and national media coverage". I recall one article about the elections in Welland Tribune (Pelham has no daily newspaper of its own) that mentioned him as a "candidate darling"... National coverage for municipal elections in a 15,000 town? I think not. As for "challenging the apathy of local voters", IIRC his total vote count was in triple digits. His website, cutlerformayor.ca, is now offline but still preserved at Wayback machine. Navigation was via missing Java applets, so here are some subpages: [46] [47] [48] [49]. No relevant incoming wikilinks, and article, judging by the extravagant claims to "making a significant impact on ... international communities", most likely created by the subject. --Qviri 23:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable biography per Qviri. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 01:42Z
  • Delete, I've seen some pretty POV things in my time, but this vanity page takes the biscuit. Dan 16:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, at least. Stifle 02:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The winner of the election for mayor of a 15,000 person town is probably not notable, let alone the guy in fifth place, with 616 votes.[50] 616 isn't even enough to win a seat on the undergraduate senate at my college of 6,600 people. OCNative 06:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per request of creator as a misspelling.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azman Khan[edit]

Delete. I created this page by mistake. The title is a misspelling. It should be "Azam Khan". Zaxem 14:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep after withdrawal of nomination.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Pearce[edit]

This article is about a soccer player who has never scored a goal because he has never played a match. Google search turns up one page (Lincoln City F.C. unofficial page) on the search list. But when you browse through it,there is no mention of him. I'm sure it is qualified to be deleted as nn-bio. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn in light of comment below by Jcuk.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: He turns up in the cached version of the page. I'm not sure where he plays this season.
  • This article is about a proffesional football player, who has played for his country. Google search turns up several hits Strong Keep Jcuk 17:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jcuk. -- jaredwf 07:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jcuk. Stifle 02:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. enochlau (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Saint Patrick's Day Four[edit]

Vanity page. Non-notable group. Google shows <50 unique hits. Madman 15:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree, it was a FOTD stunt and already forgotten. -- Jbamb 15:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP Wikipedia is not paper. --Chazz88 15:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatically Strong Keep The Saint Patrick's Day Four has gotten a lot of publicity. Madman allegation that the "St. Patrick's Day Four" only shows less than 50 unique hits is dubious.
Please see the talk page for a list of newspapers that mention the protesters. 12 newspapers and 37 articles, including the NYT three times and the Washington Post.
If it is good enough to mention in the New York Times three times, it is good enough for wikipedia.
If Madman would have typed variations of The Saint Patrick's Day Four, the following results occur:
UPDATE:
Maybe Madman didn't know much about the protest in the first place to know the varitations of spelling?
If users delete this entry, they will also delete Catonsville Nine and other notable protests. Travb 18:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I was not aware of this group and didn't go thru all the variant spellings. My mistake. Even if I had been aware, I am still reluctant to have articles on every set of arrested protesters. From what I see, there were no overriding &/or notable issues (e.g. constitutional issues), just some vandalism and a stand against the war. As bige1977 notes below, this happens many times a year. Would you "Keepers" feel the same if this were an anti-abortion group? I too think this war was a mistake, but that doesn't make the protest notable even with mention in the NYT. Madman 01:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two reasons you gave to delete this page was:
First: Vanity page. As per: Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines "Vanity information is considered to be any information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author." Please explain the conflict of interest that I have, and what relationship I have with the Saint Patrick's Four.
Second reason:Non-notable group, Please read over the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability the guidelines for being non-notable are: original research, unverifiable, a vanity page, or articles should be relevant to a reasonable number of people. Since the first three are obviously not applicable, that leaves the last reason: articles should be relevant to a reasonable number of people This is notable. "St. Patrick's Four" on google retrieves 21,900 hits and 768 articles found on Lexis Nexis when a user types: "St. Patrick's Four"
  • "This will be the first federal conspiracy trial arising out of civil resistance to the invasion of Iraq".[51]
  • "It will also be the first federal conspiracy trial of anti-war protesters since Vietnam."[52]Travb 04:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Without addressing any of your specific points, I feel obliged to point out that Wikipedia:Notability is a proposal and not at all policy. In fact, judging from its talk page, it's pretty unlikely ever to be adopted. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Many political protesters that engaged in vandalizm got arrested, tried, and convicted. It happens many times per year. What makes this group noteable? User:bige1977
  • 3 articles in the NYT, and one in the Washington Post.Travb 23:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Travb and Madman Jcuk 01:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What makes this group notable is the persecution they suffered for a trivial act. 82.38.97.206 17:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)mikeL[reply]
  • Keep as per Travb. -- jaredwf 07:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saraia[edit]

NN fanfic. Neither Lego Quest Saraia or Saraia Leon Morttenson have any google hits. JLaTondre 15:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS — there's too much bickering to make much sense of it, but it sounds like work for talk pages and, if necessary, a redirect or a revisit to AfD. -Splashtalk 01:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intrinsic redshift[edit]

This article represents the original research and a POV fork of the redshift article by User:Iantresman. There are a very small number of layman and an even smaller number of fringe scientists who use the term "intrinsic redshift" as a general term to mean "a redshift mechanism not yet modeled" in order for them to object to standard models in cosmology. This article claims a slew of mechanisms that are advocated by these small band of non-standard cosmology proponents and Ian has included them here as a clearinghouse for this partcular POV-fork. You cannot find an amalgamation such as this anywhere else -- it is a totally original research approach. The statements made on the page simply represent POV-pushing of an advocate who was upset by the outcome of the editting of the redshift article. --ScienceApologist 15:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Article rewritten to conform to a description of intrinsic redshifts:

The rationale for deleting this article is still here. However, I have decided to abandon this page as it is clear that the discussion has become too cumbersome to continue. Instead I will try being bold and editting the article to conform to Wikipedia standards. --ScienceApologist 17:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. The article is less than 24 hours old. I've already requested a number of other editors look at it, and discussion is in progress. --Iantresman 17:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Please see the article talkpage for unrelated objections to this AfD erroneously included here.) --ScienceApologist

  • Claiming that the article is original research is false; Wikipedia says "the only way to show that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article", and this is done. In fact the Wiki original research page says that "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged." (my emphasis)
However, this article is about categorizing a number of different ideas which have their own pages and explanations as novel representations of redshift mechanisms. That is what is original research. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Claiming that this article is a point-of-view fork, is false; Wikipedia says this is "creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated". The article on redshift does not include the majority of material in this article. The main redshift article is about Cosmological, Doppler and Gravitation redshifts; this article is about theories which have been published in peer reviewed journals that propose non-Cosmological, non-Doppler and non-Gravitation redshifts.
The subject is already treated on the redshift page. It was agreed in discussion there that a list such as this was not only unnecessary, it represented an inappropriate POV endorsement. As it is, your decision to write this article is the very definition of a POV-fork. You opted out of the redshift discussion and created a new article to deflect criticism. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Claiming that "You cannot find an amalgamation such as this anywhere else" is also false; see for example, the Wiki article on Non-standard cosmology.
Anything worth salvaging in this article could easily be merged to Non-standard cosmology. However, I was talking about sources. --ScienceApologist
  • Claiming that "The statements made on the page simply represent POV-pushing..." suggest that the articles does not adhere to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy which "represents all views fairly and without bias". Not one example was provided showing failure of this policy.
The creation of this page as a POV-fork is technically a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand by my criticisms, which are also based on your comment on the Talk:Intrinsic_redshift#Article_for_deletion Talk page where you wrote "This article has to go. Claiming that it is based on an obscure clearinghouse paper published in the 1980s"
  • I have answered all your previous points elsewhere.
  • --Iantresman 17:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either rename and link from redshift, or merge. Motivation:

- I agree with ScienceApologist that it's apparently a POV fork. However, the cause of a POV fork is often insufficient accounting for that POV in the main article, and a quick look shows that the redshift article is lacking on a number of points, especially as the article he/she apparently refers to is titled "redshift" and not "cosmological redshift". I repeat here my earlier comments on the Talk page: this article certainly fills a gap (I learned something today thanks to it!) but to make it general and NPOV, it should be called "List of redshift mechanisms", and be linked from the redshift article, containing all notable past and current cosmological as well as non-cosmological redshift hypotheses. Such a page will be very useful as general reference, and free from any POV. Harald88 18:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Claimed redshift mechanisms" could be adequately addressed on the non-standard cosmology page where a lot of these things come from. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making me aware of that page, I didn't know it existed! A link from redshift is lacking, I'll add it now. But cosmology differs from mechanisms; I don't see how the limited subject of cosmology can include all redshift mechanisms. Harald88 16:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Continued on the talkpage. --ScienceApologist 16:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The redshift article already (appropriately) deals with scattering redshift mechanisms, with most of the details (appropriately) left to the scattering article. An (appropriate) brief mention and link is made to the tired light article (although this seems to flicker a bit). The only theory that is not covered, but might be with a link, is Arp's 1997 hypothesis. --Art Carlson 19:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to confirm that nothing in the discussion up to now has changed my mind. The topic of this article is ill-defined and the content is best covered in other articles or not at all. This applies, in particular, to all the items in Ian's list. --Art Carlson 20:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following are not mentioned in the main redshift article (and I can find reference to only a few of them anywhere on Wikipedia), so it would seem appropriate to mention them here (I haven't double checked them all, and some may be very similar, or I may have misunderstood):
Terms (please see the talkpage for the list -- attempting to reduce the clutter on the main page so people can discuss the matter --ScienceApologist 23:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
--Iantresman 22:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above list represents a ridiculous amount of original research amalgamation. Your list contains redundancies and points of view that are only relevant because you "say so". This kind of POV-pushing needs to be elimintaed from Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 14:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia says "the only way to show that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article", and this is done. In fact the Wiki original research page says that "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged." (my emphasis)
Poorly citing sources out of context as you have done is not indicative of following Wikipedia policy. --ScienceApologist 22:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that there may be redundancies, and similar theories that can be combined. However they are not listed because "I say so", but because other people have said so I (hence the citations). This is not point of viewing since I have presented the information in an unbiased manner; it would be POV-ing if I put my own spin on the information.
As stated above, you are the one who made the clearinghouse not the cited articles. This is plainly original research. --ScienceApologist 22:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joshua, with your expertise in astronomy, you might even be aware of some redshift theories that I have not included, and you are of course welcome to include them. And also correct others that I have misunderstood.
--Iantresman 15:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beside the point of the AfD. --ScienceApologist 22:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! This is ridiculous. Somebody is deleting comments people have made to this discussion. Ian copied over my comments to this page which is fine by me because this is where I thought I was putting them. Then they disappear. Ari Brynjolfsson's comments were deleted as well. Its bad enough that a single individual attempts to eliminate all reference to this topic from Wikipedia, but the fact that someone would simply delete comments added by others supporting the existence of this article is underhanded.
Nothing was deleted. Things were moved to the talkpage so that this page wasn't so cluttered. --ScienceApologist 02:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the claim that this topic represents original research - that is flat out false. According to Wikipedia acceptable sources include: "Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications." Ian has provided an extensive list of references from peer-reviewed journals on the topic of non-cosmological/intrinsic redshifts.
You will note that the issue isn't with Ian's references but the nature of the article itself -- claiming that these references are to "intrinsic redshifts" is somehow article-worthy is a definite case of original research according to Wikipedia policy. --ScienceApologist 02:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So fix the article!!!!! The first thing you do because you don't like the writing is submit it for deletion? Only 24 hours after its posted? The topic of the article is a valid topic for wikipedia. Give people a chance to improve it. --DavidRussell 03:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing behavior is found in those that consistently try to expunge all mention of this topic from Wikipedia even in the face of legitimate peer reviewed references. As for deletion of comments supporting this article - such behavior is dishonest and I'd suggest that someone who knows the process should file a complaint against the guilty party. --DavidRussell 02:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing was deleted. I'm merely trying to keep this area clear so as to encourage commments. When it gets filled up like this, people don't bother to vote or comment because they don't want to read everything. --ScienceApologist 02:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua, two comments were removed (your description) from this page [53] [54], and my list of referenced relevant facts was also removed [55]. I note from the Wiki Guide to Deletion page that you have ignored the following guidelines:
  • "Do not remove or modify other people's comments even if you believe them to be in bad faith"
Remove as in delete which I did not do. I merely moved irrelevant comments and clutter to the talkpage. --ScienceApologist 15:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mixing of bullets and other forms of indentation is discouraged because it makes the discussion much harder for subsequent readers to follow."
  • "...relevant facts and evidence are welcome from anyone..."
Key word being "relevant". --ScienceApologist 15:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Iantresman 11:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I, Ari Brynolfsson, find that Ian Tresman's article on ‘’’Intrinsic Redshift’’’ is good and very neutral. It does not advocate anything and reports the facts. The use by Ian Tresman of “Intrinsic Redshift” appears to me to be dictated by the fact that most of the processes he mentioned are more likely to work where the densities are high, that is, very close to stars, galaxies and quasars. Such redshifts are properly called intrinsic redshifts. Expanding the subject to “Alternative Redshift Theories” is reasonable, especially, when many people are mislead to believe that only expansion theory of the Universe with its many absurdities can explain the cosmological redshift. (My previous more extensive comments was deleted by somebody that apparently got the point. This is an abreviated version). Ari Brynolfsson, 15:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


Comment -- Ian, can you let us know how many of these people you contacted regarding this AfD? The last two users just showed up to comment without having added anything to Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 15:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joshua, how about I just tell you which ones of us are known members of the Communist Party? [56]. It looks like DavidRussell has been contributing to Wikipedia since last November [57]. I don't know about Ari, but he does appear to have over 5 years of experience in this area [58]. I did specifically ask Art Carlson and Harald88 to look at the original article, and neither have lent their full support (although I'd ask them both again); you're not suggesting that we should discount their contributions because I asked them to take a look? --Iantresman 16:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting out-of-control. It seems apparent to me that discussions of this sort are only going to lead to a stalemate since people are going to be intimidated by the shear amount of text generated by this AfD. I will withdrawl the AfD if only to rewrite the article as an article about intrinsic redshifts. Would that suffice? --ScienceApologist 17:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- ScienceApologist, I request you to demonstrate your WP:good faith by correcting this mess that you apparently made by deleting against the Wikipedia rules. Harald88 16:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't delete anything. --ScienceApologist 16:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The current prefailing theory explaining redshift is clearly wrong, and there cannot be harm in exploring alternatives. Michael Armstrong, 06 Jan 08
Why should obvious problems with the prevailing theory of redshift in general be handled not in the main article but in a new article about a specific aspect of redshift? --Art Carlson 19:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A separate article can discuss the issues in more detail. But it's probably a question best asked of Joshua, who considers Non-cosmological, Non-velocity, Anomalous, Intrinsic, and quantized redshifts to be either neologisms [59], or nonexistent [60], who won't let the terms, or any other alternative theory, included in the main redshift article. --Iantresman 20:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Stifle 02:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Shepherd[edit]

This arcticle needs to be merged, expanded, or deleted. Bmenrigh 10:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since all of the information was about the television show or the character, rather than the actor the article was about, I've tagged it {{R with possibilities}}. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • after only nine three and three-quarter hours on afd? Very hasty! I've written the article. Hope it's a keeper now. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, when none of a subject's article is about the subject, only about the character he played or where the show was filmed, there's nothing there to save. However, I am now quite happy to vote a Speedy Keep on your excellent article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough - after seeing the original item, I tend to agree. And thanks for the comment on what I wrote :) Grutness...wha? 11:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incredibly Strong Keep whats he doing on AfD anyhow!? Jcuk 01:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • you didn't see it as it was when it was tagged. Grutness...wha? 01:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Granted, but even looking at it when it was tagged it looks like a keep and mark as a stub to me.... Jcuk 16:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep since article has been expanded as requested. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 01:39Z
  • Speedy Keep. The expansion make notability exceedingly clear. ×Meegs 16:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. OCNative 06:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putfile forums[edit]

This article doesn't really seem relevant to an encyclopedia. Delete? --jp3z 19:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Episode 7: Rebirth Of The Jedi[edit]

This page appears to be fan fiction and does not belong on wikipedia, it has no correlation to any relevant piece of information that should be allowed The Filmaker 22:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect. enochlau (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tahirih Thealogy[edit]

This article looks not notable, poorly written, put categories in, maybe someone knows more about the topic. Paul foord 01:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the situation. Tahirih is revered by two religious sects (Baha'i Faith and Bayani) which basically hate each other. Starr is a former Baha'i from Australia, who gravitated to a number of New Age and esoteric interests. One of her contacts is Nima Hazini, an Iranian-Australian Baha'i-by-birth who converted to Bayanism, which he understands in light of various gnostic esoteric traditions. Hazini encouraged her to write a book on Tahirih, but was far from pleased with the finished work.

What to do with it? One good solution would be to give Starr her own entry, put all this there, and link from there to Tahirih and back. Another possibility would be to make an entry for their Bayanic Gnostic Society, or whatever Hazini's group is called. (Have to check.) This assuming that Starr and Hazini still wish to be associated with one another. 218.167.179.63 07:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Nerds Life[edit]

The Nerds Life doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Bmenrigh 05:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 21:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caferu[edit]

Was tagged {{db|Unverified, not significant, nothing links here.}} by User:Hu. That's not a CSD, so moving here for a vote. Recommend delete, as dictdef. Jamie 05:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to wiktionary? (if it can be verified as a genuine word , otherwise Delete)
  • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting again due to insufficient votes. — JIP | Talk 15:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dic Def. Obina 18:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above. I love Japanese, but not that much! Dan 20:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 18:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitães do mato[edit]

Was tagged {{db|empty, since it doesn't even define the subject. I would've moved some to the article of the person named, but there's no article on him and he doesn't exist on google.}} bt User:Bobet. Not WP:CSD so moving here for a vote. Jamie 05:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Something odd about this article. It reads like a little chunk copyvio'd from somewhere -- no hits on Google but could be from a book. Literate but inconsequential and context-free, like a fragment ripped from Palmares (quilombo), Capitão do mato or Jürgens Reijmbach (should be Jürgens Reijmbach not "Jürgen" apparently). What little info is there certainly doesn't belong under that title, presumably the plural of his job title -- and just possibly a chapter heading in some book? Flapdragon 13:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I placed the speedy tag on it, since it provides zero information about the actual subject of the article. Reading that, do you get any idea on what a Capitães do mato is? But since the page's already here, it won't hurt to wait and see if someone can get something useful out of that. - Bobet 01:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting again due to insufficient votes. — JIP | Talk 15:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Nu-Jazz. — JIP | Talk 21:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phusion[edit]

Neologism? I've ran a google search, most results pertain to Designing, and those left regard the two genres as different Sceptre (Talk) 15:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As a redirect to nu-jazz. They often appear together online.--Esprit15d 16:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nu-Jazz. Dan 20:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 00:19Z
  • Redirect per above. Stifle 02:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep, nomination withdrawn. Stifle 02:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KCC[edit]

Advertising or vandalism. I don't know which but I'll assume good faith and ask for deletion. --Chazz88 15:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC) *Nome votes Strong Delete --Chazz88 15:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake wrong article --Chazz88 16:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pigeon[edit]

A badly spelled article which probably seems to deal with a novel or short-story. There is absolutely no context to aid in understanding. I'm hoping somebody else will have heard of this and will expand on it. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This refers to the novel by Patrick Suskind. Obina 18:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's awful. Dan 20:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unusual contents, without any context. --Bhadani 08:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 02:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delectable pate[edit]

Non-notable band; broken link, no google hits. Tom Harrison Talk 15:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy under expanded CSD 7.--nixie 15:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral --Chazz88 16:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Stifle 02:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most royal candidate theory[edit]

As the changes to the article made by User:Nunh-huh show, the theory is false. Wikipedia is not a respository for absurd, debunked rumor-theories. Additionally, a search for "most royal candidate theory" on Google (0 results) indicates that this is a neologism as well. Not worth merging with any other article. —Cleared as filed. 15:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd keep it. The theory is false, but reappears with each four year election cycle in the U.S. and people actually believe it. It's nonsense, and I think it's probably worth pointing out that it's nonsense. Many buy it hook, line, and sinker. - Nunh-huh 16:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • IRONCLAD KEEP As above. --Chazz88 16:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC). Needs cleanup and perhaps NPOV. --Chazz88 16:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, same conditions as above. Even I have heard that nonsense pervaded before! Dan 20:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Very convincing arguments above. -- JJay 20:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep regardless of the ridiculously unlikely nature of the theory even on face value (it's something like four quadrillion to one against such a coincidence...unless we're to believe there's a secret succession committee running the elections), it is a REAL "myth". One might as well delete all the reference to Greek mythology, since nobody believes them any more. And obviously bigfoot, the loch ness monster, and Atlantis are right out; I'm sure the editor wanting to delete this will be off to those pages to have them removed next.
Oh, and as for the ridiculous "zero google" nonsense: harold brooks-baker "most royal" I can come up with a dozen other keyword combos which also produce at least hundreds of hits typically related to the "most royal" theory. Kaz 04:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith and don't make attacks on AfD nominators. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I get tired of coming across one editor after another who doesn't grasp the concept of wikipedia being an "inclusive source", and wanting to delete...not fix...anything that doesn't fit in precisely with their worldview. After a while I get a bit pissy with the most blatant ones. Kaz 04:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very well said. Thanks for your honesty. -- JJay 07:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely weak keep, but all of the OR and opinion has to go. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep per Zoe -- Thesquire (talk -
  • Keep The theory is debunked, but the article appears somewhat necessary. -anymonous

contribs) 22:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 05:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rice hulls[edit]

I think the page is an ad for rice hulls or something to process them. It looks like it is copied from here. Michael Slone 15:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. After rewriting the article of course, and perhaps renamed to Rice husks. These are a minor product with several distinctive uses. Imc 22:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite. Stifle 02:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep as nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 02:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Party[edit]

Non notable, non registered frivolous party, founded yesterday. / Ezeu 16:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I withdraw my AfD nomination and request a Speedy Keep since the party has recieved media coverage in Sweden. --Ezeu 17:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will take up the dropped nomination. This is the "slow news" time of year, they'll publish anything. I can not assign notability to a day-old political party/website. Ifnord 18:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - If they are allowed to take part in the Swedish General Election then they would be notable. It does not seem completely non-legit in my opinion. JoachimK 16:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have registered as a political party with the Swedish electoracte authorities after collecting the 1500 signatures needed. Their homepage had received 75 000 hits 6 hours after it opened. The party is mentioned in several newspapers as of today, for example Svenska Dagbladet ([62]). The party might not have been registered when this vote started but now it is and it will definately be heavily discussed in the media for some time on. This vote has become completely meaningless. Of course, KEEP. --60.40.63.114 17:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As the creator of this article, I was well aware that it might be nominated for AfD, I even thought about nominating it myself, just to see if others thought it was notable or not. So here we go. My humble opinion is that this party is very notable, especially when you compare it to a lot of other political parties that have articles here on Wikipedia. -- Elisson • Talk 17:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Created yesterday? Hoping to attract %4 of voters? Crystal-ballism - at best. Ifnord 18:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Well, it already has gotten enough support to be registered as a political party. -- Elisson • Talk 18:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Big difference between registering and fielding candidates. Even bigger difference fielding candidates who actually win. Parties rise and fall all the time. I don't think Wkipedia should be a platform to enable notability - that's advertising. If they can achieve it by other means then they can get an article. Ifnord 19:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can assure you that Wikipedia in no way will be a platform to enable the notability of the party, the file sharing-community is doing the advertising all right themselves. I seriously doubt that more than ten of at the moment 3,354 signatures (in 24 hours!) have come from people finding the webpage through Wikipedia. -- Elisson • Talk 20:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep they're in the media and they appear to have successfully registered for the Swedish general election. Dan 20:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, They'll get their fair share of media coverage soon ehough, Piratbyrån is a very industrious organization. Obli (Talk) 21:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The party is currently not affiliated by Piratbyrån or any of its spokesmen, even though it seems natural that it will happen very soon. -- Elisson • Talk 21:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Besides, if this one goes, you should consider deleting the Donald Duck Party, as well, it didn't even register as a party. Obli (Talk) 21:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After some time thinking and reading this discussion, I'll go for keep. There are loads of less notable articles on parties which still should be included. Note, as stated above, that I am the creator of the article. -- Elisson • Talk 23:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable, current event. Tagged as current event. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 00:17Z
  • Keep - Jord 02:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now it's on slashdot, there's some international media coverage for you all... Obli (Talk) 17:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or move to The Pirate Party. --Erif 19:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the English translation could also be The Piracy Party, as seen on slashdot. We should probably wait until the party releases an official English version of their site before moving the article. Obli (Talk) 20:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It can be considered as part of the ongoing cultural-political-ecomomic developments in the digital age. Ashwoods 23:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • +1 Wesha 23:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • +1; must hold a article about a potentially historical (maybe spreading?) political ongoing in the EU and in/about the web-community, that/thus already is widely in international press and reckogned by internet-users (Swiss daily press, for example, did mention it). Dorobes 22:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.162.110.140 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Keep. It's an important article that should be here, and a key article on the Anti-copyright movement, which is a very important worldwide current ongoing on the moment;but I'd move it to the swedish name Piratpartiet, of course keeping a redirect.-- Roc VallèsTalk|Hist - 08:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is nothing wrong with this page. Todays news is tomorrows history. Jonathan Windle - 08:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a fad that rides on a notable political issue is... a fad. Gazpacho 08:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Articles about Piratpartiet are featured in most of the major Swedish news papers and a few other European ones. --Shreddy 11:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete --Durin 16:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Elman[edit]

This is not a bio, but a placeholder to expound on views. Benjamin Elman doesn't seem very notable either and appears to be a college professor. Esprit15d 16:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy deleting as a copyvio of [63]. --Durin 16:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedied (and I wish people wouldn't afd these things and make me close thme) r3m0t talk 18:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lethal Snipers[edit]

  • Delete. Defunct gaming clan. Thunderbrand 16:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Durin 16:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. I have nominated this article for speedy deletion per CSD A7. Movementarian 17:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usounds[edit]

Alexa page rank of 1,239,952; no evidence of notability. Tom Harrison Talk 16:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete r3m0t talk 18:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ginger Fashions[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC in every respect. No albums, no tours, no media, etc. Just formed three months ago. --Durin 16:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. I have tagged this article for speedy deletion per CSD A7. Movementarian 17:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me. I won't do it since I nominated it though. --Durin 17:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abdool Hamid Ramjeet[edit]

Not notable vanity. Esprit15d 16:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This might be worth looking into. Whilst there is not much evidence in the way of google hits [64], a few of the hits may be worth looking into by a french speaker (I think they are french anyway). Movementarian 17:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 18:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. I couldn't find anything in some specialized Africanist databases, under various spelling variants of this name. — mark ✎ 23:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mauritius National Library Catalogue now back online, nothing listed by this individual. Humansdorpie 12:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable vanity biography. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 00:14Z
  • Abstain: I feel that the current contents do not establish notability - abstaining simply because I am not sure of the notability of this guy. --Bhadani 08:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability does not appear to have been established. Stifle 02:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 05:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peppermint tea[edit]

This article is not required for research purposes - how to make a cup of tea is already covered in Tea. -- (aeropagitica) UK 17:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

I disagree, the article is informative. And researchers can see that it helps lessen the effects of digestory tract problems. And when it comes to how it is made, I only included it because it differs from normal tea making procedures. Regards.

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Ifnord 18:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with peppermint and redirect. The peppermint article itself is rather stubby for an important plant, and claims about the alleged medicinal properties of peppermint belong there also. Reference Euell Gibbons or Nicholas Culpeper or something. Not sure if the business about the Quaker youth group belongs. Smerdis of Tlön 19:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. We have 129 articles in Category:tea and nom makes no effort to show why this is different. Next time perhaps leave more than five minutes for editing and we would have a better article. -- JJay 20:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Peppermint tea is a distinct and different type of tea and therefore requires its own article. Since it does not even contain traditional tea leaves (Camellia sinensis) it would be misleading to merge it with the article Tea. Perhaps a short reference in the articles on Tea and Peppermint, linking to the Peppermint tea entry may be required. As for Wikipedia not being a cookbook, fair enough, but I doubt many people would need to look up the article to find out how to brew tea, and it's not a secret recipe or method. The reference to the Quaker Youth Group enhances the article by conveying the connotations Peppermint Tea holds for certain people, if others know of similar groups or perhaps famous people who are renowned for their association with/love of said drink they could be added to the article. Joe Thwaites 00:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per JJay. Is there no way to protect articles from nomination for, say, 24 hours after creation?? At least that way enough time has elapsed that the originating editor should be able to create the basis of an article, and we'd have something to vote on!. Jcuk 01:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- as per JJay. -- Geo Swan 01:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can merge information into Tea or Peppermint if neccessary. --Daveb 02:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Edit - Keep the page but remove the "how to make tea with a teabag" aspect - replace it with "how to make tea with pepermint leaves... Fosnez 08:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have done a few edits on it. I can see a case for merging it into peppermint ; however, peppermint tea as such is suggested as a remedy for various illnesses. It is actually different from tea proper, and so it does not belong in the tea article, other than as a "See also". Logophile 11:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This article would have no significance if it were to be placed in the tea section. The second edit makes it look more like an authentic wikipedia entry... thispersonis 22:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but the "Acquisition and Preparation" section is too much like a recipe. -- jaredwf 08:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was 1, 2, 3...Ummmm, (15 delete/17 keep) no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 02:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A wife confused for a sister[edit]

Appears to be pure original research, and title gets no Google hits. Jayjg (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Appears to be somebody's school essay just pasted in as an article. -- MisterHand 17:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. As with many other Biblical entries, this article attempts to "interpret" the Torah based on the plain meaning of the words or on the documentary hypothesis, which is just that, a hypothesis. This so-called "theme" is not even discussed as such by the classic Jewish commentaries on the Bible. I also am baffled by the title, "A wife confused for a sister." Why "confused"? Yoninah 18:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. As of 19:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC) no sources for this theme were given. Web searches on this theme proved unfruitful. If sources and a close enough theme name will be provided, I may review my vote. gidonb 19:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Duffy's answers seem to indicate that the two cases are better linked under the Abimelech entry. I do not think that this discussion should be as wide as to address the entire documentary hypothesis, but rather the article we vote about. gidonb 20:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excepting the problem I have mentioned just below that there are other quite different Abimelech's also discussed there, i.e. Abimelech is better as a disambiguation page. And the other problem that the Pharaoh version (Genesis 12) involves Pharaoh not Abimelech. --User talk:FDuffy 21:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • See my problem with the article and your answers so far in the comment sequence below. gidonb 22:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems to me that [1] no proper article on the King of GatGerar exists and d "references" IMO don't include a single reliable source. Look at this: The Unauthorized Version[2] texts were deleted or moved. I may very well be mistaken. Perhaps others can look this up in the history of the article Abimelech and elsewhere. gidonb 20:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with discussing it under Abimelech is twofold. Firstly, there are other quite distinct biblical individuals named Abimelech. The second is that discussing it under Abimelech creates a problem with discussing the Genesis 12 version between Abraham and Pharaoh. B.t.w. what is Gat? Do you mean Gerar?
      • Is there a source that linked Sarah into the story. And yes, I did confuse between Gat and Gerar. Back to Sunday School :-) That leaves open the question of the texts that "disappeared". gidonb 21:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. It's called the Bible. Sarah is Abraham's wife. See Genesis 20-21 for the Abraham/Abimelech version of the story which explicitely mentions Sarah. --User talk:FDuffy 21:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am looking for sources that tie all three cases together (not only the later two which you keep returning to) under one clear theme, other than the article you created or the separate inclusions in Genesis. Until I receive such sources I consider this a case of original research. gidonb 22:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Try reading the Jewish encyclopedia article on Sarah - "...the incident with Pharaoh and a similar incident with Abimelech..." --User talk:FDuffy 23:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Or how about the mediaeval Sefer HaYashar, chapter 20 (here is an online link to the chapter - [65])
            • Maybe more modern theological writings would satisfy you - bible.org
            • Or a google search the story for abimelech vs. that of pharaoh
            • --User talk:FDuffy 23:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I looked at the links. You provided absolutely no accepted theme in the literature, I emphasize any literature, just loose associations. gidonb 00:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not original research. Google searches aren't exactly a scholarly approach to articles. The documentary hypothesis happens to not only be a hypothesis but one supported by over 90% of academics in biblical studies, and also the vatican.
As for the subject matter, see, for example, the relevant JewishEncyclopedia articles you want section 3 of Abimelech (google cache) (notice also how that shows that the theme IS discussed by classic Jewish commentaries - the midrash)Beersheba, you can also find it in Finkelstien "The Bible Unearthed" (this is a large book about archaeology by a major archaeological scholar), and in the works of Friedmann, Noth, etc. such as "Who wrote the Bible", "The Bible with sources revealed".
--User talk:FDuffy 20:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may want to go through the article, and carefully cite all your references if you want people to reconsider their votes. -- MisterHand 20:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that isn't how votes are supposed to work. If you can see how the article is legitimate then you should vote to keep it, whether or not the references are discussed in the article or here. To do otherwise is petty minded. --User talk:FDuffy 21:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article could be copyright infragment. Author is claiming what he is doing is under fair use, which isn't the case. Also author beleives the Jewish Enclylopedia is out of copyright, thought only very old editions arn't... 220.233.48.200 20:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not one piece of the text is a copyright infringement. Large chunks of the Jewish encyclopedia have been used. But of the 1911 public domain edition. "copyright infringement" is really quite a red herring attempt to destroy the article.
      • Well then you need to add the "from Jewish Enclylopedia" template, and others. But you have also ripped a whole parts from other sources which you claimed to be fair use... You really need to cite your sources in this cases. 220.233.48.200 21:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, but public domain is just that. You really need to stop trying red-herring arguments. --User talk:FDuffy 21:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Citations CAN be provided as above, so that's a vote to keep, right?
Votes are supposed to be based on whether an article could ever possibly exist here that was in accordance with wikipedia policy. If you CAN see how it is possible, then you should vote to keep, whether or not the current state of the article matches up with that. --User talk:FDuffy 21:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why not just bring the article up to WP:CITE standard, then I could change my vote to keep... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't justification to delete. The fact that it CAN be brought up to standard is enough for it to exist. Please read the deletion policy. --User talk:FDuffy 21:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well if I'm not mistaken, a consensus vote alone is justification to delete, and explanations for votes are not always required... I see you have added some sources though I was hoping to see them referenced with footnote citations within the text; so I guess I'll switch to keep provided you allow the article to be reasonably edited. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He listed some titles in the reference secton, however has not shown where in those books he gets his info from. Furthermore the title is nn as can be seen from the 0 google hits. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Title is nn? That isn't a deletion criteria. Try considering the content?
"Authorship of the Johannine works" won't be found on Google either, excepting wikipedia mirrors, but that doesn't mean the subject, Authorship of the Johannine works is not notable, as it certainly is. --User talk:FDuffy 21:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin according to what I've read about articles for deletion, votes are advisory only - it is what is said by them that is to be used to decide on the outcome. As several editor's only have a problem with citations not being provided in the current article, their votes do not concern the existance of the article, just whether its current content should be adjusted. --User talk:FDuffy 21:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is not so much whether or not it can be cited as whether or not it is original research. Original research can be copiously cited, but it's still original research. Jayjg (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, according to deletion policy the issue is whether it will ever be possible for the article to be cited non-original research, since everyone seems to agree that this is possible, the article should be kept. --User talk:FDuffy 21:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But I see no indication that it would ever be anything but that; it appears to be a topic you have invented. Jayjg (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • How exactly does it appear I have invented it?
            • Are you denying that the three stories at Genesis 20-21, Genesis 26, and Genesis 12, exist?
            • Are you denying that they are distinct episodes in the Genesis narrative?
            • Are you denying that the Midrash responds to them as something that exists?
            • Are you denying that biblical criticism points to the triplication of the story as evidence for the documentary hypothesis?
            • Are you denying that the Midrash blames Abraham for the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, the death of Saul, etc. as punishment for his having made the beersheba treaty?
            • Are you denying that the etymology of Beersheba is discussed at Genesis 21 and 26, is there directly connected to the treaty and Abimelech, and that archaeology has something to say about the potential value of some of the etymologies?
          • If not, then why do you think I have made it up? --User talk:FDuffy 22:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is the original thesis tying all of these together that appears to be unique to you. Can you quote some encyclopedic source which does this, instead of your own ideas? Jayjg (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Here is a link to the genesis 26 in the New American Bible version. Note footnotes 1 and 2 which clearly state that these are versions of the same story, and clearly states that 26:15 & 26:18 are redactions. --User talk:FDuffy 22:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • So your source is actually the New American Bible? Jayjg (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, that's A source, not THE source.
                • Try reading the Jewish encyclopedia article on Sarah - "...the incident with Pharaoh and a similar incident with Abimelech..." --User talk:FDuffy 23:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Or how about the Sefer HaYashar chapter 20 (here is an online link to the chapter - [66])
                • Maybe more modern theological writings would satisfy you - bible.org
                • Or a google search the story for abimelech vs. that of pharaoh
                • --User talk:FDuffy 23:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • These are almost random links. Please provide links to literature which discusses this as a theme, as your essay does. Jayjg (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It may need citations, but that's a separate issue, not a reason to delete an article. Same with dislike for the title (which admittedly isn't very encyclopedic). If people object to critical biblical scholarship (as at least one nay voter appears to), they shouldn't be bothering with an encyclopedia. I haven't seen any legitimate argument for deletion. kwami 21:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Title gets no google hits, nn and Original research, if there is anything good here it can be merged into existing articles. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is this non-notable? Major evidence for the documentary hypothesis, a treaty between the Israelites and Philistines, something classical jewish scholars (Midrash) believed was the reason for God's decision to cause/let the 1st and 2nd temple be destroyed. That's hardly nothing.
Google hits are not an indicator of fact. They are only an indicator of how many websites discuss the subject under exactly that wording. Not whether the subject is discussed.
I have given 4 sources, that isn't original research, that's 4 sources. --User talk:FDuffy 21:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You listed some titles in the reference secton, however you have not shown where in those books you get your info from. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being ridiculous. They say one of the creationist tactics is to ask for ever more detailed evidence. I have given you the references. If you get the books the locations are easy to find - try using the index and putting in obvious words, e.g. Abimelech and Beer-Sheba.
How about a version of the bible itself, the New American Bible, whose footnotes clearly point out that they are the same story (it calls it the "wife-sister episode"), that the yahwist and elohist own the versions I state they do, and that Genesis 26:15, and 18 are later redactions. --User talk:FDuffy 22:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you wrote this article and you are saying that you used these books as a reference, it's not unreasonable for me to ask of you to show me where in those books does it say what you say it said. I would assume that you have these books if you are using them as a reference. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is unreasonable for you to pretend to be so incompetant as to be unable to use an index. --User talk:FDuffy 23:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are the author of the article, you have the obligation to show from where you have taken your sources. Since you have recently written this article I'm sure that if these are really your sources you would remember where you got them from. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I do. I also know how easy it is to look a word up in an index and go to the page it mentions. You are being unreasonable. --User talk:FDuffy 23:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right. The entire debate below Eliezer's vote is exceedingly silly. Thomas Ash 23:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I don't mean to be rude, but the comments of many of those voting for deletion are frankly ridiculous. Thomas Ash 23:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Not original research. To delete this would be unreasonable. However, it needs a new title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickDupree (talk • contribs) 16:55, 2 January 2006
"A wife confused with a sister" might be less ambiguous, for starters... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"A wife confused for or with a sister" still puts the action on the viewer, i.e. Pharoah and Abimelech, not on the ones who deliberately claimed their wife was their sister, i.e. Abraham and Isaac. Classic Jewish scholarship therefore examines the reasons why Abraham and Isaac made this claim, not the "thematic" similarities between the Egyptians' and the Philistines' response. As I wrote on the Talk page, the main point of this article could easily be stated in a paragraph on the Sarah and Rebeccah pages. Yoninah 13:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 00:13Z
  • Strong keep. The essential facts are incontrovertible, as the opening sentence states: "There are three tales of a wife confused for a sister within the Torah, all of which are strikingly similar." The phenomenon of these parallels must be very widely known, if they are familiar even to me. Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version (1992), discusses this phenomenon pp 407ff. Not very original "research" I'd say. What's offensive here, actually, is the documentary hypothesis itself, as the above discussion in favor of deletion so frankly demonstrates. --Wetman 00:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let's see what the writer(s) can do with it; it can always be deleted or redirected at a later date. KHM03 01:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand -- needs sources. -- Geo Swan 01:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this pure original research, and the title is a neologism from the pen of a Bible-trasher. How sad. IZAK 11:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thought it certainly needs work, the NOR claim doesn't fly, the article is well documented with it's sources though citations would be a good improvement which isn't a reason to delete either. --Wgfinley 06:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though it seems to me that FDuffy needs to release the article so that others can work on it. There's more published work on this topic that he/she seems to be aware of. If others of us get a chance to do some of that work then the article is worth keeping. BTW, a better title would be 'The Endangered Ancestress', which will lead you to Cheryl Exum's highly regarded paper on the topic. JGF Wilks 14:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin This is this user's 3rd edit. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a provocative assertion. Are you trying to say jgf wilks uses sockpuppets? Because I checked the history, and I only see one edit by them... Geo Swan 22:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets "A related issue occurs when non-Wikipedians create new accounts specifically to influence a particular vote or discussion. This is especially common in deletion discussions. These newly created accounts (or anonymous edits) may be friends of a Wikipedian, or may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion.
Note to closing admin The user in question started editing before the article even existed, and Eliezer has elsewhere advocated allowing users who obviously exist prior to such votes, even if new, to cast votes. --User talk:FDuffy 02:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
These accounts are not actually sockpuppets, but they are difficult to distinguish from real sockpuppets and are treated similarly. Neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Wikipedia community." --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be said that the user created their account before the article even existed, so Meatpuppet doesn't really apply here. --User talk:FDuffy 02:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
HOWEVER, having said that, according to these diffs, Eliezer, IZAK, Jayjg, Jfdwolff, MPerel, Tshilo12, and Dovi were all brought here by Meatpuppet like-tactics, and they voted delete, so if there is any vote-rigging and underhand behaviour going on, maybe we should consider these as well. --User talk:FDuffy 02:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
This is very common and not prohibited by any Wikipedia policy. Some AFDs are conducted with very heavy recruitment from all sides of the debate, and this makes AFD more of reflection of community opinion than if only a few people with no knowledge of the subject matter vote delete Biblecruft. JFW | T@lk 10:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, gauging community opinion involves going out and asking people to comment when you have absolutely no idea which side they will vote on. Going around finding people whose names and/or previous editing behaviour makes it fairly obvious they will support your own side is called Gerrymandering.
this is biblecruft as is this, this, and this (etc.), all of it blatent and totally unencyclopedic. The article up for deletion here is not, it covers the material in approximately 3 chapters of Genesis rather than flooding wikipedia with the same information in multiple articles such as Gerar, History of Beersheba (now a redirect), Sarah, Abraham, Isaac, Rebekah, and Abimelech (as was). Such reduction of Bible spam, and coverage of a notable and encyclopedic topic, is something that people vote to Keep.
--User talk:FDuffy 13:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Note to closing admin: It appears that FDuffy has also done a bit of Gerrymandering by alerting his buddies on their Talk pages to join this discussion (I found out by checking "What Links Here" on the article page, A wife confused for a sister). I agree with JFW—the more editors involved, the more of a real consensus we will gain. Yoninah 22:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources listed cannot be traced to the actual title, which itself is invented. I will change my vote if FDuffy (talk · contribs) will take the trouble to trace this theory to the Bible critic who first described it and will provide proof that other Bible critics broadly agree with this otherwise completely unnotable, highly speculative and bizarre assertion. JFW | T@lk 17:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with heavy modifications I currently feel that the article is framed in a very POV manner. I nonetheless think it should exist, under this name or another. The common thread of the three stories is undeniable, and thus I am sure has responses in many fields; currently only the documentary hypothesis is present without any heading indicating that this interpretation is the one to be unfolded presently. I am sure you could find some sociological/anthropological understanding of the phenomenon of wives and sisters, or at least some understanding given by Rabbinic or Christian scholars. I don't believe the article as it is is original research but it is currently POV and also needs to cite sources for individual facts if it wants to retain integrity.
    In sum, I recommend:
    • Find better name, if possible
    • Cite DH understandings more closely
    • NPOVise / find other views
      jnothman talk 22:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Both JFW and jnothman express some of my mixed views on this. Whether the title and article contents as they currently stand can be transformed to not fall on the side of original research, I don't know at this point. I'm willing to change my vote if it can be shown clearly that a credible source or sources exist who represent these views. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, must be considered original research until author deigns to provide sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read above where the sources are given repeatedly. --User talk:FDuffy 02:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I don't see it as original research though it is typical late 19th century, early 20th century anti-Bible pseudo-scholarship rehashed. It should be deleted because like most arguments from such sources it employs fallacious reasoning and deceptive half-truths, what I call "dumb ass" and "smart ass" Bible criticism. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Israel Finkelstein (2002). The Bible Unearthed. Free Press. ISBN 0684869136.
  • Robin Lane Fox (1992). The Unauthorized Version. Knopf. pp 409f
  • Richard Elliott Friedman (1987). Who Wrote The Bible?. Harper and Row, NY, USA. ISBN 0060630353.
  • Richard Elliott Friedman (2003). The Bible with sources revealed. HarperSanFransisco. ISBN 0060530693.
As far as I'm aware 1987-2003 didn't suddenly become late 19th century, early 20th century. --User talk:FDuffy 02:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
You missed the word "rehashed". Kuratowski's Ghost 09:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those are major and well respected modern day scholars, one is even the professor of ancient history at Oxford. Claiming they are just people who produce "rehashed" arguments is like claiming Fundamentalist Christians and Jews are just rehashing centuries old outdated arguments for their faith. --User talk:FDuffy 14:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Which they are. All the arguments about whose biblical interpretations are correct were already argued and summarized far more succinctly by the Rabbis of the Talmud (see the Aggadah of Rabbi bar bar Chana) and by Maimonides in his debates with the Church than they are today on Wikipedia. Yoninah 16:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep but clean it up a little, as per jnothman, kwami, thomas ash, etc. The fact that it has generated so much controversy here just goes to show its notability. wikipediatrix 01:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This example is classic documentary hypothesis stuff, as anyone in the field of Bible knows. One may agree with the analysis or not (the field of biblical poetics, for instance, shows that classic source criticism fails to account for many important aspects of Genesis, including in this example), but I fail to see why anyone calls it original research. It is standard stuff, and has been since the 19th century. I think some of the objectors would prefer not to see the basic articles on biblical topics cluttered or even overwhelmed with source-criticism, and on this I happen to agree with them. I don't think that would be appropriate at all. But the way to achieve that is not by deleting source-critical articles and removing real information from Wikipedia, but rather by expanding on source-critical aspects in articles devoted to them (like this one). The weaknesses of source-criticism and alternative approaches can be discussed in such articles as well. More broadly, if others would like to discuss this issue beyond its relevance to this article, I would be happy to so.Dovi 07:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS The title of the article may or may not be the greatest, but that can be decided by the active contributers to the article on the talk page. There is no reason to do it with one of these horrible AFD votes.Dovi 12:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. FDuffy is right. The article may not be in a great state but a change of title and a little source citing could well turn it into something good. Soo 14:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's the problem. The author refuses to source his claims, and would rather argue with us than to do so. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very obviously not original research to anyone who has studied the Bible; just needs cleanup and better citations --Gherald 21:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the entry immediatly above. Improve and cite. It's good; make it better.--HereToHelp (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very POV indeed. Those cite, is this a joke? What about WP:RC - this is certainly unencyclopaedic and those "sources" seem very unreliable. Izehar 23:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Original or not, it is still research, not an encyclopedic paper. Wikipedia may be easily packed (if wikipedia is "not paper" why then Jimmy Wales asks for all this money?) with such theries in all historical magazines full of "solid" references and crossreferences. I any case about 60% ("well" part, etimologies, etc.) of its content is either irrelevant here or must be addressed esewhere. Mukadderat 03:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. this was heavily edited to add references since its nomination on AfD. --Marvin147 03:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nice start and referenced. Also some of the personal attacks against the editor seem a bit out of line. -- JJay 04:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article needs a better title and sources but it is not completely original research. -- jaredwf 08:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. It is certainly verified, but it is also original research and unlikely to be neutral. Stifle 01:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 2: Blackrock n' Roll[edit]

This sort of thing would be a nice addition to Warcraft III, but does not really warrant it's own article. So, I would recommend it for merging, but the only problem is that this might be the only one of these mini-synopses in existence at the moment, and as such would look out of place in that article. I have listed this on AfD because I'm unsure of it's suitability for merging, and because I am of the opinion that if it is unsuitable it should definitely go. Dan 18:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Plain and simple. This is not a walkthrough guide for all video games.Obina 18:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Phædriel 20:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. - Liontamer 02:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Utter total delete there are two others like this. Banana04131 03:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Phædriel. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to University of Tennessee. -Splashtalk 01:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni Memorial Gym[edit]

This doesn't appear to be a notable instutition. Metion of it can be made on the University article page, if required. -- (aeropagitica) UK 18:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


WHY? WillC 18:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge & Delete. Non notable gym, but fine to mention on the U of T page.Obina 18:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- or Merge if the author considers it important enough. This gym is certainly not notable enough to require its own article, but if it's famous enough within the University of Tennessee then it would be acceptable to include it in that article.Dan 18:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP I am making pages for all major college conference basketball tournament locations. It is notable for that reason and for that list, and for the fact it now is an important performing arts center in Knoxville. WillC 18:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per WillC. A nom that starts "this doesn't appear" is not very convincing, since the article was tagged after two minutes. Leave more time for editing and we might get decent articles. I also wonder if the nom is familiar with the extensive number of articles on sports facilities at Wikipedia. Furthermore, if a merge is the best solution then there was no need for AfD. We have templates for that. -- JJay 20:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete. NeoJustin 23:22, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If neccessary can merge essential information into UT article. --Daveb 02:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DO ANY OF YOU REALIZE HOW MANY SIMILAR ARTICLES ON COLLEGE FACILITIES THERE ARE ON WIKIPEDIA? THIS BUILDING IS STILL IN USE!WillC 21:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No need to get shirty! I, and others, have suggested that you merge this with the UofT article for the reason that we consider it to be non-notable outside of it. If there are other such articles on College facilities, my personal opinion is that they should go in the relevant college article. Can you imagine what would happen to Wikipedia if every building in use in the whole world were allowed it's own article, from my house to memorial gyms? Chaos, that's what! No offence to memorial gyms or anything. Dan 17:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then Wikipedia-ites better great on the ball merging every last sports facility entry here because they all have their own pages...arenas, stadiums new and old, there are literally hundreds on Wikipedia with their own articles, and for no other reason than a college team once played there. this entry is not the only one by far....why target THIS one? WillC 21:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: we are not robots and cannot see every page on Wikipedia and immediately check it like this. However, if I came across another such venue, I would nominate it for deletion too, and if you find one, then please let me know and I will support any effort to delete it. Stifle 14:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all past and present permanent homes of NCAA Div 1 basketball and football venues. Youngamerican 01:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No notability asserted, delete. Influenced by the amount of sock/meatpuppets contributing. Stifle 01:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Please be careful about calling people sock puppets. Feel free to check my user history, if you wish, as I am somewhat offended by your insinutation that I would be a sock puppet. I totally agree that WillC is not abiding by some of our codes of conduct here, but that does not give you the right to throw around accusations against other users. Cheers. Youngamerican 03:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I am not sure where I got the idea of sock/meatpuppets from; please accept my apology. However, my vote remains the same. Stifle 03:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment From this comment: "Influenced by the amount of sock/meatpuppets contributing." I thought that was pointed in my direction. Sorry for getting the wrong idea. Furthermore, I had no problem-o with your vote; there are lots of wikipedians that I respect that I do not agree with all of the time. Youngamerican 03:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete. OCNative 07:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SOCK/MEAT PUPPETS? People that know sports chime in so they must be fake? You should be listening to the people who know! WillC 13:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doctor, heal thyself! You accused me of inventing supporters! Furthermore, there is a Wiki category just for defunct sports venues! WillC 14:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If neccessary can merge essential information into UT article. --Daveb 02:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Delete. Non notable gym, but could be mentioned on the university page. 86.137.183.25 23:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)--User's first edit -- JJay 03:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Under the GFDL, any merge has to be followed up with a redirect, not a delete, in order to check the source of the edits on the target page. Don't worry, I've made the same mistaken vote in the past, however. Youngamerican 03:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, buildingcruft. This building could be mentioned in the university article, if there's a reason to do so. Friday (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I Had Changed My Mind[edit]

Many albums are not notable enough for their own article, but this article is only for a single released only on 7". Delete. Evil Eye 18:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kittem[edit]

Unverified term - possibly neologism. Google search indicates 383 unique hits. Hurricane111 18:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete original research, not notable Tom Harrison Talk 19:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Tom Harrison. Haakon 19:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator and Tom Harrison (as above). Ajwebb 22:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no verification. Stifle 01:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almås[edit]

This isn't even in english. I don't know if it is notable or not. --Chazz88 15:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nom votes to STRONG DELETE --Chazz88 15:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its an article about the family name Almås in Norway. Delete Jcuk 15:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's even about a particular family named Almås in Bergen, plus a noreigan etymology for the name. Delete Nixdorf 16:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as above Pete.Hurd 17:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete do I need to explain? Ok, as above then. Dan 18:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. But remember: non-English articles should generally be sent to Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English before listing in AfD (unless you know for yourself that it does not belong on Wikipedia, English or not). — TheKMantalk 18:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-encyclopedic. Punkmorten 21:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Ajwebb 22:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is written in Norwegian and is about a Norwegian surname, and just states that it is a contraction of "Alm" and "Ås" and that it originated in Åsane. The most famous Almås in Norway is probably the TV-host Jon Almaas of the popular TV show Nytt på nytt, and he probably is worthy of an article. If we had an article on Jon Almaas I would support redirecting this there, but we don't so it will have to be delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dolokk[edit]

This isn't even in english. I don't know if it is notable or not. --Chazz88 15:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nom votes to STRONG DELETE --Chazz88 15:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is in English is irrelevant to AfD, as it can be translated....that being said, it appears to be an article about a toilet cleaner called Dolokk Delete Jcuk 15:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as above Pete.Hurd 17:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as above, but couldn't an admin have done this much quicker? Dan 18:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. But remember: non-English articles should generally be sent to Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English before listing in AfD (unless you know for yourself that it does not belong on Wikipedia, English or not). — TheKMantalk 18:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no value. As a Norwegian I can confirm that dolokk is the thing on top of the toilet seat. I don't know what it's called, but it's surely covered elseqhere. Punkmorten 21:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, the article was created by User:AndersAlmaas. Interestingly, I know a person by that name. Punkmorten 21:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tono Rosario[edit]

Significance not asserted in article. Nom, exclusionist votes for STRONG DELETE --Chazz88 15:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete way substub, not even enought to say whether it's even supposed to be an NN bio Pete.Hurd 17:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete is it a vanity article or what? Still, it might as well be the POTUS for all the use that article is. Dan 18:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep and cleanup. Article concerns international merengue star with numerous albums at amazon [67]. Please read articles before nominating. -- JJay 20:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did read the article before nominating, thank you very much, and am slightly put off by your acerbic attitude. When I, and no doubt those before me, read the article it consisted of nothing more than a date. You might be better served yourself by reading the page history. Dan 22:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Oh bugger, I've done it again haven't I? Somebody reduced the page to a single date, and then you restored it. Sorry. Still though, you do have to take into account that the version all of us saw was entirely different. Now, where's that strikethrough?Dan 22:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I don't mean to be acerbic. But given the frequency of page blanking, noms should check page history before AfD. -- JJay 22:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup in light of new information. Article subject is significant, and information useful. The grammar etc. is just a little messy that's all. Dan 22:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to Margaret. enochlau (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margrete[edit]

This isn't even in english. I don't know if it is notable or not. --Chazz88 15:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nom votes to STRONG DELETE --Chazz88 15:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Sorry it seemed to be one guy going around creating a load of articles in another language. Many of which were full of nonsense. Therefore after translation and as this article seems reasonable. I change to Strong Keep. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not paper --Chazz88 16:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment seems to have been translated. Jcuk 15:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Margaret where various notable Margarets have been listed. Margrete is the Danish form of Margaret and two Danish queens have had this name, including the current one. u p p l a n d 18:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per u p p l a n d. — TheKMantalk 18:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a dictionary article giving the meaning of a proper noun, not an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of proper nouns. At best, this should be the aforementioned redirect. Uncle G 22:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per u p p l a n d. Punkmorten 16:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew "p0rk" Munn[edit]

It appears to be near to vandalism. How I will assume good faith and say it is just a noob testing --Chazz88 15:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC) - Nom votes to strong delete --Chazz88 15:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Please note that the article starter keeps removing the AFD tag. --Chazz88 15:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've "speedy deleted" it, as per any clear vandalism. -- user:zanimum
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alikreukel Apartment Block[edit]

This nomination pains me as I am an inclusionist. However, this one is too far it is just a random apartment block. --Chazz88 12:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as NN; I have no such pangs. Melchoir 12:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN Obina 12:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator. If an inclusionist nominates something, it's almost always for good reason. - Mgm|(talk) 12:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yeah if we include all apartment blocks, it would be just a bit much. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is one of those cases when you feel like applying WP:IAR. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just a little too much Woohookitty? There must be a site already devoted to the glory of the high-rise! Actually the writing style isn't too bad. I've certainly seen worse. (Most of it mine!;)) Dan 18:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Ajwebb 22:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 23:14, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 00:07Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. →FireFox 19:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Lack[edit]

Non notable bio... borderline on WP:CSD A7, I thought I'd AfD it do be sure. It was deleted twice today. →FireFox 18:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Stifle 02:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Hughes[edit]

From speedy as "reposted content", but the deleted content is about somebody else. No vote. r3m0t talk 18:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep cited; seems to have been an early frontiersman. Tom Harrison Talk 19:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why is this here? -- JJay 20:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This ended up here because normal contributors can't see the content of previously deleted articles, and this specific article title was deleted just yesterday, and a NEW article created with the same name today. So without any way to see whether it was the same content it was speedied, and someone from the speedy deletion section instead switched it to AFD instead of closing the nomination due to it not being a recreation of the previous article. Nezu Chiza 22:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotcha. Thanks for the response. Seems logical in this case to skip the AfD. -- JJay 00:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as not reposted content, and wouldn't otherwise be nominated for deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 00:05Z
  • Speedy keep, it's not necessary to come to afd if the speedy claim is clearly wrong. Gazpacho 03:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sorry for all the confusion. I actually saw the previous speedy and when I saw all the Google hits for the frontiersman, I thought, "Why not? He seems encyclopedic." I'm not sure if my vote is necessary anymore, but here it is. I created the article under discussion using the cited sources. If you look at the first one, which lists books of frontiermen, pioneers, etc., you will find one explicitly lists Jesse Hughes in the title, and several have him as one of several described. So he certainly is not as notable as Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, or even Grizzly Adams (perhaps), but still notable enough for inclusion, in my opinion. In the South, he seems particularly well-known. --C S (Talk) 05:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Chimbel[edit]

nn-bio however makes a claim to notability saying he co-produced Soldier of God(2005) however IMDB does not support this claim Pboyd04 18:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 21:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis (disambiguation)[edit]

  • Of the 3 uses this dis-ambiguation page has, only one of them exists for which this name is used. Neither of the other 2 has this name. Georgia guy 18:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Plus, where is the article that has the name? It's red on the disambig. Dan 23:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The correct Jackie O is Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis (misspelled as Jaqueline in article). The disambig is confusing, but I can see why it exists (it's not just random Jackies). The radio show host and the first lady share the nickname "Jackie O". The Simpsons character has the same name as the first lady's maiden name (Bouvier). Perhaps these factoids can be mentioned in Trivia sections of the main articles. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-02 23:56Z
  • Delete. Not very useful as a disamb, however I would support a disamb page for Jackie O that lists both the original and the radio host. 23skidoo 00:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and disambig for Jackie O per 23skidoo. -- jaredwf 08:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • RENAME to Jackie O (disambiguation) and split to Jacqueline Bouvier (disambiguation) 132.205.45.110 22:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move, as per 23skiddo's vote, jaredwf's vote, and the comments from the anon's invalid vote. OCNative 07:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. (No consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opening credits of Guiding Light[edit]

An in-depth chronicle of the opening sequence of a soap opera. More appropriate for a Guiding LIght fan site than an encyclopedia. tregoweth 19:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Scholarly approach to the Guiding Light, the longest running drama in television history. Thus extremely important, both now and for future historians. -- JJay 20:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I respectfully disagree with JJay's reasons for Keep. Seems very much like fansite material, rather than encyclopaedic or important. I wouldn't be against a Merge of some sort either. - Liontamer 22:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I'm leery about these "opening credits" articles that have been cropping up lately. I am of the opinion that this is simply too trivial for its own article, and merging would probably make the main article top-heavy. If we see more of these articles appearing, perhaps some sort of consensus can be reached as to whether they should be allowed. 23skidoo 00:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with 23skidoo. --Daveb 02:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not really encyclopedia material. FredOrAlive 19:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 23skidoo. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I didn't expect much from the title, but this seems like a reasonable treatment of the subject, probably spun off from a larger article for reasons of space. -Colin Kimbrell 18:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A reasonable article on a valid, if niche, topic. -- jaredwf 08:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I was going to vote merge, but the main Guiding Light article is 140 kb! OCNative 07:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, default action is keep. Babajobu 08:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HD 28185 b[edit]

Information about this extrasolar planet candidate is already available in the HD 28185 article. This article contains virtually no information, and uses inaccurate terminology (Doppler spectrovision) and total speculation (11% chance of moon?). The text also switches between referring to the planet and the star with no clue to the reader. Chaos syndrome 19:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 19:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-02 23:53Z
  • KEEP and split properly from the parent star to the planet article. (Personally, I think that all stars with planets, and extrasolar planets should have separate articles) 132.205.45.110 22:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • COMMENT it should be kept as a redirect in any case. 132.205.45.110 22:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 132.205.45.110. Stifle 01:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect How many planets are there in this universe of ours? Shall we have articles on all of them? Unless the planet is particular notable to us humans for some reason (e.g. it is in our solar system, or it has life on it), inclusion in the star's article should be enough. --SJK 09:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Luka Jačov 08:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Silver Stone Series[edit]

Bumped from speedy (supposedly "no content") but not a candidate. Not notable books, crystal ball, etc. Delete. r3m0t talk 19:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kohen[edit]

Pretty much confirmed to be a hoax on the creator's LiveJournal here. The Pulitzer-winning novel appears not to exist and the name can't be matched with the supposed achievements. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tra-Ling's Oriental Cafe[edit]

I'm uncertain if this entry is notable enough to be encyclopedic. Note: I am not experienced in Wikipedia notability criteria, I am asking folks who are more experienced to consider the question. I found this entry via "Random Pages", and am unfamiliar with the cafe in question. Joe Decker 19:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stepto, Stephen Toulouse[edit]

Vanity--the article was created by the person it's about — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockero (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 05:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Kuroki[edit]

Deleted under CSD A7 (no claim of notability). There seems a clear claim of notability to me here, although i am not at all sure that there is enough notability to avoid deletion. Therefore I undeleted and am placing this on AfD. If this is kept, it needs to be cleaned up to proper wikipedia style. I have no current opnion on whether this should be deleted. Abstain. DES (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep she had the lead role in a major musical for four years. Kappa 18:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable bio. Stifle 00:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re-listing to generate more discussion. Please add new comments below this message. Mindmatrix 19:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Merge I've been to countless sailor moon sites myself and not heard of this person. The current version could just be culled (as is reads like extreme fancruft/and/or a personal ad) and merged with the main musical article easily... WhiteNight T | @ | C 19:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 05:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Gravity[edit]

obscure game, no real content Hirudo 19:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re-listing to generate more discussion. Please add new comments below this message. Mindmatrix 19:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as no evidence of significance is included in this article. It has remained a single sentence "statement of existence" for over 7 months. Sliggy 23:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-02 23:45Z
  • Move into a new EAS Software article that contains a brief summary of games made by this publisher or Delete as non-notable. --Phanton 06:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable per Sliggy. -- jaredwf 08:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Trans-wiki to Wiktionary, delete. Rx StrangeLove 05:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acrophilia[edit]

No corroborating evidence that this word exists in the English language Scrappy36 21:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete along with all the made-up phobias. If it's not invented it's a dicdef. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trans-wiki to Wiktionary. I didn't believe it either, until I started turning up hits at Google. They did seem divided, though, between a sexual taste and a bunch of climbing suppliers. --KJPurscell 23:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re-listing to generate more discussion. Please add new comments below this message. Mindmatrix 19:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as neologism. Ifnord 20:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and delete. Stifle 01:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Moving it to Actinomorphous flower. Rx StrangeLove 05:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actinomorphous[edit]

This is nothing more than an attempt to define the word Actinomorphous. It is not a candidate to be included at Wiktionary, however, because the definition is, in fact, incorrect.

  • Keep or transwiki to wikitionary, as it has a number of backlinks. I've updated the article in an effort to have a more correct definition. --Interiot 22:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki Renata3
  • Delete, approaches biologycruft. Stifle 00:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re-listing to generate more discussion. Please add new comments below this message. Mindmatrix 19:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 05:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was BJAODN, no need to have this suffering here for 5 days... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaginal fungus[edit]

Tagged as patent nonsense, but sadly although this is utter nonsense it isn't patent nonsense and hence isn't speedyable. Delete all the same. CLW 19:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Well, I suppose you have to laugh really, or you'd cry. Shame I just had dinner really. Excuse me. Dan 19:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yeah just delete. --Pboyd04 19:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tagged it as patent nonsense, but I stand corrected. Utter nonsense it is. David Sneek 20:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Made me laugh though, reads like an old fashioned "Booke of Claymes of Medisyn". doktorb | words 20:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense, "cover gentitals with bird droppings" - it's as nonsensical as possible while still being in English. Obvious hoax. Ifnord 20:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in case it can't be speedied (I believe it could). Phædriel 21:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Also, LOL. - Liontamer 22:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Right mako 22:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 23:11, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "or smothering the growth with bird droppings, the fresher the better." This is total nonsense. Ajwebb 23:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-02 23:44Z
  • Delete. Clear hoax—I would have no objection to this being speedied as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potato queen (which was also created by the same editor). JeremyA 23:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete c-lingus is never going to be the same again...... Jcuk 01:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really some of us, I mean we the wikipedians, are great! In my opinion, a fit case that this “creation” (smiles) should be stored in a proper vault: BJAODN. --Bhadani 08:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illaman[edit]

animorphs-cruft. minor, minor character from the book series. Delete CastAStone 19:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pentamnemonic[edit]

This appears to be a non-notable neologism. I could not find any references to the term in Google. Tim Pierce 19:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry-new to Wikipedia and should have read the qualifications more carefuly. If I knew how to delete this entry myself I would.

  • Delete per Quarl. In fact, speedy delete as author request. Stifle 01:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English cider oranges[edit]

More from the same contributor behind Vaginal fungus. Delete CLW 19:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete surely that is enough to get it a speedy delete! That is more nonsensical than the other one. Whilst fungal infections are perfectly legitimate, crossing an orange with an apple is currently impossible (without genetic modification, which would be illegal in the UK). Dan 19:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. No goggle hits for "cider oranges", never mind, "English cider oranges". Ifnord 20:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Funny though =) doktorb | words 20:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-02 22:20Z
  • Delete. NeoJustin 23:12, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. JeremyA 01:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, send to BJAODN and reprimand original creator --195.188.51.100 08:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. I think this appears to be complete bollocks. Stifle 01:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --Deathphoenix 07:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gift of Monroe[edit]

Non-notable high school band. Tim Pierce 19:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unemite[edit]

minor species from book series The Animorphs. Delete CastAStone 19:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diphosphorous trioxide

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Stuff Crazy[edit]

Vanity Advert for nn webpage. Alexa pagerank is 1.9 million. CastAStone 19:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to HyperText Transfer Protocol. Rx StrangeLove 05:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Port 80[edit]

Has no wikilinks, has no pages linking to it, and topic is already covered in the HTTP article. It further sites no source, has no real valuable information. Nominate and Delete --Vidarlo 19:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a newcomer's first and only edit. Whatever the decision here, let's appreciate him, OK? -- Perfecto 14:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree, the comment on the users discussion seemed out of order and should have been more appropiatley phrased. Englishrose 22:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do not see the content being duplicated on the HTTP article, in fact I didn't see any discussion on ports at all. This article needs to be cleaned up and wikified, but that's not criteria for deletion. Ifnord 19:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I'll quote a significant bit of it for you:
typically initiates a request by establishing a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection to a particular port on a remote host (port 80 by default; see List of well-known ports (computing)). An HTTP server listening on that port waits for the client to send a request string
I'd say this covers the topic fairly well, and parts of the article is about TCP in general, which the TCP/IP article handles, and covers in fair more detail. So the article is redunant, and port 80 is ambigious at best. --vidarlo 20:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to HTTP. Tim Pierce 20:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Port 80 is different to HTTP. The Port 80 articles offers more info on Port 80 than the HTTP article. Englishrose 21:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It includes info I'd say should be referenced to TCP/IP, about connection setup and teardown.So I feel the combination of TCP/IP, and HTTP covers it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidarlo (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Port 80 is not really technically different from HTTP. The article includes some general information about what "ports" are in TCP/IP, and some knowledge about HTTP specifically, but doesn't add anything significant on its own. Tim Pierce 23:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite – the style is awful at the moment and the article lacks any useful structure. Other than that, the topic-specific information should stay. Lee J Haywood 21:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete (or redirect). The HTTP article doesn't have all the information that "Port 80" does, for a good reason: it's in TCP and others. This article is completely redundant and it is the wrong topic to focus on. The comments about conformance to port 80 not being required are wrong and original research. We don't need a "port 25" duplicate of SMTP, "port 21" for FTP, etc. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-02 22:16Z
  • Delete. Agree with above. --Daveb 02:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong redirect per Quarl and Twp. Let's save some bytes. -- Perfecto 02:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. This will help people lookig for port 80, and avoids duplicating efforts. --vidarlo 10:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to redundancy, or Rename to TCP port 80. Given that there are 65536 TCP ports and 65536 UDP ports, I'm more in favor of deletion; there's no point in creating stubs for the thousands of unused ports, or repeating info present in TCP and UDP port numbers and off-site [68][69][70] —mjb 05:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. OCNative 07:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to HTTP or move to TCP port 80. To get around firewall rules, TCP port 80 is commonly used for non-HTTP traffic and traffic that is only wrapped in HTTP. Just mentioning that HTTP uses port 80 is not enough. However, I agree that in its current form the article is badly focused and lacks any structure. Aapo Laitinen 16:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English Naruto Episode List[edit]

Article is duplicated content of the more complete List of Naruto episodes so a merge is unnecessary. Delete. Pentasyllabic 19:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with no merge per nom. Ifnord 19:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pn. Dan 16:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as bad copy of an article. Stifle 01:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Government of Svalbard[edit]

Poorly written page that just repeats information found on the main page. I also nominate the redirect page: Svalbard/Government. Tskoge 19:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It's just the infobox isn't it? Dan 16:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 01:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unless someone expands the page. OCNative 07:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. enochlau (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Secondary School of london[edit]

Wiki is not a web portal, neither it is a website for the listing of every non-notable school. No valid reason why this establiishment is notable. Just linking an external website is not accepted for other articles. doktorb | words 19:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with London. This article currently fails WP:SCH proposal and WP:NOT.Gateman1997 20:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tagging this article after six minutes is completely wrong. -- JJay 20:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I didn't know there was a Greek secondary school in London. Kappa 21:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is anyone else getting a hoax vibe off this one? The "official" website looks VERY suspect (ie:Doesn't look like a real school site and is very amaturish).Gateman1997 21:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a hoax. The site may look amaturish, but it is using a .sch.uk domain name, which are only available to schools. Also, see this table which shows the school's exam pass rate. -- AJR | Talk 12:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though I don't see how tagging an article after six minutes is wrong. Move article to Greek Secondary School of London. -Rebelguys2 22:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . Bad faith nomination - 6 minutes after article created, as JJay said. That is wrong if the reason for nomination is "fails WP:SCH", which it would pass if the article had 3 sentences or a picture. I don't think it's a hoax because of the official domain name. It makes sense that kids created it. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-02 22:10Z
  • Keep article after cleanup and expansion by JJay and Kappa. Calling tagging the article "wrong" is pretty close to bad faith as well, you know. The article at the time of nomination was pretty close to nothing, and new page patrol is something not everyone wants to do, so let's not bite nominators, please.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 00:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main problem is that tagging an article after one minute or five minutes shuts down editing. It is not the best approach when the topic is or could be valid. A message could just as easily be left on the article or user talk page. I once got a warning from an admin for speedy tagging an article on a game forum after 24 minutes. The general rule is to allow editors 30 minutes for editing before tagging. Frankly, I am far more concerned about biting newbies than biting noms. -- JJay 00:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was merely checking the new page log to help out for a short while, and at the time of nomination I didn't think this article was strong enough. "High School - nuff said" is not enough for me! doktorb | words 07:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a high school, the agreed policy is we keep articles on high schools...what more is there to say?. Apart from maybe "Tidy" or "Wikify". But as far as voting is concerned........ Jcuk 16:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wiki does not automatically allow all articles on all schools, there still has to be a weighing of the notability argument 16:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've never seen a general rule as to how long you have to wait to tag anything, whether it's as a Speedy or as an AfD. If something's tagged as an AfD, either the article will come out in the wash (especially with a wait of a week) or it'll be deleted (again after a week). Only stuff that meets WP:CSD gets deleted before that, and this article isn't a candidate for it. In my own opinion it's silly to AfD schools of any sort because of the cabal of editors that get up in arms about including all schools, but this school is clearly notable in its own right after doing external research. Biting the newbies can be a problem (and possibly could be, in this case) but we have no way of knowing because there's a huge number of one-off accounts since the Sigenthaler episode. This comment's getting a little lengthy. If we want to suss this out a little more, drop me a line on my talk page.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 20:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep High School. nuff said. Jcuk 01:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete poorly written article that doesn't even use correct punctuation for the title. Cedars 06:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge with London!!!??? There are thousands of small articles about things in London, so that is a hopelessly impractical policy. Calsicol 14:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Surely at first it was created in order to register the entry.We can wait and see how it will evolve.Give newbies (and especially kids) a chance.It's absolutely a notable school.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.40.99 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep. Schools are generally notable and I see no reason why this is not notable. Stifle 01:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's an acceptable starting point for a fuller article, and the subject is notable. -- Jake 09:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FMGamer[edit]

Not a notable web site; Alexa rank is 584,929. Tim Pierce 20:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post-war[edit]

Article not encyclopedic, has already been transwikied to Wiktionary Spiritllama 18:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete because it'll just be a subset of the information on non-Italian popes. DS 19:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch popes[edit]

Delete There has only been Dutch pope, and this is unlikely to change in the near future. The person on the list already has an article. Perhaps just a redirect to Pope Adrian VI. -- Cooksey 20:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Simply a factoid that merely needs a mention in Pope Adrian VI. No need for a redirect. - Liontamer 21:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-02 21:54Z
  • Keep and complete a series of articles on popes by nationality. Calsicol 14:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it should be categories not articles. Dan 15:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. The Land 22:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economics of fascism[edit]

Article contains no factual arguments, rather is literally full of selective quotes. Cited single POV arguments are based on the biased and innacurate assumption that Fascists had their own economic ideology distinct from both "capitalism" and "socialism and communism." This assumption is used like a straw man to attack the New Deal and government intervention as "fascist." Article does not address correlations between Fascist economic policies, it is simply a tool for ideological smearing. In the interest of accuracy and NPOV, Economics of Fascism needs to be deleted.--sansvoix 20:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Wikipedia definitely needs an article on the economic policies that existed in fascism (an article distinct from generalized fascism). The article is well sourced and NPOV. The article doesn't assert anything, but presents sourced assertions. Note that even the father of fascism, Mussolini, said that the economic system was distinct from capitalism and communism. The New Deal section must be in there because it's a notable view; it's been attacked since its inception as being modeled on fascist economics (if it seems like a large section, it's only because the rest of the article still awaits further development). I think the article, now in its infancy, has a great future. RJII 21:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: RJII has compleatly changed the article since the last AfD. See the December 2nd version: [71]
  • Comment: Noam Chomsky- "Just as I'm opposed to political fascism, I'm opposed to economic fascism." Business Today, May 1973 [72] -- JJay 21:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Benito Mussolini: "fascism has taken up an attitude of complete opposition to the doctrines of Liberalism, both in the political field and in the field of economics." So, yes, there is a distinction between political fascism and economic fascism according to the father of fascism himself. RJII 21:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Economist Lawrence Dennis claimed the adoption of economic fascism would intensify "national spirit" and put it behind "the enterprises of public welfare and social control."--sansvoix 22:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Maybe we should take this side conversation elsewhere?[reply]
  • Keep. Despite the neutrality issues, this seems like a more than reasonable spin-off subject to the concept of facism. I would think there are more than enough eyes here to get this article into shape if in fact it's too POV. - Liontamer 21:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. The term has rarely been used as anything other than a slur, and there is no agreement whatsoever between different authors on the proper definition of "economic fascism". The economic aspects of fascism can be discussed over in the fascism article. The various assertions regarding "economic fascism" by different authors can be discussed in the articles dealing with those authors and their respective ideologies (since the term has almost always been used as an ideological stick with which to beat one's enemies). -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 23:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What "term"? "Economics of fascism"? That's a slur? Nonsense. That's just a generic phrase. Call the article whatever you like --use whatever terminology you like (political economy of fascism, economic fascism, fascist political economy, fascist economics, etc) But, there is no sensible reason to be opposed to a Wikipedia article devoted to discussing economic policy in fascist regimes. RJII 00:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes there is. Since fascism refers to a specific kind of political regime, an article on the "economics of fascism" makes as much sense as articles on the economics of monarchy, economics of republics or economics of federal states. Given the vague nature of the term "fascism", I might even add economics of countries whose names end in -ia. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 00:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:If any of those are notable and seriously discussed, start an article on them. The fact is, discussion of the economic practices under fascism is very widespread --definitely notable. RJII 01:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's only widespread because of the stigma associated with the word "fascism". In popular culture, "fascist" is a synonym for "evil". I agree with Orwell that the word has become largely meaningless. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 01:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So what are you saying? You think fascism is not evil? (not that the article makes such a value judgement) RJII 02:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do not believe there is such a thing as "fascism" (in the sense of a distinct political or economic system, or even a coherent ideology). Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany did not have a unique political or economic system - they were just your average nationalist dictatorships. The fact that Hitler happened to kill more people than your average dictator doesn't change anything. And fascist ideology was never clear and coherent, not even to the fascists themselves. But this is off-topic... The point is not what I think, the point is what the majority of people think and the stigma they associate with fascism. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 10:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject to cleanup. There is scope for useful discussion on Wikipedia of the nature of economics under fascism. This doesn't necessarily need a separate article from fascism or corporatism but it may be helpful. However, in its current form the article isn't terribly helpful as a discussion of the topic. There's some confusion with the previous name of this article, "economic fascism", which appears to be a term and theory of the relationship between fascism and economics specific to certain theorists. Presented as such, properly sourced, this is not a problem - the difficulty is if this theory dominates the article. One solution would be to give it a separate article (economic fascism), which could be devoted to describing that theory and its development. Rd232 talk 01:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I think you're misguided on that. "Economic fascism" is just another way of saying "fascist economics." You see a few libertarians using the term "economic fascism" in their articles and it's throwing you off (note that socialists also use the term). It's a commnon phrasing, as in "economic individualism," "economic nationalism," and a term that is not used much anymore "economic socialism." There is no need for a seperate article. Everyone is talking about the same thing ...the economic practices in fascism. Also, it certainly does need a seperate article from corporativism, as there is more to the economics of fascism than corporativism. RJII 01:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot agree that "Economic fascism" is just another way of saying "fascist economics.". Look at the people who mostly use the former term: it's primarily designed to allow "fascism" to be used to describe economic policy in democratic states, by driving a notional wedge between fascism and the political sphere (which contradicts the essence of fascism, which is political). There's also the linguistic issue: economic fascism is no more the same as fascist economics than lemon coke is the same as a coke lemon. Rd232 talk 11:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The topic is definitely notable, and the article is well-written and well-sourced. It's true that it's a subtopic of fascism, but it's a common, accepted practice to give lengthy discussions of subtopics their own articles, and I think there's enough material here to justify it being in a separate article. However, I do think it needs to address more of the "other side" that argues the New Deal is distinct from fascism. MrVoluntarist 02:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the article doesn't even tell you why the New Deal is "fascist!" That section, like the rest of the article is simply a collaberation of quotes agreeing with the authors premise (that fascism is the distinct area between socialism and capitalism)! I would be fine with this article if it was what the name suggested, a discription of common fascist economic policies. But this article is not even academic, it is only a pov concept tied togeather with quotes from a select group of people.--sansvoix 05:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there are a lot of quotes but that's just the initial stages of the article --the research. Also, note that there has been text amidst the quotes, but someone has been deleting all of it with the claim that it's "editorializing." RJII 21:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for cleanup. Gazpacho 02:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course Keep. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- and the cabal who keep marking this for deletion for no better reason than that it offends their own POV should be ashamed of themselves by now. But, of course, won't be. --Christofurio 15:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am offended by your accusation! I discoverd this article via a RFC.--sansvoix 21:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting me to care where you discovered this article might be a challenge. --Christofurio 21:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this you trying to tell me that that night ment nothing to you!??--sansvoix 23:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but massive cleanup. Citing sources != NPOV. The article remains a POV mess, but there is a lot of interest in it now, and I can see the potential for a good article comparing and contrasting the policies of fascist nations. TomTheHand 18:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is inherently POV. --SpinyNorman 00:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Article is based on a non-notable Neologism (that also isn't at all coherent) (Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms). RJII has a big history of creating POV articles to get his political messages across. In fact I consider him to be a paid Agent provocateur (employed by U.S Gov or a right-wing 'think tank'): "BFD. Can't Wikipedia for 24 hours. Who cares! I'm still getting paid. You sure are making productive use of that petty power aren't you? RJII 17:46, 29 December 2005" <From RJII's talkpage. Another reason I suspect this is because RJII is on 8hrs a day every day since about May time (and then only to create articles like this and POVing the Anarchism article). This article was created to push the ridiculous far-right hypothesis that National Socialism and Socialism and the USA during the depression are essentially the same. If this article was about Capitalist economies under Fascist governance I would dive in and contribute. It is not. -max rspct leave a message 21:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my delete nomination since the AFD nomination has attracted more editors to the article. - max rspct leave a message 12:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm glad you have come around. My vision behind the creation of this this article was to expose the economics in fascist countries, for my own learning and everyone else's. Whatever POV the reality supports or opposes, I couldn't care less. RJII 17:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very funny, to say the least. Anyway, "economics of fascism" is not a "neologism." It's not even a term, really. What else are you going to call the article? Call it by any name you wish, as long as it denotes that the article is about the economics in fascist regimes. RJII 21:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think these two edits show [73] and [74] show how inaccurate and POV RJII can really get (besides his uncivilness and abusive behaviour) - max rspct leave a message 22:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentLooks like decent edits to me. But, enough about me. This vote is about the article. So, drop it. RJII 22:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Keep, there is a lot that can be done with this article beyond just cleaning it up. (Gibby 16:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

  • Keep, but needs a clean-up. Lots of POV in this one, but an interesting subject.  :-) Ekpardo 04:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep important subject, article seems a bit brief. opposition to existence of article seems to be a vocal minority.207.216.91.171 15:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per RJII abakharev 22:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is no place for censorship--Nn-user 18:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge/redirect with...you know, Testicle. Rx StrangeLove 06:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anorchidism[edit]

This article is no more than a very small stub. It contains one line and one 'see also', which seems to link to a word that is exactly the same as Anorchidism. Delete?SoothingR 21:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Anorchidism is the complete abscence of one or more testicles; Cryptorchidism means they might be hiding. Sneftel 21:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Testicle#Health issues until there's a bit more to say about it. Tearlach 00:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dicdef at best. Merge any relevant info into Testicle. --Daveb 02:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Daveb. Dan 15:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Daveb -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 02:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Walansky[edit]

None notable bio --MONGO 21:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedied. r3m0t talk 22:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secondsmile[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC notability criteria Sneftel 21:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable musical group. First-person vanity: "We are not just influenced by music but by all forms of modern culture; Films, Books, Art and by stories we hear, dreams we have and our existences in general." —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-02 21:48Z
  • Speedy Delete tagged as {{nn-band}} -- MisterHand 22:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Richmond Park Babajobu 09:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bone Copse[edit]

A copse of 18 trees in a large park is not notable (sorry, Bone family). The content should go to the Richmond Park page, and the article be removed. Imc 21:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy, a redirect always accompanies a merge, for the purpose of preserving the edit history. -Colin Kimbrell 19:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment what about an article on the phenominon (geez must get over to wiktionary!) of planting trees etc. in memory of someone, perhaps mentioning in it places like this? Granted wiki is not a memorial, but so long as it's about what happens rather than who is commemorated, it should be ok....I think.... Jcuk 16:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Richmond Park, for the reasons stated above.-Colin Kimbrell 19:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, seems rather non-notable. Stifle 01:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merged and redirected. Johnleemk | Talk 11:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel College Students' Union[edit]

We generally don't list student organizations at individual universities unless they really have something going for them. I don't think organizing "Funk da Bar" cuts it. Pilatus 21:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge important bits missing from the Uni article and redirect. There is no need for this AfD. -- JJay 21:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Organizing the weekly pissup is important? OK, it's Cambridge with its known crap nightlife, so you might have a point. Pilatus 21:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you check? Most of it is already in the Uni article so very little to merge. -- JJay 21:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If everything is in the article on the college we can delete this without fear of infringing the GFDL. This is plain vanity. WP:NOT a directory of student organizations. Pilatus 21:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No vanity. Just redirect. It's a key student organization at the University. Universities are more than just buildings. -- JJay 22:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've seen British universities from the inside, and the Student Union at Emmanuel College is in no way different from any other Student Union in the UK. In fact that's what the article tells us - it manages the weekly bar and is the had organization of the sports and social clubs at that college. If they can't do better and have no other claim to notability than that they exist and do nothign different from the student unions at the other 30 colleges of the University of Cambridge or the student unions at the over 100 universities in Britain the entry ought to go. Pilatus 22:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm happy for you Pilatus, but I've seen British universities from the outside and they mostly look like a bunch of old buildings to me. I find it heartwarming that Cambridge can still muster a few devoted students willing to give their time for the benefit of the other young scholars. That deserves recognition, particularly as the main thing Wikipedia tells me is that Emmanuel College, Cambridge is "noted as the home of a wide variety of duck species". People are just as important as ducks, even in the UK, and it's good to know that a few students are occasionally seen waddling around those hallowed grounds alongside their aquatic friends. I hope you realise how absurd this conversation is getting. -- JJay 00:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can see that someone would be interested in Emma's. Now anyone who has seen a UK student union (that's not you) wouldn't care about this particular instance of one. Pilatus 17:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Emmanuel College, Cambridge. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-02 21:45Z
  • Merge: The Emmanuel College, Cambridge article is nowhere near long enough to justify splitting this yet. Joe D (t) 22:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Brock University Students' Union exists; this one should too. --OntarioQuizzer 03:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - There's nothing wrong with articles on student unions if they are notable and are long enough to justify a separate article. Melbourne University Student Union, for example, was featured numerous times in Australian media headlines prior to its eventual collapse and its article is at least 8 kB long. But in this case the 1 kB union article can easily be integrated into the 4 kB college article. Cedars 06:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I don't think this merits its own article. But it'd be nice to keep a redirect and/or fix the link at ECSU -- it's not inconceivable that someone might come here trying to figure out what that acronym means. chrismear 18:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This group does not appear to merit its own article. Stifle 01:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Umm...you all may want to see Category:United Kingdom Students' Unions and Category:Students' unions. OCNative 07:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. However, ECSU is a small union that represents just one college out of the twenty-odd colleges in the University of Cambridge -- CUSU is the overall student union for the university. All of the unions on those category pages represent entire institutions. While I agree that the existence of that page invalidates some of the arguments in this discussion, I still think that the sheer size of ECSU and its relative unimportance compared to a full-sized student union mean that it doesn't merit a separate article. chrismear 12:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Comment"': I think it's helpful....


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 11:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudmakers[edit]

A7: Unremarkable persons - very esoteric. Also conflict of names with the WWII bomb 'Cloudmaker' NJ 22:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was there's some things money can't buy. For everything else just delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Ringtones[edit]

Bumped from speedy: "Absolutely pointless." No vote. r3m0t talk 22:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - complete rubbish and pointless NJ 22:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No research value. -- (aeropagitica) UK 22:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although I like the witty comment at the end. Dan 23:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not even sure what the point was. - Liontamer 02:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete UE --rogerd 06:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not entirely sure why, but it's obvious. Stifle 01:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slough Trading Estate[edit]

Another hoax from 1kirk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), not sure if this qualifies for speedy... Joe D (t) 22:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as hoax. Also consider blocking from creating new hoaxes if repeated warnings ignored. Ifnord 22:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax, and sanction article author. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 01:31Z
  • Methinks someones been overdosing on The Office Delete Jcuk 01:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, admonishing fingers at the ready! Dan 15:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --rogerd 06:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete vandalism. Stifle 15:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pointy-spike[edit]

Another hoax from 1kirk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), not sure if this qualifies for speedy... Joe D (t) 22:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as hoax. Ifnord 22:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax, spam. -- (aeropagitica) UK 22:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax, and sanction article author. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 01:31Z
  • Delete per nom. - Liontamer 02:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Is it time for 1kirk to get blocked? Dan 15:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vandalism. Stifle 15:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original Italian Pizza[edit]

With such a generic name, it's hard to prove it with Google. But this restaurant chain isn't explained as being notable in the article itself for any reason. Mikeblas 22:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird things in the Bible[edit]

The word wierd makes this article inherently non-NPOV ike9898 22:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Opinion piece, not useful for research. -- (aeropagitica) UK 22:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV, and is probably covered somewhere else. JoaoRicardotalk 22:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree entirely. Both 'weird' and 'comical' are completely subjective words. iinag 22:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. - Liontamer 23:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Sethie 23:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 23:13, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 23:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 23:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 01:27Z
  • Delete -- Totally useless in its current form AnonMoos 01:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV, Original reasearch. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the bible is full of weird things. You hear about the one where the dead bloke comes back life? — Dunc|☺ 12:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. Dan 15:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do we really still have to endure this nonsense? JFW | T@lk 21:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Biblical curiosities. The topic is noteworthy, but the title isn't really a good one. Also, just a list of verses, without any explanation as to what is significant about them, is not appropriate. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 19:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete where did this come from. Forget Biblical curiosities, that should be deleted too. --Doc ask? 00:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What kind of list of wierd things in the Bible would exclude Leviticus 13:40? A.J.A. 02:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 04:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common Palm Civet[edit]

A more informative page regarding this topic exists at Palm civets Trey 22:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect No need for a proliferation of pages on the same subject. -- (aeropagitica) UK 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. PJM 23:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment aren't there other pages on other forms of Palm Civets? We are aiming for as informative an encyclopaedia as possible? What is the policy of the Biologists towards this sort of thing? Dan 15:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Palm civets just redirects to Civet so it does not have more information than Common Palm Civet. The Common Palm Civet article should be kept along with the articles for Hose's Palm Civet, African Civet, Otter Civet, and all other distinct civet species. -- jaredwf 09:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per aeropagitica. Stifle 01:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is ample precedent for each species having its own article (see for example List of North American birds, where the vast majority of the more than 800 species listed have links to individual articles for each species. Dsmdgold 20:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep, I NPOV'd it a little more. Rx StrangeLove 04:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aten Technology, Inc.[edit]

Part of me tends towards wikify, but my main instinct is delete. To be honest, this whole page reads like a giant commercial. I don't really think that it belongs here, especially considering that the editor's sole contributions to Wikipedia have been to big up Aten. Maybe that's because of my line of thought that making KVM switches, as important as that may be, isn't exactly something that I would call contributing to public consciousness.iinag 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me understand then the difference between the way this article reads and the way the Belkin article reads?--Aten 00:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Although the article is a bit better due to your modifications, the language used in it does have a few fundamental difference to the Belkin article still. First of all, all of the facts in the Belkin article have points of verification. Secondly, the Belkin article gives the reader a far more balanced view, whereas the Aten article is written very commercially, as though you wanted to hawk these products. If you could change that, and verify your facts, then I guess that I would drop my objections to the piece. iinag, 11:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but wikify and reduce POV. This company does have 2,330,000 hits on Google and if it is the largest producer of those switch thingies it is quite notable. Dan 15:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made some edits to the article in order to wikify and reduce POV. Please advise on any further edits. Thanks--Aten 20:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 08:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gojin Motors[edit]

The original AfD was overturned at Deletion Review since it had failed to take full account of the information that became available. Relisting was sought by at least several of the participants in the DRV, so here it is. -Splashtalk 23:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wirral Pubs[edit]

This article just lists some pubs. Maybe this could grow into an interesting article, but as it stands it is unencyclopedic and is barely withing the scope of wikipedia—delete or move to wikitravel. JeremyA 23:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree. --Daveb 02:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pn. Dan 15:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete UE --rogerd 06:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WikiTravel. Stifle 01:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC) I realized that this is impossible due to license incompatibility. Just delete. Stifle 02:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save this City[edit]

Non-notable band. Does not meet criteria on WP:MUSIC. ~MDD4696 23:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoz[edit]

nn neo. WP:NOT for things you made up in class. Delete  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 23:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Varus Online[edit]

This article is both vanity (created by a user with same name as creator of the community), and is non-notable (per WP:WEB) since its forum has only 1900 members and its Alexa ranking is an abysmal 3,579,995. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete, because I closed it incorrectly the first time. I apologize for the hassle I caused.--Sean|Black 01:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Netflix distribution centers[edit]

This article was previously put up for deletion on December 23, 2005. I'm relisting because the previous deletion discussion resulted in no consensus, and was plagued by an overwhelming number of brand new and anonymous users voting 'Do Not Delete' after the AfD was linked to by a couple of Netflix fan sites[76][77].

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The addresses listed are unverifiable (the fact that Netflix doesn't provide the information to its users is the reason cited by many people who vote to Keep), and the only way this article can possibly expand is via original research with users transcribing the return address labels on their Netflix envelopes into Wikipedia. Delete. -Vastango 23:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_2&oldid=1116878856"