Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 6 January 8 >

Purge server cache

January 7[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 relist to WP:RFD. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slim desktop computer[edit]

Inappropriate redirect (to Apple iMac). Delete. --worthawholebean talkcontribs 00:16, 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 deletion Tznkai 01:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aladin (London)[edit]

Something very wrong with this "article". Seems mostly like a hit-piece on this article: Aladin. Speedy? -- Peripatetic 00:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted material. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. Also, author admits subject is not notable, so elligible for A7 speedy. VegaDark 00:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete as an attack page, and so tagged. DES (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This AfD nomination does not seem to ahve been properly made, BTW DES (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: Attack page created by Peter S. (talk · contribs), following the defeat of his AfD on Aladin. A very bad faith attempt indeed. --Ragib 00:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. CSD A6, attack page. — TheKMantalk 00:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was nothing worth merging. Therefore, delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HUI (accronym)[edit]

exactly 1 google hit for "Hawaiian User Interface". No indications of notability in the article. Delete unless verifible evidence of notability is presented. DES (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. No Guru 00:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete. Merge any worthwhile content into Sabre (computer system), delete due to incorrect spelling. See also HUI (acronym). — TheKMantalk 01:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sabre.--SarekOfVulcan 03:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. - CorbinSimpson 08:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per Sarek. Banes 12:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for preference as a redirect is useless (mis-spelled), but doesn't the GFDL require that merged content source is not deleted? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Dustimagic 18:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not merge as non-verifiable. That one Google link is for something totally different -- a Hawaiian language program. We don't want to introduce junk into the Sabre article. --Mareino 22:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if verifiable (perhaps someone has a source other than Google?), then Delete. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:24, 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 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 DELETE. Johntex\talk 02:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnkannaus[edit]

This was marked as a copyvio, but it turns out it's a copy-paste taken from [1] (freely distributable). However, it's a first-person account of a slave's life, and thus a primary source, violating WP:NOR. howcheng {chat} 01:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom. Obina 01:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per google, not widely documented outside of the book this article was taken from.--SarekOfVulcan 03:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Banes 12:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because i like deleting things. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Let's hold on just a moment here. The article as written is (by virtue of the source) OR, but Professor Google says that Johnkannaus is "a West African fertility ritual associated with the yam harvest and revolving around a cast of colorfully-costumed dancers.". So maybe there is some potential for an encyclopaedic article here? That said, this is not that article. and any unrelated sources are proving elusive... - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense article. --Terence Ong Talk 12:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination, nonsense article. *\o/* Dustimagic *\o/* 04:04, 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 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 DELETE. Johntex\talk 02:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch blindfold[edit]

This is a neologism. Though not invented by the author for WP, it was invented (or preserved) only by Viz website Profanisaurus. Thus, this is a non-notable neologism.Obina 01:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. The informal TRIM should become the redirect per style guidelines.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 19:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trade Related Investment Measures[edit]

This page has no detail; which trade treaty & between whom? No categorisation provided either. -- (aeropagitica) UK 01:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to generate more discussion. Robert 01:04, 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 merge and delete not possible; as content duplicates material in other articles, delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of Sangju and Chungju[edit]

Why do we need this article, when we have separate ones for the Battle of Sangju, and the Battle of Chungju? If there is material here that a contributor believes pertinent, it should perhaps be moved to the general Seven-Year War article. LordAmeth 02:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • del , after merging the contents wherever appropriate. mikka (t) 03:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to generate more discussion. Robert 01:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This page seems helpful to understand the context of these 2 battles, in April of the same month, as all 3 pages are written today. While this 'could' be put on the seven years war page, as written, it makes sense. If some author or editor expert in this area had a better way to structure the whole discussion, and the result was that this page was not needed, then a delete at that time could make sense. A rename per SJ Howard seems helpful, but that doesn't need an AFD.Obina 15:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the logic above. As nom states, each battle has its own article. A reason therefore needs to be provided to justify an additional article that does nothing more than recapitulate the content of the separate entries. There is none implied in this article, nor can I see how one could be given; additionally, further work on these engagements would be better focused on their individual pages - this is a distraction that adds nothing. As a result, Delete. Eusebeus 19:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Seven-Year War page does not show how the individual battles relate and the individual battle articles only touch upon it. While that information could be put into Seven-Year War, it probably has the potential to be expanded into a decent article of it's own. -- JLaTondre 18:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the 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 DELETE. Johntex\talk 02:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recall To Hell[edit]

Non-notable Doom3 mod. Severe neutrality problems, in any case. Delete. Natalinasmpf 04:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to generate more discussion. Robert 01:04, 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 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 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 DELETE. Johntex\talk 02:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Measuredprogress[edit]

Non-notable website, advertisement, no real content in article. Delete. --MisterHand 05:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looks like a bad attempt at advertisement, no content anyway. --Mrtea (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to generate more discussion. Robert 01:04, 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 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 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 DELETE. Johntex\talk 02:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cruelization[edit]

Internet music competition with only 196 Ghits, including mirrors. NN, possibly moribund. Xoloz 05:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisting 31 December 2005. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting again to generate more discussion. Robert 01:04, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

DELETE. Johntex\talk 02:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate wasDelete Sceptre (Talk) 23:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis de Napa[edit]

Individual restaurants don't get their own entries unless shown to be important. Most likely this is only one of several restaurants in the tourist spot Ayia Napa. Punkmorten 11:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to generate more discussion. Robert 01:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A quick Google search brought up what appears to be a number of related hits, but these are mainly just simple tourist website listings. This article does not assert the notability of this restaurant, and I cannot find anything that establishes its notability. — TheKMantalk 01:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nom. Obina 01:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no claim to notability. VegaDark 01:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no claim of notability--Samuel J. Howard 02:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom DrIdiot 04:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NeoJustin 18:56, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 18:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Sceptre (Talk) 23:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SoCS[edit]

This acronym doesn't require a page in WP; a reference in a list will be sufficient, if required at all. -- (aeropagitica) UK 13:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. dicdef at best. --Daveb 15:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to generate more discussion. Robert 01:04, 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 Delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wood ranch[edit]

Not an encyclopedic topic. Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 14:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting to generate more discussion. Robert 01:04, 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 Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlemagne's Legionnaires[edit]

A stub about a book which was (according to the article) «dedicated to "all of the members of the French Waffen-SS, living or dead, as well as all of the other volunteers of the Waffen-SS, whatever their nationality."». The book is at 2 400 000th rank on Amazon sales. Deletion asked in view of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents (4.7) : Books are notable if well-known, and should be listed under the author if not. This non-academic book is not important enough to justify an article French Tourist 15:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to generate more discussion. Robert 01:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Wisco 03:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless you can show that the book sold more than 5,000 copies, which would make it "notable". Go for it! 12:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 18:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Loopy e 21:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

John Cacavas[edit]

Not notable

I am relisting this to generate more discussion. --Angr (t·c) 17:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep IMDB lists 70 composer credits and 1 conductor credit, which is pretty good. He also has a Four Freedoms Foundation George Washington Honor award, whatever that is. I'd say reasonably notable. Silly Dan 23:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting again to generate more discussion. Robert 01:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above. VegaDark 01:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Silly Dan.--SarekOfVulcan 03:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very minor figure, but notable enough for WP. The sad thing is that GTA is listed as his chief credit. Welcome to Wikipedia! If he had only composed something for Star Trek, the article would be at 1500 words right now. Eusebeus 19:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Volatile 05:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as mentioned above, if he had something to do with Star Trek or Family Guy the page would be a mile long. Steve-O 19:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed, sufficiently noteworthy.Meekohi 19:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backtothefuture[edit]

NN vanity. Google search comes up with lots of results due to the movie, but none of them except the wikipedia page refer to this person from what I can tell. VegaDark 01:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it: non-notable by any means. Gerk 20:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --SarekOfVulcan 03:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom DrIdiot 04:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. — TheKMantalk 06:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Banes 12:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I hate to disagree with those that have voted before me on this one, but the music video Schfifty-Five, shows up 31,800 times on Google, and has been watched (at least by kids, and their annoyed parents) all over the world. It seems to be popular with 5th, 6th, and 7th-graders. Though I can't stand the video nor the song personally, my son and most of his friends love them, right up there with Al Yankovic. Because of its widespread audience, it is a notable achievement, and the creator(s) of the music video deserve mention (and rotton tomatoes). In relation to the video, "backtothefuture" comes up 741 times on Google, crediting him with creating this animated piece of ____. Therefore, due to the widespread distribution and viewing of his creation, I believe backtothefuture qualifies as a notable individual as per Wikipedia policy. Though I hope his future videos are better than this one. Go for it! 12:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, vanity and attempt to contact. Ifnord 16:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It seems non notable. But per Go for it, if creating a stick drawing animation to a song, and giving it away to over 5000 people over the internet, is the same as being a published author, then perhaps we should keep. I think, though, that in common sense terms, as a flash animator, he (or she)is not yet notable. Not sure if it matter but there is no verifiable biography content here. For all we know, this is not a person, but a group of people. Perhaps a mention on the Group X page (the music artists who performed Schfifty-Five) would make sense.Obina 16:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems the voting has been changed. Can someone investigate?Obina 16:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, user:159.134.77.247 had blanked out some delete votes. I have reverted, I think all is kosher now. Ifnord 16:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Gröûp X per 'Go for it'. It appears that Schfifty-Five is the only notable thing this person has done and that already redirects to Gröûp X. -- Shinmawa 18:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 18:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per vote mangling. Cyde Weys votetalk 06:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Johntex\talk 02:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Loopy e 21:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eusebio Elizondo[edit]

Delete as nn bio. The only assertion of notability of this person is being nominated as the auxiliary bishop of a local archdiocese, which is not a particularly high rank in the RC church. MCB 01:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not sure auxiliary bishops aren't notable. Precedent?--SarekOfVulcan 03:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can tell, archbishops seem to be generally given articles, but auxiliary bishops (as a title) appear to generally be redirected to the name of the archdiocese. See, e.g., Roman Catholic Auxiliary Bishop of Chicago. MCB 06:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No results from google. bio is nn.DrIdiot 04:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An auxiliary bishop may be notable, but not from being an auxiliary bishop. Can't seem to find anything that would prove his notability. — TheKMantalk 07:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per KMan. Banes 12:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per KMan. NeoJustin 18:57, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 19:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wikipedia users should be able to read about bishops. Kappa 19:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Alr 21:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 22:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable person. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 19:21, 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) 00:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S.o.t.a.r.[edit]

Non-notable robot, no relevant hits on Google. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. -- The Anome 02:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom DrIdiot 04:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now if this was a person, not a robot, it could be speedied :) Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator. — TheKMantalk 07:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. Banes 12:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 18:58, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 19:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge with Oceanic Flight 815 Sceptre (Talk) 23:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"oceanic flight 815"[edit]

Looks like fancruft from Lost fans. Assuming anybody wants to keep it, it should probably be renamed to something along the lines of Oceanic Airlines Flight 815 or something similar. Delete. - CorbinSimpson 02:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC) After taking another look at the page, I'm changing my suggestion to move to Oceanic Airlines Flight 815. There's been a serious amount of improvement, and it doesn't look as much like a fan page. It needs to be moved. - CorbinSimpson 21:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Movementarian DrIdiot 04:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Keep - article has been revamped DrIdiot 21:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete irrelevant material --Timecop 05:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lost (TV series) --Ajdz 07:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you didn't do so before, scroll down to the bottom of the page... - CorbinSimpson 08:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The above comment is worthless now as the offending paragraph has been removed. - CorbinSimpson 21:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nomination. Perhaps the "cry for help" at the bottom would fit at BJAODN. All the encyclopaedic content that fit Wikipedia is already in the Lost TV series article. Scoo 09:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rename and clean up. Not really cruft as its the crash which establishes the whole series. 30,000 google hits [2] -- Astrokey44|talk 10:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That article is useless. However, perhaps a new, better named, and more encylcopedic artilce can be created.... Banes 12:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Keep Hugely improved. Banes 06:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to either Lost (TV series) or Oceanic Airlines Sceptre (Talk) 12:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Oceanic Airlines.SoothingR 15:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and then delete per Soothing rain. Ifnord 16:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Oceanic flight 815. It violates naming conventions, but may be too large to merge in the the Lost article. xaosflux Talk/CVU 18:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved it per above, because yes, it does violate naming conventions. AFD link has been corrected accordingly. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 22:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep It has had considerable cleanup, and has been moved to new name; Appears nominator has withdrawn as well. There is too much information to merge in to Lost, and there appears to be room for growth. xaosflux Talk/CVU 05:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Oceanic Airlines Dustimagic 19:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. Has too much specific content to really merge into Oceanic Airlines or Lost. Turnstep 22:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Nomination has been withdrawn. -- JJay 22:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not sure if my vote counts seeing as I made the page but I know why the original vote to delete it was cast, I do feel however that it is now just like any encyclopedic entry and has been truly cleaned up I also feel it is a genuine article and should not be merged with oceanic airlines or lost as for one it is to big and secondly it is specificly about the crash and the theories surrounding the plane itself Jezabelda 01:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Sceptre (Talk) --NaconKantari 00:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is undergoing cleanup, has been moved to a more appropriate title, and seems to be notable, at least in the context of the fictional TV series. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 01:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has been improved. --Loopy e 21:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard of the Midwest[edit]

This is a completely idiosyncratic nontopic. It verges on original research because, unlike Public Ivies, there is no definitive list of which schools are included, and no objective standard for which schools qualify. A few sources are cited but they do not demonstrate that the phrase is a true idiom with a well-defined meaning. The phrase simply consists of the combination of a metonymic usage of "Harvard" (to mean "exceptionally good school") with the name of a region of the country, followed by mostly unsourced opinion about which are the exceptionally good schools of the Midwest. Midwestern Ivy League was, properly, deleted; this is just another attempt to reinsert similar material in a different guise. Nominator votes delete. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. This article also has verifiability problems. It claims that every listed institution returns search engine hits, but, for example, Googling on "Harvard of the Midwest" "St. Cloud State University" turns up one hit on the Wikipedia article, one hit on a mirror, one hit saying that a different college is the "Harvard of the Midwest," and a single, sole relevant hit—from someone's "personals" ad. Not convincing evidence that St. Cloud State University is well known as "the Harvard of the Midwest." Dpbsmith (talk) 03:11, 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 Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPengo[edit]

This is a vanity page for a web site. 419 users is hardly a notable web site. OCNative 03:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom DrIdiot 04:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable website. — TheKMantalk 07:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Loopy e 21:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Sceptre (Talk) 23:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don and Drew Show[edit]

Extremely non-notable podcast. no Alexa ranking, 252, no kidding google hits, etc. nn vanity self advertisement podcastcruft. Timecop 03:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Testimonial by drag:I think these guys are really talented. They make a song like in how many days. how many people can do that anyway. Even though it sounds kinda crappy, at least its funnyy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by zzz (talk • contribs) 2006-01-11 09:49:52 UTC
  • Testimonial by Tan DX:Let me testify.This podcast is one of the most downloaded in the world.Honestly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdxiang (talk • contribs) 2006-01-07 04:29:42 UTC
You wish. Honestly. --Timecop 04:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Testimonial by Femmina - kids kiDS KIIDS!!1one -- Femmina 18:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. Incognito 03:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've taken dumps more notable than this article. Cptchipjew 03:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanispamcruftisement --Hosterweis 03:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - please. are they on $3 crack or what?. my ears are bleeding - Femmina 03:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. - Tapir 03:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per reasons above, but it's down to 243 Google hits. OCNative 04:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom DrIdiot 04:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong Talk 04:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if if were the most notable Podcast in the world, the promotional tone of this article is unacceptable. Daniel Case 05:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. This nomination is inaccurate. The article is about a radio show on a nation-wide channel, not just a podcast. The reason given for nomination is therefore inaccurate and it has misled the other votes. Speedy keep and renominate with the correct infomation please. --Vsion 09:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. radio show not just a podcast and its apparently "Singapore's 1st podcast" [3]. -- Astrokey44|talk 10:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of non-notability - not the quality of tha article (which could always be cleaned up.) Ifnord 16:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 19:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Eusebeus 19:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really think these votes need to be re-evaluated. It seems as if the original nomination was confused and thought this was merely a non-notable podcast. Apparently it is a popular Singapore radio show. It's not surprising it doesn't get a lot of English Google hits; maybe try searching in the original language? Cyde Weys votetalk 06:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The show is in ENGLISH. So if it was notable, it would generate enough hits in ENGLISH. As it stands now, it's just some random podcast trying to increase page rank. The only 2 keep votes are 1) the article creator and 2) his friend. (both 13 years olds from singapore). --Timecop 02:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe they are Don and Drew. --Hosterweis 04:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. --Depakote 15:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Googling the website gets a whopping 24 hits, several of which are advertising about the show itself. WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, also note it fails WP:WEB. Proto t c 10:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously, non-notable. --Depakote 15:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Tokek 07:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moffaty & Gideon[edit]

Not notable, google searches yield little. Orphaned. Ezeu 03:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a 3.5-month-old show on a student radio station, so I agree with Ezeu's reasons. OCNative 04:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Local radio station == nn.DrIdiot 04:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia ought to have some notability guidelines for broadcasters. I think this was tried once, with no consensus. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 2 google hits. nn. -- Astrokey44|talk 10:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 18:59, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Utterly nn. --kingboyk 16:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it should be deleted, or maybe it shouldn't. I just don't know. . --Ray Gordon 21:51, 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) 00:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future Skully Record Label[edit]

nn record label, first person, advertising. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:53, 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 Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nerds With Attitude[edit]

Non-notable Geocities website, seems to fail WP:WEB; phrase yields 528 Google hits. Ohnoitsjamie 03:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Ichiro 00:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexual slurs[edit]

This has a long list that violates notablity standards, WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT 1.2.2 and WP:NOT 1.2.3. This list includes terms from several languages with nothing to assert their validity. While some of these are obvious actuall terms, most are likely just cruft and made-up nonsense. Also note that the last AFD was ridden with numerous sockpuppets(users with 1-3 edits)

I recommend that the list be deleted and the rest moved to Sexual slang or perhaps merged into Sexual slurs. The non-list content of this article was already merged into a subsection of sexual slang. If we merge to Sexual slurs, then the subsection in sexual slang must be removed. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Sexual slang.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Strange as it may seem, a lot of people might use this list. It should be marked as cleanup - to take out the bad ones - but the actual idea of the article is OK.DrIdiot 04:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of people will use a lot of things, whether they are true or not or violate policy or not. We need higher standards than this.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Guidelines and policy on Wikipedia are intended to have exceptions. Thinking that Wikipedia should somehow have higher standards than to document this is not a valid criteria for deletion. Adrian Lamo 09:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I was the one who originally nominated this for deletion. It is an uncyclopedic cruft list of sexual slang and has no place here. --Revolución (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd like to say that if any of this content is preserved, I think it should be limited to the prose prior to the actual list (which has actually already been merged to sexual slang), and it should be moved to a new article, sexual slur. I disagree with sexual slang as the merge target for the prose; I believe that the list itself needs to be deleted, period. The Literate Engineer 05:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep "Voice of All" (I think he really believes his name) got caught abusing his admin powers on this topic, and now he's just got a case of Sour Grapes. Most of the content on the page is valid. Either work toward improving it, or don't visit the page. Isn't that what free speech is all about? MonkeyHateClean 05:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not here to be an example of free speech, it is an encyclopedia.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or at least severely prune/cleanup. Most of the entries on this list are not independently verifiable outside a couple of mentions on LiveJournals and the like. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • cleanup Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, with cleanup and verification. — TheKMantalk 07:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification: I support removing all prologisms/unstable neologisms (which, now that I look at it again, turns out to be a good many of them), with verification if possible, and adding a link under "See also" in sexual slang. Though, a merge would be fine with me (my opinions are not too strong on this article). — TheKMantalk 00:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Delete. Generally I vote on AfD's out of pure principle. This is a more pragmatic vote: as a practical matter, cleaning up the cruft is a monumental effort; adding the non-cruft part to Sexual slurs is likely to be a path of less resistance. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and cleanup since even the nom says it can be improved. -- JJay 10:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In response to the request for clarification from Voice of All(MTG) left on my talk page and here, strong keep means exactly what it usually means in English- Keep the article strongly, do not delete, do not merge, do not redirect, do not remove, do not disparage, do not disrespect. Furthermore, clean-up means add some references- it does not mean remove, kill, redirect or merge, as you seem to be implying. I hope this clears everything up for those who were confused by my initial opinion. -- JJay 06:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with sexual slang -- Francs2000 11:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - problem seems to stem from controversial content, and not the topic itself. Needs heavy cleanup, but otherwise, I see no reason to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you examine the nomination statement (again) and explicate to me how it proposes to delete the article based on controversy rather than the policies it cites? Once you've done that, perhaps you might also post a list of the 'delete' related comments which also mention the need to remove controversial content for the sake of it? Thanks. -Splashtalk 23:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine, replace "controversial" with "disputed". My main point remains - it's the content that's the problem, not the topic. Johnleemk | Talk 12:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, with cleanup — What User:MonkeyHateClean said. And there should be some form of censure against User:Voice of All(MTG)'s abuse of his admin powers, imho. — OwenBlacker 14:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, every vandal and trolls call "admin abuse", getting RID of policy vios is "admin abuse", this is just getting old.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 19:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps it's getting old because you keep doing it. MonkeyHateClean 03:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The article's a mess, it's not really a list but an actual entry - which should be merged into sexual slurs. But crappy articles can always be cleaned up and I can conceive of a better list evolving. Ifnord 16:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment addressed to those advising cleanup: Could you describe, either here or on the entry's talk page, what sort of cleanup you reccomend? I think that would be helpful in the event this results in a "no consensus" or "keep, cleanup" closure. The Literate Engineer 18:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes what kind of cleanup do you want? Do you want the list removed?Voice of AllT|@|ESP 19:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer to have sources cited for this list. It is very, very susceptible to a bunch of teens deciding to put their own little inventions inside. Cite sources, people! Johnleemk | Talk 10:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly delete, possibly merging whatever's verifiable into Sexual slang. The intro may contain usable content, but the list part of it is not an article, it's just a magnet for people inventing neologisms and using Wikipedia to promote them. Friday (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to demonstrate the idiocy of this list, I have randomly chosen a word and its definition from the list: shitdick -(U.S.-Ohio)Gay male; one who enjoys anal sex. I ask, is this encyclopedic? Does it have a source for the claim of it coming from Ohio? Or was it that, some anonymous user from Ohio, excited they came upon this "dirty word" list, made up the word "shitdick" on the spot and inserted it into the article. This is most likely the case for most of the words listed. --Revolución (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To demonstrate the viability of the list I randomly chose Jobby Jabber, a term supposedly from Scotland that I had never heard of. I immediately found a printed source that confirmed the usage and derivation. In fact, most of the terms are in wide use and can be referenced to print sources. Editors need to look beyond their personal revulsion and accept that this is really no different from articles like List of political epithets, which unfortunately also lacks any references, notes or bibliography. -- JJay 20:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think if Bill Watterson were still doing the Calvin & Hobbes cartoon series he'd have a field day with this. Those cartoons of Calvin phoning up libraries, trying to get librarians to give him lists of swear words. Now, all Calvin needs to do is look it up in an encyclopaedia! Strong delete JGF Wilks 22:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So your reason for deletion is to protect minors? Turnstep 23:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep although the terms themselves may need verification. Jcuk 23:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. No valid reason for deletion. If words on the page are suspect, remove them to the talk page until they can be validated. Perhaps make a talk subpage of "non-verified words" that should not be added until sourced. Turnstep 23:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Sexual slang, and remove any non-verifiable content. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definitely a useful list. Some people seem to be voting with their biases. --Cyde Weys votetalk 06:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure that people who enforce WP:V are baised. Nice job ignoring all the rules violations I posted and using an ad hominem statement.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 16:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or [non-ideally] Merge -- This content is relevant to a large cross-section of the readership of Wikipedia, and likely to be referenced or used. Slavish adherence to the text of "Wikipedia is/is not" guidelines isn't indicated here. Adrian Lamo 09:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Sexual Slurs. SorryGuy 18:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Unverified content. Delete the list (or transwiki to Wiktionary, if they want to bother with it) and merge any useful content, if any, to Sexual slang, per nominator. - Mike Rosoft 20:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if possible, failing that Merge any verifiable, encyclopedic content with Sexual slurs. Anything that does not satisfy WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:NOT has to go. - brenneman(t)(c) 22:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only what is verifiable. Guettarda 01:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep such American priggery - it never ceases to amaze me. WolframSiever 02:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The trouble with knee-jerk responses is that they generally fail to have paid any attention whatever to the nomination and/or the preceding comments. I wonder if you can document which delete-parts of the debate so far deal with "American priggery" — apart from your own comment, of course. -Splashtalk 04:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wish AfDs were more of a debate, a list of points for and against, in addition to voting. As of now we have numerous policy vios and notablility(6+ and stong) vs. the possibilty of citing and cleanup (1, only addresses 2 points maybe). We do have a lot of idiotic knee-jerk trolling strawman arguments, not that those count. I could imagen Britannica authors discussing what to include in a civilized, reasonable, manner, and they would never even consider many of the keep votes by newer users as they either have no argument or use a strawman(no argument).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 15:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • AFD is a debate; that's why it had its name changed from Votes for Deletion to Articles for Deletion. The problem is that often there can never be a winner, because there are bound to be crucial things which are simply a matter of opinion, and not fact. For instance, that perennial bugaboo, notability. Some people refuse to even accept it as a legitimate reason to delete, while others have different definitions of notability. For instance, this article is notable, IMO, because it compiles a list of different slang words regarding sex without necessitating the creation of a few dozen/hundred articles on each of those slangs, many of which are probably in themselves notable. You, on the other hand, disagree. It's purely a matter of opinion. This is why debates have limitations when it comes to real solutions to real problems. AfD is currently a hybrid of a debate, a vote and something else entirely. Johnleemk | Talk 17:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • On the contrary, Voice of All's nomination does not rely on notability one inch. It cites several bases in policy, not a one of which has been challenged by those saying "keep, because, oh well, because I can't be bothered to work on it myself by detest deletion of lists on principle". If something "compiles a list of words", is not for a dictionary? -Splashtalk 20:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Indeed. While I believe that notability is what stops this encyclopedia from ballooning in size by 100 fold with cruft, that cost money to mantain on the servers, that is not the only reason I listed this. I see it as important, but even if you don't, there are so many other issues I raised that are important policy vios that it really doesn't matter at all what you think of notability.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 22:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Those policies apply to content not topic, like I said. If there's an issue with the content, and the content is salvageable (which at least some of it is), the appropriate action is to tag it for cleanup. And I see no reason why a list of words can't be encyclopedic provided those words have more than definitions (you know, etymological history, pop culture references, etc.). Johnleemk | Talk 02:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup with sources. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for two reasons:
    • See seperate page here for analysis of how August 2005 AfD was manipulated by sockpuppets (who got away with it then but shouldn't continue to be rewarded).
    • Also on that page -- Many of the Keep votes for the August 2005 AfD were basically "Keep but only if cleaned up". It has NOT been cleaned up. I here submit five additional delayed-action Delete votes based on the expressed opinions of those (August) voters. If those votes are not considered then "Keep if cleaned up" means nothing, disrespecting the wishes of those editors.Herostratus 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: All of you voting "Keep if cleaned up"... keep in mind the above, that your vote will be recorded as "Keep", that several voters in August said the same thing, that the article has not been cleaned up since then, that (IMO) it probably won't be now (if kept), and that, if the article isn't cleaned up, there is no mechanism to follow up and convert your votes to "Delete". (I am claiming to do so for the August voters, but (a) that may be considered outlandish and (b) it's very labor-intensive and can't usually be done, I just happened to do it this time.) You might want to reconsider your votes? Herostratus 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to closing administrator to consider, per the above, that previous AfD was manipulated and/or my submission of five addional Delete votes from August. Herostratus 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the voters from August continue to have feelings regarding this matter, they should vote again now. Past performance is no guarantee that this article will not be edited for the better in the future. Adrian Lamo 20:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can't expect editors to follow up their AfD votes like that, watching articles to see if they're cleaned up, re-AfD'ing them after a time if they're not, perhaps contacting the other Keep-if-cleaned-up voters. It's too time-consuming. Also, its inefficent for each voter to follow up their own vote. Here I have done a batch follow-up for all these votes. They made their wishes clear at the time, and it's been six months. I think that's long enough to qualify as "cleanup was not implemented" for the purposes of those (August) votes. Herostratus 21:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You must be joking. As you know, proxy voting is not allowed. We are trying to reach consensus here and referring to imaginary delete voters and your interpretation of past AfDs is not helpful and is insulting to participants in this forum. -- JJay 21:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep does not equal "Keep if cleanup up". The condition has not been meet after 6 months. Now, I do not believe that they still hold 1:1 weight with new votes, but they do have significant weight. What is "insulting" is to just dismiss the conditions of people who had optamistic votes.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 22:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          How do we know whether or not those people are satisfied with the progress the article has made? There have been *lots* of edits to the page since the last AfD. Perhaps it now meets their definition of "clean". Turnstep 02:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • My Keep vote actually represents five additional advanced-action Keep votes for participants who will be here in six months. Like you, I can see read this in the tea leaves. -- JJay 01:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • LOL. Oh yeah? Well... well... I claim an additional vote because I'm pregnant, so there! (not really j/k) Herostratus 16:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • That really didn't help to advance this discussion. I'd urge you to redact. Feel free to delete this if you do. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • A little humor isn't going to cause AfD to burst into flames. It highlights how ... unserious the concept of voting on behalf of random people is. Sorry, Voice of All, but I don't find your assertion that we need mind theoretical votes by hypothetical voters (who can't be bothered to be here, now) to be credible. It goes against the concept of voting, which is to capture the zeitgeist, not to try and figure out what people were thinking six months ago. Adrian Lamo 05:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Future is not the same as the past. These people put up a condition that was not met. Should contracts be ignored because "people might not still remember"? I think not. And using future voters as a strawman is just childish.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 07:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yeah, JJay, c'mon. Are you sure you're arguing from principle rather than stating a principle to support your position? (We all do that sometimes, don't we? But it's not best!) Do you really, as a matter of principle, believe that "Keep if cleaned up"=="Keep"? Will you support that principle if and when it will lose you votes on a future AfD? I'm just asking. Herostratus 16:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unmaintanable listcruft; already covered (better) in other places. An encyclopedia needs this? I think not. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic -Doc ask? 02:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic, and similar to the transwikied List of sexual slang. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To expand on my keep vote earlier, and directly address the nominators concerns:
    • WP:CITE and WP:V -- I maintain that the items on this page *can* be verified and cited, thus the problems of WP:CITE and WP:V are cleanup problems for individual items on the list, not the page as a whole. If it turns out that every item on the page fails WP:CITE and is thus removed, then the page can be deleted at that time for having no content.
    • WP:NOT 1.1.1 -- which says please do not create an entry merely to define a term. This is a list of terms, not a definition of a single one. While some may only be "dicdefs", they are important in the context of the page.
    • WP:NOT 1.2.3 -- which prohibits lists of such definitions. However, this page is more than that: it has text at the top, references, and most important, many of the terms are hyperlinked to actual articles (thus, it is not just a list of dicdefs).
    • This list includes terms from several languages with nothing to assert their validity -- They should be removed if not validated, regardless of the language: see above.
    • While some of these are obvious actuall terms, most are likely just cruft and made-up nonsense -- an argument for cleaning up, not deleting.
    • ...the last AFD was ridden with numerous sockpuppets -- that's a matter for Deletion Review. The article should be evaluated as it exists, not because it somehow "escaped" AfD deletion earlier.
    • Overall, the "no lists of dicdefs" is the only real argument here, but that fails if for no other reason that there are items on the list that link to genuine established non-dicdef articles. Turnstep 03:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impossible to cleanup and keep cleaned up. Not only does experiance with other lists of this type show it, experiance with this list shows it. See Talk:List_of_sexual_slurs#Mini_revert_war for context. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It does make me unhappy that I voted to delete. There is useful info there. For instance... in future decades if someone comes across the term "light in the loafers" in an old manuscript, there ought to be some place to look that up. But I think cleaning up this article is Augean task, and I don't think its going to happen, and then it will have to be continually maintained. IF someone were to pledge to do a major cleanup, fairly soon, and maintain the article, that might be diferent. Anybody? Herostratus 16:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems easy enough to clean up. Much easier to clean up than a lot of the overblown political dreck on so many wiki pages. WhiskyWhiskers 18:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, need for cleanup is immaterial to AFD, does not violate WP:NOT. // paroxysm (n) 23:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most definitely unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. No amount of "clean-up" would make this puppy acceptable. Sunray 06:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can be fixed and maintained. Ashton Coochter 23:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satingear.com[edit]

Spam for a nonnotable little company Zantastik 04:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per it belongs in the yellow pages. --Jay (Reply) 04:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom DrIdiot 04:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. OCNative 06:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable company. — TheKMantalk 07:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 19:04, 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 merge. Not an issue for AfD. Don't forget to leave a redirect to 2006 Sago Mine disaster when you're done. howcheng {chat} 08:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CNN Coverage of Sago Mine Disaster[edit]

I am not downplaying the tragedy at Sago Mine. I am just proposing that this article be appropriately merged with the main article under "Media Coverage" for example. It is just a little too much for there to be an encyclopedia article about a news channel's coverage of an event
--Jay (Reply) 04:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inherently Dangerous[edit]

Nom & vote Del (after removing Speedy-G1 tag on grounds of being far from patent nonsense as defined at CSD). This topic may be worth covering, but this article is not a help toward that (thus not a candidate for merging). If you favor coverage, expand and probably rename the Fail-Safe article that some earlier revisions referenced.
--Jerzy•t 04:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete patent nonsense.--Ezeu 05:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dumb dictdef Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pompous yet trivial dictdef incapable of expansion and unworthy of transwiki. Durova 08:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. JackO'Lantern 09:04, 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 Delete all. enochlau (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of streets in Comerica City, 15th Street (Comerica City), List of Comerica City streets, 23-42, Goddard Street (Comerica City), Broadway Street (Comerica City), Sixth Street (Comerica City), Comerica City's Major Avenues, First Street (Comerica City), Second Street (Comerica City), 2nd Street Spartan Supermarket, Third Street (Comerica City), Antoine Street (Comerica City), Alex Elementary School (Comerica City)[edit]

Looks like fanfiction or something. See Talk:Peanuts#Alex_Elementary_School_.28Comerica_City.29. Kappa 19:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this and related contributions by User:Gerald15. Some kind of Charlie Brown fan fiction by a kid in Detroit. Gazpacho 20:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ~MDD4696 22:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD discussions now merged here. Votes below were on one or more of the individual articles.
  • Delete along with all other Comerica fancruft. MattHucke(t) 21:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - all Comerica City articles are fancruft with anorak tendencies of the highest order. doktorb | words 21:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • VERY STRONG DELETE. Patent nonsense! OCNative 06:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't need every corner store in the world. This is worse than the "Taylor, Michagan" streetcruft and the Toronto buildingcruft we saw a few weeks ago. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Astrokey44|talk 10:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only do we not need an article on every corner store in the world, this store doesn't even exist in the fictional world. None of this "Comerica City" nonsense has ever been mentioned anywhere in any comic strip, movie, TV special, book, interview, or cuneiform tablet by Charles Schulz. Gerald15 keeps creating made-up articles regarding the Peanuts characters. --Birdhombre 20:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions Charlie Brown and Linus so I assume it's the school that these fictional characters attend. That wouldn't make it eligible for inclusion in any serious encyclopedia but, hey. Sbz5809 18:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would we verify that these fictional characters attend the school? Kappa 18:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it were up to me, I'd require that the person who posted it provide verification, and if such were not forthcoming, I'd delete it as meaningless garbage. Actually, I'd delete it anyway, but that's just me. Sbz5809 19:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming it can be verified, I'd vote to Merge this with the main peanuts article Jcuk 19:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New votes here

Delete as rampant fancruft. We would probably not allow these trivial streets even if they were real - whcih they are not. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 00:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all, cruft that got out of hand. I couldn't find anything about this comerica city so none of these have any chance of being notable.- Bobet 00:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All This is worse than the "Taylor, Michagan" streetcruft and the Toronto buildingcruft we saw a few weeks ago. NOTE: I'm moving this vote down to here since I now want to vote on all the articles. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 02:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who nominated these things, I would have thought my nominations would count as deletes, but since they don't, delete. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete. Information about Comerica could be added to this article. Very large portions of all the different articles should be deleted though. - MB (Talk) 11:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would make sense if there is good evidence that Comerica City is normally associated with the Penuts strip. A Google for "Comerica City" Peanuts reveals precisely one hit - and that's the author's edit to add this list to the article on Peanuts (comic strip). As far as I can tell (and I am not a Peanuts weenie) the name Comerica City was made up by the author and is not used elsewhere, certainly not in the strip itself. If this is wrong then I will change my vote to merge for all verifiable information - but here again we may have an issue since the only source I can find for any of these names is the author's Wikipedia articles. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad. Delete per nom. - MB (Talk) 14:22, 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 WhiteNight T | @ | C 08:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pussy City Pimps[edit]

Locations from a romhacked NES game. Makes no attempt to establish notability. Delete as non-notable and possible vanity. --InShaneee 05:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per FCYTravis. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The speedy deleted was contested on WP:DRV. I have undeleted it as I think it's only fair that non-admins can see the content and engaged in reviewing the deletion. I'll unclose the Afd. Friday (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting for more discussion.

  • Comment: At this point in the discussion, Voice of All speedy-deleted the article commenting "no notability at all". This is not a valid speedy-deletion criterion. I have temporarily undeleted the article and am re-opening this discussion. Please do not speedy-delete this article again without a valid cite to an accepted speedy-deletion criterion. Rossami (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ridiculous, non-notable, un-encyclopedic, speculative (ie."If it were a real city, it would be located in either western British Columbia, California, or Florida due to its year-round warm climate and liberal attitudes towards sexuality"). Are these the only places that have year round warm weather? Silliness. Hamster Sandwich 19:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted - as utterly unreferenced and unencyclopedic junk, per WP:NOT and WP:IAR. The "article" isn't even about the game, but rather a speculative, original-research "discussion" of the "city" the game was apparently located in. If someone wants to write an article *on the game itself* discussing why the game is notable, its history, sources, etc. - they are free to recreate it, but as it stood the article was 100% Pure USDA Choice BS. This ridiculous insistence on endless bureaucratic hoops to delete clearly inappropriate articles is destructive to Wikipedia. FCYTravis 20:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since this was brought to WP:DRV I think it's reasonable to undelete. I'm not even saying I particularly disagree with the speedy, but since we've been asked, there's no reason not to allow more time for discussion. Friday (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this hack of a 1989 game which is still being discussed in 2006 and has a nice comprehensive review at i-mockery.com. I don't see why wikipedia users shouldn't be able to read about it. Kappa 02:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari 02:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep new micro-stub I wrote, pending someone with enough interest to actually write an encyclopedic article about the subject. FCYTravis 04:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since the article was re-written as a stub, I struck out my original opinions. Now I just say its non-notable and non-encyclopedic. A game hack? From 1989? With no citations provided? Puh-leeze. Hamster Sandwich 05:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So we should delete all game hacks, or just all game hacks from 1989? Kappa 05:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think what he's saying is, there's lots of software in the world. A particular piece of software with no indication of importance doesn't need an article. Putting whatever sources are available into the article would surely help, but IMO just because it's reviewd on a website doesn't make it encyclopedic. Friday (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So it will be easy to find information about all the other rom hacks released in 1989? Kappa 05:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the Hamsterwich. Friday (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Game hacks can be discussed in articles on that game. Gamaliel 05:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And people who search for game hacks should be invited to start new articles about them? Kappa 05:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete and replace with a redirect then. Gamaliel 06:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So people who search for game hacks should be redirected to pages which have no information about them? Kappa 07:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, we could place the information in this article into the game article. Geesh, enough with the strawmen. Gamaliel 09:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • So that would be a merge vote then? Kappa 17:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • No. 18:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
                • Maybe you should familiarize yourself with wikipedia policy on respecting copyright. Kappa 19:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Don't you have an article to go write somewhere? Gamaliel 19:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Frankly the idea that my contributions can be deleted without any respect for wikipedia policy does not motivate me to write articles. Kappa 19:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Please, guys, it seems clear to me you aren't going to agree here. I don't see that anyone's trying to violate policy, we're expressing our (sometimes opposed) opinions on whether to keep this article. Friday (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to River City Ransom. Thanks to this little stub I have the urge to fire up an NES emulator.  ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No brainer.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Delete. Original research. --Improv 06:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable homebrew title. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. Has seven hundred Google hits Compared to the first other ROM hack in my brain. Which is also not notable, by the way. - brenneman(t)(c) 12:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I make that 1,080 google hits vs 1,480 google hits. Kappa 17:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? I still get 700 vs 1700. Google works in mysterious ways. Thanks for checking my work, though. - brenneman(t)(c) 21:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per other votes above. -R. fiend 16:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn --kingboyk 16:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether 700 or 1,080 Google hits, the fact that a game from 1989 (e.g. pre-Google, pre-www) gets that many hits today makes it notable. Turnstep 06:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with River City Ransom. Interesting, but not really significant enough for a separate article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete individual ROM hacks are neither notable nor encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambi 13:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Sjakkalle. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perverse gamercruft. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 12:00, Jan. 11, 2006
  • Delete nn: Sjakkalle, others are right. Eusebeus 19:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He-Man (NES ROM hack)[edit]

User created hack of an NES game. Makes no attempt to establish notability. Delete. --InShaneee 05:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless notability can be established, or even the info verified -- Astrokey44|talk 10:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination. FredOrAlive 12:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Izehar 19:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was a redirect is more appropriate, and the POV material will be gone once the redirect is effected. Johnleemk | Talk 07:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Scams, Microsoft scams[edit]

Too inherently POV and nothing that can't be handled under Common criticisms of Microsoft, as it seems to admit. Daniel Case 05:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 07:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spock and Data[edit]

Article covers two Star Trek characters, each of whom has an article already, and are the only sources of inbound links. Christopherlin 05:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 07:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Mammal Nice Chipmunks II[edit]

Non-notable romhack, and probable vanity judgeing from the comment left on the discussion page. Delete --InShaneee 05:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, I didn't write this up, someone else did, I just edited it for accuracy. But yeah, delete it. Juggaleaux 01:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Google search of "Teenage Mammal Nice Chipmunks II" -wikipedia yields six hits. Turnstep 23:19, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 07:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phineas Spellbinder[edit]

Not notable vanity. No information found on the same. Delete. -- Krash 05:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an ad. OCNative 06:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't establish notability. Writing for an ejournal is something anyone can do, and I basically just did by typing this. DreamGuy 11:03, 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 no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unitary Islamic Bosnia (Note: name of the article was changed into Bosniak nationalism)[edit]

as stated by previous users on article's talk page hellenica 05:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. The concept is not recognised nor in use. There is no political party that makes this supposed movement a part of its platform. A google search for "Unitary Islamic Bosnia" in English, Bosnian, and Serbian, comes up with zero results, aptly illustrating the fact that this alleged movement is unknown even locally. The sources used to justify the alleged movement nearly all come from highly controversial radical serb sites with obvious agendas (i.e. SrpskaMreza), or succumb to logical fallacies. It is a clear case of "partisan screed, or opinion masquerading as fact", which is listed as one of the basic reasons why an article should be deleted. For instance, the article states that the political goal "is often hidden behind the pro-European and pro-democratic rhetorics of the Bosniak politicians..." - the article's lone author clearly making an opinionated judgement of the "real" intentions of politicians who promote the exact opposite of this alleged policy. Furthermore, none of these "ethnic Bosniak politicans" described in the article would ever agree to be supporting this idea. There is absolutely no valid reason to keep this article; the topic is not grounded in reality and is a clear attempt to insert a highly controversial POV and bias into wikipedia. The few valid facts that the article might have should be integrated into existing and undisputed articles where they would belong. Asim Led 06:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per original nom of speedy delete (this should only be considered ONE vote for deletion - not including my nom herein) and for very reasons outlined by above user. Neutral/Keep Willing to assume good faith for the time being and allow author to verify the data, but seems as if the author is already involved in other dubious articles. Article appears to be false material meant to defame and demonize an ethno-religious group. hellenica 06:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC) I have attempted a drastic alteration to POV, and in its current incarnation (with a bit of cleanup and sourcing) is far more acceptable. Articles do exist pertaining to irrendist and nationalism movements of other ethnic groups in the Balkans, excluding this article would then be POV in and of itself. Care should of course be exercised to only include verifiable fact. It should also be noted that both User:Alihodza (Bosniac POV) and User:Bongo11 (non-Bosnian POV) have only been created in the past 24-hours and only have edits pertaining to this article and AfD; possible sock-puppetry in action. hellenica 15:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me: I am not a sock puppet. I have been a non-registered wikipedia user for a long time and only decided to work on the basis of my login after Jimbo's recent policy changes. Also, what on earth is this label of Bosniak POV that you give me? I do not see the world in ethnic terms, nor should you. Plus, I am not a Bosniak. I do not assume you are an apologist for Serb genocide just because of your Helllenic handle. Grant me the same respect please. Alihodza 21:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this user had only 1 previous edits -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article appears to come across as factual, but only until you read the 3rd paragraph does it begin to sound inappropriate. The 3rd paragraph reads as if the article is attempting to propagate some sort of opinionated conspiracy. I suppose if that were deleted the article would be acceptable, but since I'm not an expert on this, this decision should be relegated to more knowledgable editors. --HappyCamper 06:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have removed the 3rd paragraph. Nikola 06:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I...um...what they said. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - for all reasons above. Interestingly the article appeared while high profile negotiations are taking place in Bosnia and Herzegovina regarding constitutional changes that need to re-define the structure of the country. Highly politicised and factually wrong. --Dado 06:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Dado this article is certainly part of their Greater serbian conspiracy! now they want to influence negotiations through Wikipedia! It should be deleted!!

  • Keep - The name of the article was changed into Bosniak nationalism, and I do not think that anybody would deny that such nationalism exist. If we have articles about Greater Serbia and Croatian nationalism, why not about this one too? Is it a taboo or what. Also, I wrote this article for the sake of the neutrality policy of Wikipedia, since much is written on Wikipedia about Serbian nationalism with the purpose to demonize Serbian people. The Greater Serbia article is much larger POV that this, but I do not deny that some small number of Serbs support this idea. Who can say here that only Serbian nationalism exist, and Bosniak one not? For the NPOV policy, both nationalisms should have their own articles. As for my sources, I posted them here: Talk:Bosniak nationalism. Can you explain why these sources are not credible? You just used word "not credible", with no explanation why. For example, here are excerpts from the "Islamic declaration" written by Alija Izetbegović, a former Bosnian president: [4]. What is wrong with the credibility of this source? PANONIAN (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the fact that it doesnt mention Bosnia or Bosniaks once could pose a problem? Asim Led 18:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is simply an inflammatory piece of Serbian propaganda. The original concept that was the originall title does not exist as per the talk page for the piece, and later edits are an attempt to imply that Bosniak political parties want a mono-ethnic "Greater Bosnia". Whilst there is a mountain of evidence to suggest the reverse is true, the author has been unable to demonstrate that mainstream Bosniak parties actually espouse this view. Vague references to "Bosniak nationalism" from mostly Serbian propaganda sources are not enough to make the case. Alihodza 11:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this user had only 1 previous edits -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Proces of unitarization of Bosnia is underway. The rest (see above) is Muslim propaganda. Bongo11 13:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this user had never edited before -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please remain civil, "propaganda" is a loaded term, POV is better. hellenica 18:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. it is present and it sucks (Bosnian nationalism)--TheFEARgod 15:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please remain civil, "suckage" isnt very nice. hellenica 18:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Fabrication, the concept is not recognised nor in use. --HarisM 16:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the article is now renamed and speaks about a different concept, which is recognised and in use, so that this vote is no longer valid. Nikola 08:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, Nonsense. No proofs (concept never recognized) and as author said, just a crap. --Emir Arven 13:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. The comment is not "no longer valid", it is still perfectly fine. One look at the time of the comment shows that the user decided to vote for deletion even after the move was made. Your cheap attempt to invalidate opposing votes has been noted. Asim Led 20:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is a perfect example of using Wikipedia for spreading lies. An article about Bosniak nationalisam would be more than welcome, but then with a neutral content. Namek 17:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's earliest edit is 1/4/06, almost all edits having to do with similar topics. Namek, feel free to contribute to the article from a Bosnian perspective. hellenica 18:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, but are there any contributions of which u could say that they contain incorrect information? Namek 17:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I havent looked at the articles in detail because that isnt the point. The issue here for AfD is your short lifespan and concentration on one topic area. hellenica 20:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • My short short lifespan can be explaind from the fact that i have just recentley created an Wikipedia account. My presence on Wiki is much older, and as u can see every dag I contibute to more subjects.
  • Strong delete It started off as one sided and POV (along with a lot of fantasy). It is still POV - just 2 sided POV.Dejvid 18:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - this vote is non-actionable. The only reason for deletion given by this user is that the article is POV. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Problems that don't require deletion include "article is biased or has lots of POV". Nikola 08:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Bosniak nationalism? does such a thing exist? no it does not! and it is a totally ridiculuos attempt to remove attention from serbian nationalism by insolently accusing bosniaks of the same thing. Bosniak/bosnian authorities or goverment has never expressed any nationalism, as far as I know it is the serbian jugoslavic goverment who are the ones accused of ethnic cleansing and agression on countries in the balkans. All bosniaks did during the war was to defend Bosnia from being split up between neighbouring countries. And all bosniaks do after the war is to keep the country together. Therefore such a thing as bosniak nationalism does not exist, if you doubt please then look at the war datas from the war and you will see that bosniak civilians died 30 times more than serbian or croatian civilans. STRONG DELETE. Damir Mišić 19:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After reviewing the exchange on the talk page, seems like a clear candidate for removal, not to mention a dumping ground for exciting competing balkan political passions. Ugh. Eusebeus 19:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It exists and this is a base for explaining it to the world.It`s one of the reasons for war in B&H. --CrniBombarder!!! (†) 20:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? Look again what you wrote and then look all facts that exists, all books... and i don't speak this on base of readings books but on that that i stayed all 4 years of war, and war DIDN'T started becuase som Bosniak exstremism. Just see what Karadjic said... " Don't think you won't take Bosnia and Herzegovina to hell and the Muslims into annihilation...". Your comment is non sense. --HarisM 23:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, wasn't he right? They did took Bosnia to hell and the Muslims into annihilation. Nikola 06:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reductio ad Hitlerum. I agree with that, I don't agree with him on everything. Me, you and him all agree that he is accused for genocide by the ICTY. Nikola 09:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I wanted to vote delete but have then checked whether there are such articles about various nations, and there are: Nationalism#See also lists Arab Nationalism, Japanese nationalism and Nationalism in the United States, among others. So if they exist, this article should exist too, if it's currently POVed it could be NPOVed (hopefully). An article being POV is not a reason for its deletion. Nikola 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. According to this user's logic we should also have articles on "Fur nationalism" or "Nationalism in Liechtenstein". Just because there are articles about nationalism among some nations doesn't justify articles about nationalism among all nations. Asim Led 20:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. We surely should have "Fur nationalism" or "Nationalism in Liechtenstein" if they are as notable as Bosniak nationalism is. For example, if they were used to start a war with 100,000 casaulties. Nikola 09:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Because this is largely unsung and important topic, and we need a series of articles on this (not to delete the only existing article). If we delete this one... well, then it would be only fair to grant a quota for every nation: say nation XYZ puts a veto on articles A, B, and C, hence we delete those articles. -- Obradović Goran (talk 14:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Dado is removing internal links to the redirect to this article (see [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and [12]), which are all articles which logically should have them, to the point that currently there is no Wikipedia article that links to it (but I am just about to change that). I see this as an attempt to rig the VfD voting process, as people who are interested in the topic but don't follow VfD won't even know about the article and so won't come and vote. I suggest that, because of this, at least Dado's vote shouldn't count, and maybe vote process should last three days longer than it usually does, so that effects of this are reduced (Dado removed the links on 7th). Nikola 08:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or we can view it as I have helped repair those articles by removing term that is clearly disputed (at least until it is decided if the term "Unitary Islamic Bosnia" should remain on this Wikipedia). Your attempt to make a political issue of this voting is not wellcomed. Your attack on my intentions and my right to vote and be equally respected here have been noted as a personal attack. It seams to me that you are more inclined towards rigging anything since you are bringing it up. Voting typically lasts 7 days for any article (per HappyCamper). I don't see why would this case would be any different. --Dado 18:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some of the links have been removed again, this time by Asim Led. I strongly suggest that his and Dado's vote should not count because of this. Nikola 06:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I strongly suggest that this user, as usual,should not be taken seriously seeing as his objection to the perfectly reasonable removal of a term pending deletion arises from his own personal POV in this debate rather than some concern over wikipedia ettiquete. Asim Led 06:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I strongly suggest that this user should be beaten with a clue stick, preferably over the head. You are trying to create impression ("pending deletion") that the article will certainly be deleted and removing the links to it, to make other people think that way. That is precisely the reason why they should not be removed. I returned the links again. Nikola 09:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Nonsense. It seems that just Serb hard-core nationalist users who already had many conflicts with other users vote for keeping this article. As the author of this article (called "Unitary Islamic Bosnia" in the first place?!) said, it was just a crap. Now people who followed him voted for the crap. Why? I explained their motive in the discussion page. The others who voted for the crap gave unreasonable explanations talking about possibilites not reallity. They lost their credibility, showing nationalistic motive, not scientific approach. --Emir Arven 13:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. It seems that only Bosniak hard-core nationalist users who already had many conflicts with other users vote for deleting this article. Nikola 09:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Except that seven of the people who voted for deletion aren't Bosniaks. Asim Led 22:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Propaganda without encyclopedic value. This is pure politically-motivated absurdity. --demicx 14:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I just want to reminder here that AFD is NOT A VOTING, as it's been asked on IRC for votes -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:NOT original research; this article is, and will likely remain so. The Land 20:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Why do you think that this article is original research? Nikola 06:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm assuming because he believes you have yet to present any real proof of its validity (perhaps because you haven't). Asim Led 22:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article needs a lot of work but the checking that I have done has discovered some Bosnian politicians who have made arguments which are along these lines. For example Alija Izetbegovic opened a branch of his SDA party in Sandzak outside Bosnia in 1990 and "argued that should Serbia and Montenegro decide to unify in some future new federation or confederation, the Moslems of the Sandzak would demand both cultural and political autonomy" (Broken Bonds by Lenard J. Cohen, p. 144). I have also seen characterizations of Izetbegovic's earlier writings such as the Islamic Declaration which are of the nationalist kind. David | Talk 20:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alija Izetbegovic's "Islamic Declaration" does not mention Bosnia or Bosniaks once, while the Sandzak comment in no way supports the alleged "irredentist" nature as it has nothing to do with territorial ambitions seeing as it took place at a time when all the regions were one country.. Asim Led 20:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember children, there can be no peace or coexistence between the Islamic faith and non-Islamic societies! Alija's book is an example of Pan-Islamism. If that is the only book that shows some traces of Bosniak nationalism, you might have a point. That is not the case. Nikola 09:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What part of Islam being a religion and not a nationality don't you understand? If you want to mention Izetbegovic's early writings as an example of pan-Islamism go ahead, but trying to portray a theological discussion that doesnt mention Bosnia or Bosniaks once as an example of so-called "Bosniak nationalism" is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Asim Led 22:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First, Islamic Declaration has nothing to do with the subject. Noel Malcolm explained in his book "Bosnia: A Short History" (Chapter "Bosnia and Death of Yugoslavia: 1989-1992") that the book has nothing to do with neither fundamentalism nor nationalism. He explained how Serb propaganda took same quotes from the context (there you can read some examples) trying to present this book as something it is not. For instance the main part of the book is about moral values in Islam. It is generally about muslims all over the world. The second thing is that the user who first created this article as "Unitary Islamic Bosnia" has himself stated that "This article is crap" [13] because he thought that Serbs were demonized in every discussion. So it was his little revenge. --Emir Arven 23:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noel Malcolm's writing on the Balkans are known as propaganda. Nikola 09:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This is serbian fasizam and as far as I know, wikipedija don´t support fasizam!!!!!!Dr. Muu 11:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Only edits of this user before the article was listed for deletion were his user page, uploading of three images, neither of them used anywhere, revert war on Albanians and Talk:Albanians. Nikola 08:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • However, he's also a significant member of the bosnian-language wikipedia community. In the vote on Serbophobia, a similar situation occured with a Serbian user who only had a handful of interwiki edits but had his vote counted. I don't see why this should be any different. Asim Led 22:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The user who originally started this article has himself stated that "The article is crap" and created as a form of revenge to heated debates on Serb articles.[14] Asim Led 19:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This and following comment have been placed on the top of this page, out of established practice on AfD, obviously in hope that people who come will see them first and vote on that impression. I moved them below. I again suggest that this user's vote should be disregarded because of this. (Dr. Muu did the same, but he is a newbie so it doesn't apply)
      • My vote was the first on the top of this page. As far as I'm aware, moving a page to a new location as soon as its brought up for deletion isn't exactly an established practice on AfD either. I merely added a comment to my original vote to reinforce my point following your bad attempt to save an inherently POV article. As for your pathetic attempts to have my perfectly valid vote discounted because of an alleged agenda, you shouldn't throw stones if you live in a glass house - and you clearly do. Asim Led 22:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The quote is taken out of context. The user wrote The article is crap, as most other articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina (this country is a lost case for the goals of Wikipedia). Apparently, he refers to state of the article after your edits and Dado's edits (you are responsible for that situation in BH-related articles). Anyway, he voted KEEP on this very page. Nikola 08:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You forget to mention that right after he noted that the article was "crap" he explained that he created it as a form of retribution to percieved bias against Serbs elsewhere on wikipedia. And what "situation in BH-related articles" am I responsible for? Getting them featured on the front page? What exactly have you done to improve the state of BH-related articles? Better yet, what haven't you done to make the situation worse? Every BH-related article you have touched has turned into an edit-war. From being struck down in your corrupt bargain-like nomination for administrator due to extreme bias and nationalism to runing everything you touch, you are not one to talk about responsibilty for the current state of balkan-related articles. Asim Led 22:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Though the page has been moved, the situation reamins relatively unchanged. Despite this, supporters of keeping the article (nearly all of them users from the Serbian language wikipedia) claim that it should be kept considering the presence of other "(people name) nationalism" articles on wikipedia. Ignoring for a second the giant logical fallacy in this argument (Should wikipedia also have articles on "Fur nationalism" or "Nationalism in Lichtenstein"?), or the fact that all such articles about nationalism in the region were created by these same Serbian users, it should be noted that a google search for Bosniak nationalism finds less than .5% of the total number of sites a similar search for "Serbian/Serb" nationalism does, while a serbian language search finds a whopping one article (a wikipedia discussion page). No matter how persistently its twisted or presented to appear acceptable, this was and still is a poor attempt to force POV into wikipedia. I thus hope that well-meaning members of our community will join the effort to not let Wikipedia's credibility be ruined by inherently biased and irrepairable articles put forward by proponents of the by now infamous Serb radicalism. Asim Led 20:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some users here said that Bosniak nationalism doesn't exist. An example of it which recently stirred much controversy is a statement by Bisera Turkovic, Bosnian ambassador to the US, and one of the founders of Bosniak SDA, together with Izetbegovic. She said that "it will take time, but people in B&H will certainly stop calling themselves Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks and they will all inevitably become Bosnians"[15]. (If you don't understand how is this a statement of Bosniak nationalism, you should note that "Bosniaks" actually means "Bosnians" and hence Bosniaks speak, not Bosniak language, but Bosnian language. Naming of the language is intentionally chosen as a step towards this goal.) I am adding this in the article at some of the places where citations are needed. Nikola 09:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are again spreading incorrect information, as you did before and do now in Bosnian-related articles. I have just read her statement. First she said it was her personal opinion. Second, she said that Bosnia should follow USA model. It means that Bosniaks, Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats should identify themselves with their own country Bosnia and Herzegovina as Americans do identify themselves with USA. Also, she says every man has right to preserve his/her ethnicity, religion, culture etc. Third, this is actually argument against "Bosniak nationalism". If someone says that Bosniaks should call themselves Bosnians it is not Bosniak nationalism, it is anti-Bosniak nationalism. Bosniak doesnt mean Bosnian. I will not comment the crap about the language and your visions. --Emir Arven 18:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bosniak means Bosnian. And the language of Bosniaks/Bosnians has always been Bosnian Damir Mišić 20:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once in the past it meant. Nowdays, no. --Emir Arven 21:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes. Saying that when outside of the country people will present themselves as Bosnians instead of Bosniaks and then making sure to clarify that this is your personal view rather than a political policy is a wonderful example of Bosniak nationalism. Give me a break Smolenski. Asim Led 22:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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


Keep itDzoni 20:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Data Technology Services[edit]

Non notable company and product, article is practically empty.TheRingess 00:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Cyberevil 02:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - less than 1,000 non-Wikipedia Google hits is pretty darn low for a tech company! Blackcats 04:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of significance in article. Claimed notability is not substantiated: googling "Image Wizard" + "Data Technology Services" gives 5 Wikipedia mirror sites. Sliggy 10:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no significant content, little evidence of notability. Cedars 02:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Izehar 19:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet WP:CORP Werdna648T/C\@ 08:02, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 18:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burmle[edit]

This article can never be expanded, because no furthur information exists. Any info relating to Burmle belongs on the relevant LEXX episode page. LeonWhite 23:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 06:08, 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 delete. --Celestianpower háblame 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EditMe.com[edit]

Fails WP:WEB on all three pointsSoothingR 21:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP. Editme.com is not only a website but a service that provices Wiki functionality to users and a super-affordable price.--AAAAA 00:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cyberevil 02:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete shitty spam. Incognito 06:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 06:19, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Rut (locale)[edit]

Term was invented by article author and does not appear to be in common use. SCEhardT 20:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The term does seem to exist but does not seem to be very popular (excluding references to the band and the play which share the same name). Also, this is barely a dicdef. The claims of authorship seem to be completely unsupported and are probably false, given the other uses of the phrase. ManoaChild 22:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 06:19, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 08:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Paysan[edit]

This stub article was listed as a candidate for speedy deletion. I believe that the article's statement that the person in a professional wrestler in Canada's Northern Championship Wrestling makes this an improper CSD but I am listing it here out of courtesy to the editor whose speedy tag I removed. No vote at this time. -- DS1953 talk 06:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added all the other wrestlers from this company not yet AfDed. Delete them all as non-notable on their own. Possibly merge with the Northern Championship Wrestling article if necessary. Harro5 06:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Harro5. Stifle 01:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this to generate more discussion (two deletes and one abstention is not enough). But I have removed the other names that Harro5 added, because {{afd}} templates were never added to four of those pages, and the other two have already been deleted. Harro5, it's all right to list several articles in one AFD, but if you do, all articles must have the AFD template on them linking to this discussion. --Angr (t·c) 19:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 06:22, 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, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Vegas[edit]

This stub article was listed as a candidate for speedy deletion. I believe that the article's statement that the person in a professional wrestler in Canada's Northern Championship Wrestling makes this an improper CSD but I am listing it here out of courtesy to the editor whose speedy tag I removed. No vote at this time. -- DS1953 talk 06:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain. I see where the speedy nominator comes from. It makes a claim to notability, but really doesn't say anything useful apart from that. CSD A1 was appropriate, but if anyone is willing to add a line or two of basic information, I'd be happy to keep this without reservations. - Mgm|(talk) 10:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable biography. There are many wrestlers and they come and go. Hu 18:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's also scores of professional footballers, and atletes, but we still keep those. If you're going to delete this, please do it based on lack of content. Notability shouldn't be an issue with professional sportsmen. - Mgm|(talk) 08:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Professional wrestlers are not sportspeople, they are performers. We do not have pages for every obscure performer in a band. Hu 09:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this to generate more discussion. --Angr (t·c) 18:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per footballers et al Jcuk 20:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 00:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per what we ought to be doing with footballers, et alii. Not a notable person. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep professional sportsman/entertainer. Let's put the users first. Kappa 06:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- no consensus should (IMHO) always point to keeping -- SockpuppetSamuelson 08:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Hu. -- Phædriel *whistle* 11:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC
  • Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 13:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not buying it. --maclean25 00:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari 00:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google for "Manuel Vegas" Quebec yields 1,150 hits, showing notability. Visiting the first couple links shows validity. This is a wrestling stub, not some high school student get trying to feign notability. Turnstep 03:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Degz[edit]

Claims notability. Is a hoax. Discuss. - Bobet 17:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Whether it is a hoax or not, being the friend of someone famous does not entitle you to an article in Wikipedia. Movementarian 18:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete above Ashibaka tock 06:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Delete I've read a couple of notable Marley biographies and many of his associates have been mentioned. This Degz guy ain't one of them. --CJ Marsicano 07:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, possible hoax. — TheKMantalk 07:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Izehar 19:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN-bio, hoax Werdna648T/C\@ 07:54, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwidezation[edit]

Neologism. Zero results from Google search. Spondoolicks 17:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 06:26, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Obadiah Douglas-McLeod[edit]

No Google hits, except in Wikipedia mirrors, looks like a hoax. Pilatus 17:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - definite hoax (I checked the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography to be sure). The giveaway, apart from the lack of verification, is the joke definition for the Douglas Pouch, which is something else entirely (see Pouch of Douglas and Google). Associated articles with references to Laurence Obadiah Douglas-McLeod inserted from the same IP addresses (i.e. MacLeod and Nicholas McLeod) have been fact-checked since the AfD first went up. Tearlach 17:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 06:26, 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) 00:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Belmont Conspiracy Project[edit]

This article is nominated for the sake of completeness. A number of related articles have already been deleted (see AfD for Dj Ryko Suave; Mc Radiation and Big Pimping E were speedy deleted). I abstain on this nomination. Mindmatrix 16:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 06:27, 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 no consensus. Ichiro 05:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After looking up on the contribs, users who voted for keep has almost no contributions at all. Result changed to delete--Ichiro 05:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hillard Library[edit]

No Google hits for "Hillard Library Snape. Speedy Delete as hoax vandalism from a known hoaxer. Pilatus 16:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but edit - Although he does seem to have a history of this sort of thing, I think user ‘Archibald Wednesday’ has actually written a genuine article here, although it perhaps needs a little revising to make it more accurate. The ‘Hillard Library’ isn’t really a library in the sense of a building, but a private collection of medieval texts actually kept in Buxlow Manor, which is closest to Snape in its postal address. The only reason I know of it is from an article I remember in the local newspaper from when I lived in Suffolk, where the British Museum were pushing for the texts to be released to the general public. I assume it was then opened to the public, although I’m surprised that there is nothing on Google about it. Perhaps they want to keep it quiet! Have you tried any of the other search engines? - Charles Bingham 10:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified Dlyons493 Talk 09:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dlyons. Werdna648T/C\@ 07:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but make changes to detail suggested in above email. Tzts, 11:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TZTS, but I believe it was actually the British Library, not the British Museum who were interested in the Hillard Library. Milord, 11:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The British Library was part of the British Museum until 1973, so which institution wanted to have access to the library depends on date. Graehem22 17:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Schonewille[edit]

This article is nominated for the sake of completeness. A number of related articles have already been deleted (see AfDs for Support Local Trade, Adam Hayes, Martin Hudson, and Leon armstrong). I abstain on this nomination. Mindmatrix 16:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the people of St Helens not liking his pies make him particularly notable? I don't think so. Article waffles far too much as well. Delete. Average Earthman 13:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Earthman Werdna648T/C\@ 07:47, 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. — JIP | Talk 14:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Champagne fashion brunch[edit]

Doesn't appear to be reference material. -- (aeropagitica) UK 15:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It looks like an attempt to advertise something. --Metropolitan90 06:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn advert ("registered trademark") with not enough background information to expand. --Interiot 10:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best a dictionary definition, or more probably an advert. Narrow scope, with constricted opportunity to expand or make encyclopedic. Sliggy 10:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Izehar 19:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GTC Technical Support[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion by Lbbzman for nn-bio, but it's a company, so bringing it to AfD instead. The reason given was, "No assertion of notability - does not pass WP:CORP." No vote. howcheng {chat} 07:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into GTC if such an article exists. Otherwise delete. BTW - I had GTC dialup internet service for a while and their technical support sucks! Blackcats 10:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update - the article exists as a disambig, with a link to GTC Telecom, which does not yet exist. Blackcats 10:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Heroes 2, Characters in Sonic Heroes 2 and The List of Issue Names in Sonic Heroes 2[edit]

Vanity articles about unpublished, mostly not-yet written and certainly non-notable fiction. -- RHaworth 06:41, 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. enochlau (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rich O'Brien[edit]

notable? Segv11 (talk/contribs) 07:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong speedy delete. Googling brings up a different Rich O'Brien (a countrifed version of William Ackerman) - it ain't this "Professor Pussy" guy. --CJ Marsicano 07:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Izehar 19:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was I'll be bold and call this a delete. We're relisting enough AfDs as it is. Johnleemk | Talk 17:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Plexy[edit]

Some random DJ. Is he notable? Segv11 (talk/contribs) 07:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. nn essentially nothing on Google, other than his own site and directories on which he can list himself. Crunch 02:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep (Withdrawn by nominator) Rob 11:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Boone[edit]

nn actor? (amazing how much cruft you find just browsing "random article" these days...) Segv11 (talk/contribs) 07:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per ample credits in imdb. This isn't even close. We shouldn't delete articles, because they happen to be worded in a way that downplays the subject. --Rob 09:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Amazing how many articles with strong potential you find just browsing AfD these days... -- JJay 09:59, 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. enochlau (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie_Wraith:_Brainnnzzz![edit]

Advertising blurb for a small independent game which hasn't yet been released, and apparently won't be finished until Fall 2007, according to its otherwise blank website. Googling for "zombie wraith" catdirt gives no results other than the developer's site - this obviously doesn't meet any of the software notability guidelines. Bub27 07:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --Deathphoenix 08:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perceval (the painter)[edit]

Delete Vanity page--Cuchullain 07:37, 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 keep. Ichiro 00:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Godcasting[edit]

Relisting per WP:DRV discussion. I may vote later, depending on justifications for keeping/deleting this given. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is extremely premature considering this article was only just recreated some hours ago. Please give sufficient time for this article to be expanded on. CentrOS 09:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nah. Personally I think your evidence is strong enough that at best the article will be kept and expanded, and at worst it'll be merged and redirected into Podcast. But having the AFD discussion now will get that out of the way before you spend any significant amount of time expanding it (afterall, it'd suck if you spent a week or two expanding it, only to have it deleted again). BTW, my general feeling is that it should probably be merged into Podcast with Godcast redirecting there. (i.e. - give Godcast it's own section in Podcast for now). —Locke Cole • t • c 13:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Besides, AfD discussions run for five days, which should give you (or someone else here) plenty of time to improve the article. howcheng {chat} 07:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or Speedy Delete. Still a neologism with a bunch of external links. The "content" is obviously copied and pasted from somewhere else. - Femmina 09:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Femmina, it has been copied from my word processor after I wrote it and pasted into Wikipedia. How on earth did you guess? Not all Wikipedia contributers are amateur writers. And gosh, it's a first draft - I feel flattered. CentrOS 10:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Not sure why this is here given the massive google hits [16] and mainstream use by CNN etc. -- JJay 09:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has already been shown that this is no longer a neologism. When Business Week, The Guardian, CNN and countless others are using the term in headlines, the term has clearly entered mainstream usage and is not a neologism. Let the article have sufficient time to be expanded so your vote will no longer be ill-informed. CentrOS 09:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Religious beliefs or lack thereof must not be used to determine the important of an article. Godcasting is a social phenomena and rightly deserves a record in the Wikipedia. CentrOS 09:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the problem is that "Godcasting" is a not yet established neologism, it could be moved to Religious podcasting or Religion and podcasting, and moved back later if the term spreads. The lead can mention "godcasting" as an alternative term. u p p l a n d 11:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, used widely enough. - Bobet 13:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no longer a neologism, though I might change my vote if one more person suggests that it was deleted as part of an anti-Christian conspiracy. --Last Malthusian 13:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep said God unto Jobs, and spread my word along the Pods of Apple Sceptre (Talk) 15:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Deletion review concluded that original deletion should be overturned. If you're just going to go and nominate things for deletion after their review has reached an "overturn" decision, we might aswell do away with the deletion review section. Does someone have a fixation with deleting this or something? - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 16:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I can't read as good as I used to, so help me here– I see two "undelete and relist" and a lone "relist" (so effectively three people asking that it be relisted on AFD). One was an "overturn/undelete", and two were "keep deleted". And as I said above, this gives CentrOS a chance to see if it'll even be kept before he spends time trying to improve it. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Term is being used more and more and the subject is akin to televangelism. -- Shinmawa 18:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Term is growing. Dustimagic 19:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and replace with {{deletedpage}} to prevent further recreation of the page, as nn neologism (eight hits on Google News, http://godcast.org has an Alexa ranking of 444,124). -- Hosterweis 19:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://godsipod.com has an Alexa ranking of 817,981, just for the record. Hosterweis 20:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked into this. Firstly alexa collects info via their browser toolbar. Podcasts are not downloaded or even searched for via a browser but by a podcatcher such as iTunes. An alexa rank is therefore of little use in determining their value in this case. CentrOS 05:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was recreated as the result of a deletion review, and therefore not a #G4 speedy (as explicitly set out in #G4). --Last Malthusian 20:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In addition, the G4 speedy criterion can only be applied when the article is essentially the same as the deleted version. User:CentrOS supplied some references that were not available to people in the first discussion. howcheng {chat} 07:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And he's only just got started. CentrOS 09:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and give articles time to prove their worth before AfDing them! An Hour!? Mind you, given that some have been AfDd within five minutes of creation I suppose thats positively generous.... Jcuk 20:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect from recreation. Result of previous debate was to redirect to Podcasting where it has a one-liner. A full article is NOT needed on a niche subject such as this. --Timecop 04:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing niche about Godcasting as a swift perusal of the content on the page shows quite clearly. CentrOS 09:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term "godcasting" garners approximately 140-thousand hits on Google, seems to be notable to some. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are sources. I've no prejudice against this being merged with Podcasting or something, but I see no reason to get rid of this information from the encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now. I was going to say merge to Podcasting, but there are enough outside sources now that indicate that its worthy of its own article. howcheng {chat} 07:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or Move - I don't find Godcasting suited for another article. But it may have potential. --Depakote 15:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --kingboyk 17:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Femmina has twice now vandalized this article by posting a wholly inappropriate link to an individual podcast called GOD HATES FAGS. I have once again removed this link. It should be noted above that she voted to have this article removed, making this clear it is nothing more than an attempt to stir up controversy. Since I am new here, someone might want to bring me up to speed on how to best deal with such things. CentrOS 18:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd recommend reading Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes. You might also find Wikipedia:Three-revert rule of interest, as Femmina will break it if she puts the link back in within 24 hours of the first time. See the article's talk page for more (we should try to keep this page about the deletion). --Last Malthusian 21:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • P.S. For the moment, there's no need to do anymore than try to hash this out on the talk page. Only when it starts being disruptive to the article's content (see edit war) should further steps be taken. --Last Malthusian 21:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Erm, from what I can see, the godhatesfags IS a valid podcast, from a church, have you actually listened to it? I did. If you think you can link to your shit from here, why can't others? --Timecop 06:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or complete rewrite. The first paragraph excluded, this is an extremely bad, painfully fanboyish article which definitely doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. I advise everyone who voted keep to read it again. Tapir 20:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Almost all of this user's edits are to blog-related AfDs. Rhobite 03:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may not be a featured article candidate, but it's well-sourced and shows no overt pro-Christian POV. Definitely a case for improvement rather than deletion. --Last Malthusian 21:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • lol christianity what, that's not what I was talking about. Nobody cares how many lycos hits it got in December, that's not something that belongs in an encyclopedia article, and I presume it isn't some kind of all time internet record that is notable by itself. The whole article is basically talking about how popular it is, it has like 2 lines of information apart from that. Which could be merged into another article. The article simply has no substance. Imagine if all articles on wikipedia were 80% about how many search engine hits something has and where it was mentioned in the press. Tapir 22:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has just been created, and as I have asked repeatedly for time to write a good entry. The reason the figures are there and predominant right now is because it was initially questioned wether Godcasting has sufficient interest to warrant a full article. i have clearly shown there is, now let me fill in with more content please. CentrOS 22:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point is that you should prove notability in the talk page or on the VfD, just like people do in other articles that are voted for deletion, not just dump it all in the article itself to hide the lack of useful information. Tapir 22:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's 29th edit —Locke Cole • t • c 09:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to podcast. A cutesy little pun that is indistinguishable from other podcasts except for content. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but it is not obvious to me how this warrants discussion outside of podcasting, which, presumably, could more than adequately discuss the issues raised (if any) by this silly, cutesy neologism. "Religious podcasts are also refered to as Godcasts" should more then do it in the Podcasting article. Eusebeus 22:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rhobite 03:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it's a solid article, I think it's suitably coherent, and I think it deals with a valid, growing, separate trend in podcasting. I don't see any reason to get rid of it, honestly. --AlbertHerring 07:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article consists almost entirely of references scraped together in an attempt to show how big, important, and deserving of a Wikipedia article "Godcasting" is. Delete and redirect to podcasting. silsor 21:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with rewrite. Bear in mind as you consider my opinion that I'm the guy who coined the term. It's been in use, however, since the end of October, 2004 (only a few months after "podcasting" was coined) and is now widely accepted by both the media and the general public as the term used to refer to any type of religious podcast. And while it's true that news.google.com currently points to only 10 active references in the media as someone else pointed out (two of which are CNN and UPI), it has been referenced in hundreds of online and print articles over the past 14 months, starting with TIME Magazine in 12/04. So while I agree with those who argue that the entry needs to be rewritten from its current form, I don't buy into the argument that the term remains a neologism. CPatchett 08:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted content. If that doesn't work, delete. Note that the user above mentions that 'I'm the guy who created the term'. Proto t c 10:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy won't work since this was undeleted at WP:DRV. Can you point out where he said what you say he said? =) Diff please? —Locke Cole • t • c 10:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, assuming he's referring to CPatchett, it's the very first sentence after his 'vote'. But that's neither here nor there, as he's made no contribution to the article. (Presumably Proto is making an accusation of original research.) --Malthusian (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Presumably Proto can presume for himself. To clarify: It's a neologism that - at best - should be noted a list of casting portmanteaus on the podcasting article. Proto t c 11:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • For what it's worth, I sort-of agree; as mentioned above, I think this should be merged/redirected into Podcast with it's own section perhaps (depends on what the editors at Podcast support I suppose). Thanks for the clarification. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Per nom. Incognito 17:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Nuff said Cptchipjew 07:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge per proto. WhiteNight T | @ | C 09:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Podcasting. The article doesn't add any really useful information. The mention on the podcasting page should be sufficient. -Rjo 12:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's notable enough ... unfortunately. Cyde Weys votetalk 16:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just to show CentrOS that my vote counts just as much as his does. See also my comments on the article's Talk page, which explain that there is no article there. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is really notable erasing it does not make sense Yuckfoo 22:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that every single one of CentrOS's edits have been to Godcasting, its talk pages, its DRV discussion and its AfD discussions. Do I sense an agenda? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Zoe, I've already said a disproportionate amount on this particular article, but I find this comment close to indefensible. What does it matter what an editor chooses to contribute to? If he'd done some copyediting or edited established articles that would have nothing to do with the worth of this article. Agenda? Do you have any examples of clear POV edits to back that accusation up? --Malthusian (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gee, I don't know, telling people that their votes to keep the article deleted don't count, then when those voters object, they're told "eat me?" User:Zoe|(talk) 00:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not evidence of an agenda (apart from trying to keep your own work on Wikipedia if you think it doesn't violate policy, which I would have thought we all have), that's ignorance of process and incivility. At least try to keep this about the article, which is the subject of this discussion, and not about a single editor. --Malthusian (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Clearly notable, per Google hits and coverage in major media outlets. -- Vary | Talk 06:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic Ice[edit]

Stubstub about an ice company in Ontario. Notable? Segv11 (talk/contribs) 08:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Nothing special about the company, and it's barely over the {{db-empty}} line. --Rob 11:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pfalstad 18:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 19:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Izehar 19:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Seltzer[edit]

This article was previously nominated for a speedy. This article attempts to establish notability, though whether it satisfies WP:BIO is up for debate. IMO, it doesn't, so I believe it should be deleted. --Deathphoenix 08:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't think founding an online EFF rights thing is notable, and that is pretty much the only claim made. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was the original nominator for speedy deletion. She does not appear to pass the professor test. Lbbzman 15:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 19:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The Chilling Effects Clearinghouse is a significant organization; Seltzer is generally identified as its founder; and her name pulls up Google hits in the low six-figure range. Certainly more notable (and higher ranked by Google) than Kadee Strickland. Monicasdude 23:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harvard fellow and, judging from Google, often cited. Seems noteworthy. Wisco 05:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Judging from the article alone, she does not seem to be too notable, but a Google search, even using her name as an exact phrase and adding the "law" and "privacy" keywords, turns up thousands of results. Johnleemk | Talk 10:53, 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) 00:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 7th Level[edit]

Delete. Vanity. Zpb52 08:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng {chat} 08:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Bill (Indian)[edit]

This was previously nominated for a speedy. In its current state, it reads like a memorial, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Deathphoenix 08:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 07:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A&W Canada Restaurant Structure[edit]

Delete or Shorten and Merge with A&W_Restaurants. This page meets criteria for deletion because Wikipedia is not an instruction manual (Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is Not). In a shortened form with less detail, it could be a valid part of the A&W_Restaurants article, giving insight into how they operate; in it's current form, it's essentially a walkthrough for new A&W employees, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. WalterBranflakes 08:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment smells like a copyvio from an internal manual, too. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 10:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, anything with a list of cook times probably was not supposed to be made public. However, Walter, you could add original text to A&W Restaurants based on the info in this article. Gazpacho 12:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This looks like it might have been copied out of a manual, which makes it copyvio. It also violates the Instruction Manual criteria, too. I agree with Gazpacho there might be some information that can be folded into the main article, but as its own article it gives me the same indigestion their burgers do. 23skidoo 15:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Starts off "like other restaurant chains". Quite. There is nothign apparently unique abut this. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 00:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A, since some people's AfD helper userscripts placed their vote there by mistake. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 04:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, way too much information on a single restaurant to be encyclopedic. This seems like thinly disguised advertising. — JIP | Talk 11:51, 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 and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 07:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beersketball[edit]

39 googles, Delete. Totally non-notable. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 05:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 08:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Boland (author)[edit]

Unencyclopedic. Apparently somebody has mixed up a politician and an author with the same name. Valentinian 14:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 08:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Cleared as filed. 03:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of the 2004 March 11 Madrid bombings[edit]

Tragic, but being killed in this violent way does make the individuals notable. -- RHaworth 08:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's called the 9/11 memorial wiki. And since it is a wiki, its name is fine. It is not called Wikipedia to begin with. - Mgm|(talk) 13:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite true. The url is sep11.wikipedia.org, and at the upper left corner it has the "Wikipedia the free encyclopedia" logo. Blackcats 20:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it, I'd say it is most definitely a part of Wikipedia. Qarnos 22:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not memorial. Pavel Vozenilek 11:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 9/11 precedent. - Mgm|(talk) 13:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whats 9/11 got to do with it? Why does the European event have to bow down to an american one? Jcuk 17:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's got nothing to do with 9/11 happening in America. It just happened to be a very well-known and larger terrorist attack. If we have a separate wiki for those victims (all 2000-3000 of them), I don't see why we should mention the victims of the Madrid bombings in Wikipedia. - Mgm|(talk) 22:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial, as above. Ajwebb 22:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found it useful when checking to see if any if my Spanish aquaintances had died
  • Keep; I am the person who made this article. I just want to explain why I think the English Wikipedia should have such an article. However, of course, if you think that this page should be deleted, go on. (Interested people can check this information in the Spanish version, if they understand Spanish.)
    • 1) Most people argues that "Wikipedia is not a memorial". Well, this article should not be considered as a memorial page, but as a page with additional information about the Madrid bombings. If you consider that the names of the people who died in Madrid are not relevant for Wikipedia, you can delete these names, but at least keep the information about the victims (for instance, why does usually appear the name of Francisco Javier Torrenteras between the people who died, although he did not die in the bombings; or why at first officially the media spoke about 202 casualties, instead of the real number, 190; or the fact that died people of 17 nationalities... etc). If this page is deleted, I think that this information should be added to the Madrid bombings article, but, in order not to excede the amount of information that appears there, I think that the better solution is a page about the persons who dead there.

      I understand that, as the names of the victims takes up most of the article, many people could think that it is a memorial, but if you read it, you will see that there is more information (that has to be emproved and expanded, I know).

    • 2) Before I made this article, I saw that someone (I don't know who), added in the Madrid bombings article, in the "See also" section, this hidden line:

      <!-- * [[Casualties of the 11 March 2004 Madrid bombings]] -->

      (as you can see in this edition of an old version of the article), claiming for such an article.
    • 3) P.MacUidhir argues that "Bombings are not unusual, and certainly not usually notable". I agree, bombings are not notable. But not all bombings are the same! Sadly, ETA is responsible for most bombings in Spain, but the Madrid March 11 bombings were not at all usual. It was the worse Al-Qaida attack in Europe. There died almost four times more people than in the 7 July London bombings. Millions of persons took part in the demonstrations against terrorism the day after (more or less the 28% of the Spanish population). Many poeple think that there was a political change in Spain because of these bombings (they happened three days before the March 14 general elections), and that the authors aimed this change; other people think that the former goverment lied supporting that ETA was the author of the attacks until the last moment, as they could lose the elections because of their support to the Bush' invasion of Iraq (it is still a very hot subject, and I don't want to give my opinion here, I just speak about the opinion of many people). I only want to say that obviously the Madrid bombings are, sadly, once again, a historical event, not only in Spain, but worldwide, such as the London bombings, the 9/11 or the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. I am not speaking in this point about the number of persons who died, but just about the importance and consequences of the event.
    • 4) I saw that there was an article about the casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings, with the names of all the victims, and I thought that there should be an equivalent article with the Madrid victims. I don't want to think that nationalism should be so important in Wikipedia (when we speak about worldwide events), and the terrorism victims in England should not be more or less important than those who died in Spain. I saw too that there is an article about the London victims in the Spanish wikipedia, without the names (in my opinion this article lacks those names). Nevertheless, in the 9/11 died thousands of men and women, and I think that it is better there an external link, not because those persons were less important, but just because it would be too large; but maybe some persons who died in the 9/11 should appear in wikipedia (the many firefighters who died there? People who saved other people? For instance, William Rodríguez became famous, but he didn't die there). I think that the queston is not as simple as "there should appear all victims of terrorist attacks or none of them".
    • 5) I made the article, as every article, thinking about it as a starting point. So, it should be extended and improved by other wikipedians. For example (as in the July London attacks), who died in each place (the Atocha Station, or El Pozo, or Santa Eugenia, or the Téllez Street)? How many? Where were first carried? What does Pilar Manjón (president of the Association for the victims of 11-M) think about the political reactions? These questions maybe could be too much for the principal article, but not for an article about victims, and it could contain interesting information for wikipedia. I think that there should be a page of the same quality as that one about the London attacks, and I hope that it will be so. I only contribute with my knowledge. I don't know many things about the London attacks, so I can't speak about them.

Well, thank you, principally if you had enough patience to read till here! Eynar Oxartum 03:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, for Ecemaml and Eynar's well stated reasons. GRuban 19:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. TestPilot 04:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks notable enough to me. I wouldn't expect to find this in a printed encyclopaedia, but that would be more down to space restrictions than anything imo. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 08:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. This has nothing to do with memorials. -- JJay 09:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial, even for an event as tragic as this. Sliggy 11:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, part of a major event. I'm not sure how useful the list of the names is, but deleting that wouldn't require deleting the whole article. And it doesn't provide redlinks for each of the names which is a plus. - Bobet 12:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Primarily a list of non-notable dead people (which sounds a lot like a memorial to me) and some information which, unlike with the similar London bombings article, we already have in other articles related to the Madrid bombings (if I missed something and we don't, merge it).--Last Malthusian 13:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On re-reading the article's actual content, keep the article but the list/memorial/whatever you want to call it should be deleted. Keeping it would lead us to assume that you can't have a list of victims if the death toll is too small to be 'notable', and you can't have it if it's too big to include without disrupting the article. That would be bizarre logic to say the least. --Last Malthusian 17:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the precedent cited by Ecemaml, however I strongly recommend that a policy be developed to create a criteria for this sort of thing otherwise anytime an event like this happens -- major or minor -- someone will want to do a list article. IMO this type of list should only be created for the most major of these events (and Madrid qualifies). But it could get out of hand if someone wants to create an article everytime a car bomb blows up in Baghdad. 23skidoo 15:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article isn't about the individuals. It is an excellent part of the coverage of the event. Bhoeble 16:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful information --File Éireann 18:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per Eynal and Ecemaml. Cchan199206 20:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per 3 comments immediately above. --kingboyk 17:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eynar Werdna648T/C\@ 07:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 07:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Howard[edit]

This article is more like a newsflash than a biography and contains only info on the subject's death. I'm hoping somebody will know more about it and improve. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup per above. I think if someone spends more than one minute on this we could get a better bio of this pro streetball player. -- JJay 09:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable, but needs to be changed from a memorial to a biography. Starts off "It is our sad duty to share some news with you about a member of the AND1 family" and continues "...This legendary AND 1 Mix Tape Player" which led me to believe he was a musician, until I found out from Google that he plays something called streetball. At the very least it should say what he did. Since the author is still working on it I'm inclined to leave it alone and clean it up when it looks like he's done. --Last Malthusian 13:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 00:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See WP:NOT. Specifically "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives." Googling "Antoine Howard" finds essentially nothing on him other than memorials and notices of his death, almost all of which use the exact same wording used in this article. I'm not convinced he was notable before his death. Crunch 02:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable biography. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:10Z
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 04:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Saberwyn. Themusicking 04:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a borderline A7 speedy Segv11 (talk/contribs) 04:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawerance_Newell,C.B.E[edit]

Delete. I haven't been able to verify the information, and it appears that even if it were verified, the subject wouldn't warrant an entire article, Brendanfox 09:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Keep and move, as per explanation below. --Brendanfox 11:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep. I've given the article a thorough overhaul, but there's very little info about him online. He does seem to be moderately notable, and articles on countries like PNG do help counter systemic bias. But, as I said, borderline... if kept it'll need moving to Lawrence Newell, too. Grutness...wha? 09:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Grutness. -- JJay 09:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've just found a few more mentions of Lawrence Newell here and here, combined with Grutness' point about systemic bias, I've changed my vote, to keep and move to Lawrence Newell. --Brendanfox 11:07, 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. Ichiro 00:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macintosh User Groups in the UK[edit]

Delete. Does not assert importance or significance, and no references. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup Segv11 (talk/contribs) 10:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't think Wikipedia is the Yellow Pages. FredOrAlive 12:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a phone book. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least one or two of them most be important and significant to mac users in the United Kingdom. Kappa 18:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kappa Jcuk 20:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have removed all but one of the links and will add more text when I have a chance. 10:54, 8 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 Speedily deleted for no content, no context. enochlau (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penk TV[edit]

This article doesn't specify why Penk TV is important, and 69 Google hits suggests it's not. Punkmorten 10:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was nothing to merge, but redirects are cheap. Johnleemk | Talk 08:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gran Turismo Concept 2002 Tokyo-Geneva[edit]

Very little information/poorly written. Thorpe | talk 10:14, 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, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milbert Amplifiers[edit]

Likely vanity. Term gets 143 google hits [19]. Interiot 10:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, difficult, very difficult... but I'm going to have to go with a borderline delete. While their products have been reviewed in audio magazines, it's very much a niche product. Perhaps they could get a mention on a page about vacuum tubes? — RJH 23:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks to be an established company Sethie 23:50, 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, unverifiable and nothing to merge. Johnleemk | Talk 08:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moib[edit]

Article about "A word that does not exist". Google search for moib together with the name Shaun Micallef gives 1 hit. Punkmorten 10:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Brendanfox, move moib to Milo Kerrigan as it directly relates to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Critical impact (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 07:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summoning of Spirits[edit]

Delete - All other "Work In Progress" OverClocked Remix albums were deleted in this vote, just listing the one that got missed from that vote. It's an articles about an incomplete fan project. FredOrAlive 11:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conan summons a Delete spirit! Sceptre (Talk) 12:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ~MDD4696 22:19, 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 overwhelmingly to remove all of these lists.--File Éireann 18:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

91X Top 91 of 1984, 91X Top 91 of 1985, 91X Top 91 of 1986, 91X Top 91 of 1987, 91X Top 91 of 1988, 91X Top 91 of 1989, 91X Top 91 of 1990, 91X Top 91 of 1991, 91X Top 91 of 1992, 91X Top 91 of 1993, 91X Top 91 of 1994, 91X Top 91 of 1996, 91X Top 91 of 1997, 91X Top 91 of 1998, 91X Top 91 of 1999, 91X Top 91 of 2000, 91X Top 91 of 2001, 91X Top 91 of 2002, 91X Top 91 of 2003, 91X Top 91 of 2005[edit]

We've been through these before EOY lists before. Non notable. We cannot have year end countdowns from all local radio stations. With the thousands of stations in the world and the lack of methodology usually used for these things, it's unencyclopedic as well. Kill all 3 of these lists. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I added the rest of them that weren't deleted or on afd already. - Bobet 12:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And delete all. - Bobet 12:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Raw data, no information, let alone any that belongs on an encyclopedia, violating WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. And yes I checked all of them. --Last Malthusian 13:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. 91X is not an internationally reknowned music station, and San Diego isn't exactly a world famous centre of music talent, therefore this station's opinion isn't famous or influential enough to count as encyclopedic. Average Earthman 13:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Potentially huge number of lists of no use at all. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of these xaosflux Talk/CVU 18:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above arguments. Punkmorten 18:23, 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 userfied. Johnleemk | Talk 07:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Terado[edit]

individual only has 3 web hits[20] and works for a company that does not seem notable (no main article, 105 hits[21]) Shawnc 12:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy to the creator User:Kterado since it's probably close to the same guy. - Bobet 12:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Page content has been copied to the user page. Shawnc 14:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was being bold, I'll just delete this. Johnleemk | Talk 08:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ETaskMaker[edit]

Seems pure advert to me, proprietary and not notable, no reason to include it in WP Khalid hassani 12:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete — I couldn't find any evidence for notability of this software. It appears to be a minor commercial product. — RJH 23:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 400 Google hits. Johnleemk | Talk 08:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 07:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open Cities[edit]

The author told me that this was his original concept. Since then he appears to have started his own wiki on SourceForge.

  • Delete, no original research. Gazpacho 13:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ~MDD4696 22:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move?, Perhaps this debate is over the ambiguity of the title, and it should simply be renamed 'Open cities in light of Expo 2010'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan Engelbrecht (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, We are in the process today of making a fundamental choice about how we will communicate with each other in the next century. In fact, we are talking about the wrong thing, at the wrong time,and making this choice (which may be right) for the wrong reasons or for no reason at all. Quote from Overcoming Agoraphobia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan Engelbrecht (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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tarek_Shahin[edit]

Delete because there is significant misrepresentation Oshukri 13:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Misrepresentation is a reason to rewrite rather than delete. But notability seems dubious. Dlyons493 Talk 13:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cartoonist published in national press in Egypt. If you spot misrepresentation, edit the article. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Squiddy. Kappa 18:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shimon Yanowitz[edit]

This article makes no note of the notability of the subject. It just mentions his interests and the fact that he has been the author of several articles and papers. Also, the creator is User:Shimon Yanowitz. Google turns up few results. Delete as nn-bio. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Vanity autobiography, already on userpage. jni 15:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Jni. -- The Anome 15:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no claim to notability. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or redirect to userpage you pick  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    16:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhh, allowing redirects from encyclopedia to user space got deprecated couple years ago. We still have few left for (dubious) backwards compatibility reasons but any new ones should absolutely not be created. If he is not notable, then he has no business being referenced in our encyclopedia, even by just a single link. jni 17:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
good point  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    20:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment has anyone actually checked to see if his claims can be verified? or put anything on his userpage to ask if he's aware that we dont encourage autobiographical articles? Jcuk 19:42, 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) 00:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Running Out[edit]

An amateur film that doesn't exist yet.

  • Delete. Gazpacho 13:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It will exist soon. Links to some scenes will be made. Ken20008 04:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See also, Running Out. Leithp (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, can't find it on imdb Obli (Talk) 14:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not wicker. Er, i mean not a crystal ball. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete this movie is the greatest! let everyone know about it! Screw those who are against homemade movies. Ken20008 04:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Phroziac -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong NO Delete No way this movie article is going to be deleted. Most people don't know how to think. Can't they leave this article alone? 165.21.154.114 06:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC) Ken20008 06:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not only is Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, but since you, the creator of this movie, made the article, it falls under WP:VAIN as well. That's why it's up for deletion. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 08:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't vote twice. --Khoikhoi 00:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong No Delete Get it right, I'm Oliver Wang Chong Xu, not Kenneth Koh. Dunno who he his, but helping him out.
  • EXTREMELY STRONG NO DELETE Freak it, can't you give this poor author some time till January 15th so that his friend can let people know what's going on. So far, the only people that know are his friends, teachers in charge, parents, and cast and crew (OF COURSE!!!). Hope you will extend the deletion deadline to a couple of days to filming day. I reckon there will be at least half an hour of movie completed.Ken20008 08:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't vote twice. --Khoikhoi 00:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. TheRingess 08:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Err....Who's in charge here?Ken20008 08:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By the way, I've strike-throughed User:Ken20008's second two votes because you can only vote once. --Khoikhoi 00:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 00:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hatten är din[edit]

The article on the Swedish wikipedia is enough, this meme has no notability in the English-speaking community. Obli (Talk) 14:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Massively popular internet phenomenon, see Star Wars Kid. Raggaga 02:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't say it's massive, it kind of just hung around for a couple of months, isn't there any article about minor memes we can lump it into? It would get more positive attention and improving that way Obli (Talk) 22:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable in Sweden, as you probably know, and Wikipedia has a global scope. Besides, it's quite funny. u p p l a n d 18:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as improper nomination. Subject is notable in Sweden. ~MDD4696 22:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nomination. FredOrAlive 00:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Popular internet phenomenon. Wolfmoon 14:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep as an extremely notable internet meme. Known in English mostly as "Hatt baby," which 324k google hits (the article title gets 94k), amazing for an extremely old flash meme. --badlydrawnjeff 15:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree that language should be a factor in determining the 'notability'. I see no reason why English Wikipedia should have an English-culture subject bias. --BluePlatypus 03:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This meme is popular even in english-speaking world. njaard 23:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vinna kinky roooooooligt (Translation: The flash file was popular around the world, not just in Sweden.)
    Vinna kinky roooooooligt (...for the very reason that if you didn't speak Swedish, you had absolutely no clue what was going on, and its incoherence reached utterly sublime levels)
    Hatt baby, hatt baby (Strong keep, strong keep) StarryEyes 00:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC) (P.S. See this, the Everything2 page for "Hatten ar din" to see just how popular it is in the English-speaking world.)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 00:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strap It On (AC/DC album)[edit]

There is literally little to no information available on the subject. The release would be in a few days and the offical AC/DC website doesn't mention the album at all. The article reads like an unverifiable hoax to me. SoothingR 15:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, It's to be released in September, and they aren't even sure of the name. Obli (Talk) 15:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as speculation, unverifiable from reliable sources. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until 12th Jan, then we will know. --Pfafrich 23:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete; can be recreated when the title is known. 12th Jan release date seems questionable anyway, it would usually be on Amazon preorder by now. --kingboyk 17:07, 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) 00:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desi Blogger[edit]

I fail to see how a Desi blogger is significantly different from any other. The term itself gets 496 results, which doesn't really qualify it on the basis of being in wide use. - Bobet 15:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Kembe-Stohr Morell[edit]

Non-notable, "Allan Morell" (Kembe-Stohr means Giant-Big) has been coach for the secondary team of Fremad Amager, notable Danish football club, but is now coach in non-notable club in the 6th best league in Denmark. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesper Ottesen. Poulsen 17:36, 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) 00:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GSNForce[edit]

Delete. GSNForce is a relatively insignificant community with little cultural importance, and the article is a heavily biased advertisment for the site with no important, relevent, or factual information.

KEEP IT-TError

  • Delete --NaconKantari 23:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, crap article about a small website. FredOrAlive 00:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per FredOrAlive -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Try again later mike, but don't tell us that you're doing it, so you can avoid the vandals Tricadex 21:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sirs. --Sysys 00:30, 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 speedy delete (no assertion of notability (head of club with no assertion of notability)) --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Stryhn[edit]

Non-notable, Johnny Stryhn is head of non-notable club BK Olympia 1921 in the 6th best league in Denmark. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesper Ottesen. Poulsen 17:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 17:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mio Kuroki[edit]

This article was tagged for speedy deletion by Danny Lilithborne with the reason "Kuroki Mio is a clone of Queen Beryl that only exists in PGSM." which is not currently a criterion for speedy deletion. I have moved the discussion here. No vote. Stifle 15:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The issue for me is canon. Sailormoon canon is already convoluted enough as it is, with the tremendous differences between the manga and the anime versions. The live-action one, which is the only version in which Takeuchi-sensei had any control over, is widely accepted by fans as her visual interpretation of the original manga. I suggest it be merged with Queen Beryl. Danny Lilithborne 03:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep, Queen Beryl is a major villain. Kappa


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Olsson[edit]

Suzanne Olsson is a published author, but beyond her one book she is neither notable nor enclopedic. The article makes other claims for notability, but they are not supported by any evidence: witness Google searches for '"Suzanne Olsson" "New York Times"', '"Suzanne Olsson" "reader's digest"', and '"Suzanne Olsson" "Afghan"'. - squibix 15:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While the article is poorly written, the book seems somewhat notable. The article could probably benefit from being stripped back significantly and rebuilt. This can be addressed on the Talk page.
    • I don't want to appear to be persecuting this article--I promise I don't have anything against it personally!--but what evidence do you have for the book's notability? All I could come up with was 17 Google hits for 'Jesus "Last King of Kashmir"', the most liberal formulation of the title I could think of, and all of them are either bookshop links or mentions on sites advancing Jesus-in-Kashmir theories themselves. - squibix 23:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would disagree with the above opinion because if you google further, you will realize she remains in the public eye (and news) through two of her ongoing proects: First, she continues to build momentum for obtaining the DNA of the graves, DNA she will have compared with that found on the Shroud of Turin. Second, she continues to struggle against the theft and desecration of the ancient sites. She is working with world reknowned authors in the same genre, who are all seeking to stop the desecration before the sites go the way of the Bamiyam Buddha. She is an activist for this cause, and duly noteworthy for these reasons...I say let the page stay... Nandi
  • Keep --Nick Boalch ?!? 09:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 07:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24SevenOffice[edit]

Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24SevenOffice

Company with revenues of around $1m and 30 employees - well below the levels in WP:CORP. Nominated for deletion here, three delets and one rewrite taken as consensus keep and rewrite. Article creator admits they are an employee (a bad idea!). It has been suggested that this user is currently engaged in linkspamming (see here), and is internally linked from far more articles than I'd expect for such a small firm (here's the list) but the jury is still out on that. Anyway, as far as I can tell the previous AfD was mainly delete, and the article is "advertorial" in tone, and the company itself is of highly questionable notability. It looks to me like vanispamcruftisement. Creator asks what is the difference between this and salesforce.com - the answer is that salesforce.com has a market capitalisation of over $4bn and is quoted on the NYSE (ticker CRM). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.--nixie 10:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My vote is not objective though - I work for 24SevenOffice. The article is about the application not the company. 24SevenOffice is the most comprehensive web based application available and I belive that makes it notable enough for an article. The company is very well known in Norway (I can provide an extensive list with press coverage) but have also gained international recognition. The application won an award at CeBIT. In this article 24SevenOffice is mentioned together with NetSuite as a successfull ASP/SaaS provider - this means that 24SevenOffice meats the criteria for notability as stated in WP:CORP: "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations."

I do not see why this article should be deleted when there are articles for the following:

I have done most of the editing on the article and I agree that is not a very good idea. If anything in the article needs to changed please do so. --Sleepyhead 13:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is specious - existence of other articles for minor software of no verifiable importance does not justify inlcusion of all such. You are free to nominate those other articles for deletion should you feel they fall below the level for inclusion. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have now nominated several similar articles for deletion. If the others are kept then the 24SevenOffice should be kept as well. There must be a general concensus which applies to all articles that are about products, websites or companies. --Sleepyhead 09:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't really care about the article itself, but I'm sick of having to revert the addition of a link to this article into other articles where it doesn't belong. As far as I can see, the authors worked out that a link to their homepage would survive a lot longer if they wrapped an article around it. Rufous 17:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly engaged in a promotional compaign, excessive internal linking and categorisation (see what links here), while the linking might be relevant it is not in accordance with the notability of the company when it puts itself on the same footing and in the same sentence as SAP or salesforces.com, the tone of the the article is adevertorial too, puts his link in the first position and removes his competition too, see here for instance Software_as_a_Service and its history--Khalid hassani 16:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Reason to be kept: WP:CORP states: "A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 3. The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indexes 5 6. Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded." 24SevenOffice is listed on the OTC-market in Norway. The current market value is 122 000 000 NOK. --Sleepyhead 10:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The OTC-market in Norway. See this link. --Sleepyhead 15:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Press coverage today after signing partner agreement with Europe's larget network indepentend ISP; Active24: http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/-active-24-asa-signs-cooperation-agreement-with-24sevenoffice-/2006/jan/1273502.htm
I don't speak Norwegian, but that sure looks like a whole-market index to me. And the press coverage is apparently a press release, also specifically excluded under WP:CORP. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 12:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is a press release - but not our press release. The press release from Active24. --Sleepyhead 14:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Does 47,100 google hits make it notable? --Sleepyhead 16:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not by itself, no. Attaining/buying/spamming links is easy and can be done by people within the company. Rufous 12:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I understand the effort to reduce the presence of what are essentially adverts from wikipedia. However, if the article provides tangible and useful facts about the software, and is written in an impartial manner, I see no reason why - as an encyclopaedia - we cannot include such articles. They have their uses. It is one of the few places where one can find publically editable information about an application. There seem to be those who would not allow any articles about software just because a traditional encyclopaedia would not include them. There are also those who try to quantify importance, often using 'Google hits' or other such indicators. I believe that this is wrong.
My opinion is... allow articles for Software - no matter how small, PROVIDED that the software exists (not vapourware), the article is likely to be of use to someone researching the software and that any editors known to be linked to the company behave responsibly with regard to link inclusion. Rob cowie 17:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merely existing is not enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia by anyone's standards. Johnleemk | Talk 07:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That isn't what I said. Rob cowie 11:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think the company is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry and the article seems a little bit biased to be written by only one author. Achen00 06:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 07:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magna Entertainment Corp.[edit]

Delete. I initially created this page. It seems that the title of the page does not go along with the Manual of Style. If a person was interested in Magna Entertainment Corporation they are better served by the replacement site I have created. To view this site got to Magna Entertainment Corporation. The creation of the new page renders this page effectively redundant Loucards 16:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if you like, but I can't see a redirect would have done any harm either :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. If you did it, someone else might too.  :) -- Shinmawa 19:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect This is just a name change. You don't need a AFD for that. If you are not removing content or history, just be Bold. Obina 22:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been bold for him. (If anyone disagrees with my redirect, they can always revert it...) FredOrAlive 00:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cool. Thanks! Let's speedy this out. -- Shinmawa 02:13, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 07:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Dee[edit]

NN DJ that claims notability, but none verified  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    16:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 05:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scalar-Tensor[edit]

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

  • Speedy Delete as nonsense as written. That wasn't my field of physics admittedly, but casual inspection seems to indicate it would be more easily rewritten if nuked from orbit for a fresh start. --Syrthiss 20:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I'm not sure if this is nonsense, but it certainly isn't patent nonsense which would be the speedy deletion requirement. Patent nonsense is a random collection of characters or words. Stifle 13:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The first three paragraphs make sense, but really need to be rewritten to be more accessible. The remaining paragraphs make some sense to me, enough that I feel that this does not qualify for deletion as original research or nonsense, but really require expert input and may be too specialized for Wikipedia. The article probably should be renamed to Scalar-Tensor theories of gravitation. ManoaChild 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite The author really needs to determine the audience for whom the article is to be written. It doesn't look like there is a detailed-enough discussion for theoretical physicists to engage with and there is not enough popular science exposition of the topic for interested amateurs. -- (aeropagitica)  23:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm only a casual observer of physics, but the material seems to be legitimate, and Googling a couple of terms matches. I think the suggestion to Rename is good, but I'd suggest "Scalar-Tensor gravitation" as shorter and just as valid, since everything in physics is a theory. Some combination of adding and rewriting would help make an introduction that would make it more acessible. Hu 23:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me, "theory" distinguishes it from "experiments" and "empirical models", but it's probably not a useful distinction here. The shorter name would be fine. ManoaChild 23:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to be legitimate. Guess it could be sent to cleanup (or a physicist who is also a teacher). Cyde Weys votetalk 05:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely makes sense. I've tagged with {{expert}} and {{context}}. Stifle 13:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page was changed in format and information. It now possesses more information and better context. Might only need more work of more people on it, as it may be a stub now. the information in it is verified in physical journals and should not be deleted.Nbez 17:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This theories (as models for nature) are surely used mainly on gravitation, but it might not have to be like that, although I don't know any Lagrangian of that form in other fields of physics. However, such Lagrangians (the basic of the theory) could certainly be used on other non-gravitational fields (I know, tensor calculus and metrica of General Relativity are used to work on sand and things like that), as part of phenomenological models (what would not say they are gravitational). However, it would be good if it is worked on the article... 141.70.111.178 15:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee huang[edit]

Possible Hoax, no relevant Google links, and added bonus-article is in all CAPS  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    16:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable, probable hoax. ~MDD4696 22:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probable hoax. Punkmorten 22:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missile (Single - 2005)[edit]

The article is about some single, there are no references to the artist(s), absolutely nothing except for a list. This article is useless, I couldn't even find any info from Google...or AltaVista. --Thorri 17:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment its a single by I AM X a side project of Sneaker Pimps lead singer Chris Corner. I abstain from this vote, as my idea of notable for musicians tends to be far more inclusive than the wider Wikipedia community. Jcuk 18:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, single by Sneaker Pimps frontman Chris Corner and thus of interest to users. Failing that merge with I AM X. Kappa 18:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another Comment some of the articles associated with Mr. Corner appear to have been written by someone whose first language is not English. It may be worth somebody who knows of his work going and tidying them up a little. Jcuk 18:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Wyoming (NCC-43730)[edit]

this is a little known about ship in star trek. if anything it should be on memory alpha but not in wikipedia. Random articles 17:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedied. r3m0t talk 23:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biff Tannen (rock band)[edit]

"'Biff Tannen' punk" garners a few relevant Google results, but not enough for Wikipedia notability. Their official site is a free .ms domain, and they don't have an All Music Guide entry. Note that most of the results are for "Biff Tannen", the Back to the Future character. Delete Raggaga 17:50, 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. enochlau (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neogreenwood[edit]

This web comic is not important enough to merit its own Wikipedia article. It appears to belong to a small group. There is no attempt to assert notability. File Éireann 18:28, 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 Sock Puppets aside, Keep --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dystopia (computer game)[edit]

As was agreed in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Half-Life_2_DeathMatch_Pro debate, individual mods for video games are not inherently notable and do not deserve Wikipedia articles, no matter how colorful and well written. Dystopia is another HL2 Mod article and on this same principle, I move it for deletion as non-notable matter. GestaltG 18:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am adding this to my nomination to delete, as it was inadvertantly omitted: Additionally, this article and game mod articles of it's kind are advertizements stuck into Wikipedia and are matter more suitable for fan sites and game promotional websites, neither of which is a function of Wikipedia. I nominate this page for deletion as useless fancruft and an advertizement. GestaltG 19:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before you accuse this article of being merely an advertisement, read Wikipedia's policy on advertising. Since this article is quite objective and unbiased, along with being third-party verifiable, I find it a little perplexing that you would consider it advertising. Nufy8 20:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just read that DeathMatch Pro AfD, and still have yet to figure out how you came to the conclusion that the notion that individual mods for computer games aren't notable was agreed upon. Four people agreed upon deleting a certain mod's article, and that was pretty much it. That being said, Dystopia is as notable as any other popular Half-Life 2 mod out there. Do you plan on AfDing every single article on a video game mod? If so, you certainly have your work cut out for you. Nufy8 18:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The DeathMatch Pro mod was not notable. If you say Dystopia is as notable as any other HL2 mod, then it is not notable. If A=B and B=C then A=C GestaltG 18:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • By that logic, it is notable; Garry's Mod, Natural Selection, Action Half-Life, and much more are notable, and they're all Half-Life or Half-Life 2 mods. Nufy8 19:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your argument is not making any sense. DeathMatch Pro was deleted as a non-notable game mod article to HL2 video game. Dystopia is another game mod article to HL2 video game. You have already said that Dystopia is "as notable as any other popular Half Life 2 mod." Therefore, if DeathMatch Pro was non-notable as a popular HL2 mod, Dystopia is also non-notable as a popular HL2 mod. GestaltG 19:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let me rephrase. If, by your logic, Dystopia is non-notable because another "popular" Half-Life 2 mod was deleted, then that still leaves many more Half-Life 2 mods out that are considered notable, hence it is as notable as them. Nufy8 19:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You cannot make the statement that the other HL2 mods are considered notable as the notablity of those articles has not been tested. I can however say, that DeathMatch Pro, a HL2 mod was non-notable, because it's notability was tested and the result was that it was deleted as non-notable. GestaltG 19:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Consider this. DeathMatch Pro was only edited by two anons and one registered user whose main purpose was to advertise the mod. Now take a look at the Wikipedians who have edited an article like Garry's Mod. I'm sure most of them feel it to be quite notable, tested or not. Nufy8 19:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And in answer to your other question, yes, whenever I find them. Now, I am not specifically looking for video game mod articles, hence, I am not on an editorial "crusade" here if you will. I don't know the names of most of the video games out there, I don't really play many video games (I do own some), but in this particular case, since these articles were mentioned in the DeathMatch Pro Afd debate, I am following up the results of that debate to insure that the editing across Wikipedia is consistant (a constant problem for Wikipedia, consistancy of editing, I am just trying to help), at least in regards to the HL2 articles in the recent Afd debate. GestaltG 19:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • DeathMatch Pro was AfDed and was a mod of Half-Life 2. Consistency wouldn't be to delete every Half-Life 2 mod, because the reason it was deleted wasn't because it was a Half-Life 2 mod. Nufy8 19:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment arguing against GestaltG's "logic" about the consensus won't do you much good - the article was deleted, and that deletion is now being cited as precedent. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • A false precedent that assumes the article was deleted because it was a Half-Life 2 mod. Nufy8 06:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A search for Dystopia" and "computer game" on google produced over 20k results. [23] "The comment in the DeathMatch Pro Afd by User:Daveb states "they are not notable enough to deserve an encyclopedic article". In terms of notablity, 20k hits on a fairly restrictive search makes the game notable enough for me. Englishrose 21:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dystopia is one of the most popular Half-Life 2 mods and at any time has many full servers running. This puts it at the very top of third-player mods for Half-Life 2 in terms of popularity. Cyde Weys votetalk 06:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: mods of games are not notable - there's already a List of Half-Life 2 mods for that kind of stuff. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's ridiculous. Counter-Strike is a mod of a game and millions of people play it. Are you really going to say it's non-notable?! There's a gradation of notability between game mods like Counter-Strike all the way down to an unreleased vaporware mod some people made up. Obviously the former belongs in Wikipedia and the latter doesn't, and the issue at hand is where in the continuum do you say "this is an acceptable topic for a Wikipedia article and this isn't"? Personally my criteria are thus: if the mod has a playable released version, has a website, and at any given time there are many people playing the mod, then it is "notable" enough. Dystopia meets these criteria. --Cyde Weys votetalk 06:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dystopia may be a relatively minor piece of human knowledge, but it is a significant piece nonetheless. As a relatively unique mod, and as a mod that has a fan base (small, but growing), it is as valid as any piece that is played, watched or viewed. It may be in the beginning of its life, but it has a following. If cult movies and TV shows have a place on Wikipedia, mods that have a following have a place too. If it can be (and is, or needs to be) referenced to, it belongs on Wikipedia. Where in the lifespan of a cultural item does it become a valid thing to be referenced? One million users? Two? After it has been around for a significant amount of time? As long as it is being followed (or had a period of significant following), it should be referenced. As long as it is unique, it should be referenced. --Tssha 12:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Cyde Weys. If it's of genuine interest, it's hard to see what objection there could be. James James 12:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is asinine. I have a hunch that this AfD is simply the work of someone who feels their own mod is threatened by Dystopia. 'Notability'? Dystopia has been downloaded, what, 200,000 times? It's got over a million unique hits on the webpage? It's been in HOW MANY professional magazines? Uranium - 235 04:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The online gaming scene is a cultural phenomenon, which over the last 5 years has quickly grown to be a socially acceptable and widely spread past time. This scene has been driven by modifcations for commercial games; Threewave CTF for Quake, Rocket Arena for Quake, Quake 2 and Quake 3, OSP for Quake 2 and Quake 3, and of course the best example: Counterstrike for Half-Life. To attempting to draw a line in the sand and say that ALL mods are "non-notable" is ridiculous. As for Dystopia, it's the 2nd most played 3rd party modification for Half-Life 2 with a user base of some 100,000 players. Lets at least put forward some scientific measure of what is considered notable, rather than putting things forward for deletion based on the feelings of someone who admits to have no interest and no knowledge on the topic. (Full disclosure: I am the project leader for Dystopia, thus incredibly biased. However, neither myself or any other development team member has edited the Dystopia page. The entry isn't here for advertising, it's here because obviously our fans feel that it's a worthy and notable contribution to the game modding phenomenon. It is a free product for which the developers recieve no monetary return, we are simply dedicated to creating a cool game.) Fuzzwah 04:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This mod is just like the Sourceforts article, it is a contributing member of the Half Life 2 Community. Is the Article on Economy of the United States a notable article, or should it be included in the basic article of the United States of America. this is a valid entry, and should stay. also, Dystopia mod is NOT a basic rip-off of HL2 Deathmatch, but a very unique game. If you play it, then you will see, this is as much of a diffence as HL2 Deathmatch is from Counter Stike Source. Dystopia is notable because it offers the Innovation of a truly dynamic style of play, and the ablility to fight in literaly two different maps at the same time. Also, a vote of Four against a pretty dead mod should NOT be the deciding factor on EVERY mod for Half Life 2. 4 people, as said in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SourceForts, is LESS than 1% of the total Wikipida viewer base. also, if you say Dystopia is Not Inherintly notable, than Counterstrike Source, Day Of Defeat Source and Half life 2 Deathmatch artilces should also be deleted, as they are "Not Inharintly Notable" Because they all were once mods! ~Kylegar
  • Keep As a SourceForts dev and longstanding member of the community, I find it absolutely ridiculous, if not offense, that GestaltG thinks a four person vote on ONE particular mod gives him mandate to mark ALL HL2 mods for deletion, regardless of their popularity or uniqueness. HL2DM Pro was not notable because it made negligible changes to HL2DM, a game released by Valve. Dystopia, like many other HL2 mods ARE notable because they make HUGE changes to the game which the mod is built on, making it an entirely new and unique game. GestaltG's argument is that a mod's status as a mod is enough to negate its creative and unique aspects, and I think we can all see how such an argument is totally ridiculous, if not laughable. Someone should mark his Beastmaster article for deletion, since it's nothing more than "useless fancruff and an advertisement", such a thing should be saved for a fansite by his logic.
  • Keep I find it quite odd that anyone would consider a mod of this popularity "non-notable". Hell, there was a point where members playing dystopia outnumbered members playing HL2 deathmatch. I think this attitude is honestly coming from overly conservative thinkers that do not realize that just because a video game is made on the same engine as the source engine does not mean that it is inherently the same game or somhing lesser. If that were the case then Quake 4 articles should be deleted because Quake 4 is really just a mod of Doom3.~Somniloquist
  • KeepWhat I find surprising is that you're deleting an article on a mod of HL2, when you're just fine to have one on leg hair (a stub, at that).
  • KeepThere are 2 leagues formed for this mod, each of which have clans from countries all over the world. I believe that is extremely notable. Cyanyde 06:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDystopia is an entirely new game and adds much more than the original Half-life2.'Proffesional' clans beeing formed, people helping new people who join every day and a development team putting so much effort into the mod.I think this and many other mods for any game a very notable.And besides that did you actually play it?~@BLOODy
  • KeepDystopia is no less significant than any other wikipedia entry and has a valid stake in history.
  • KeepThis mod and any other has the right to be part of this global information source and I want to remember you that there are entries about much less notable things that no one ever had thought of deleting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limecat -Sherb

    • Limecat? Try Gestalt's own 'Beastmaster' entry. He says it's 'undisputed'. It could be because no one gives a rat's ass about a bad show that had no viewers.
  • Keep I didn't realise that there was limited space on here. What does it matter if there are articles on mods for video games? Wikipedia is a source of information. If I want to get information on certain modifications for Half-Life 2 then I should be able to come here and get a large amount of information about it.

- Hezzy. http://www.facepunchstudios.com

  • Keep Mods have been known to have a massve impact on gaming and games in general. Look back to the original Counter-Strike, which eventualy eclipsed the game it was a modification of and still remains the most played online game on the planet.

GestaltG seems overly opinionated and under informed (to show restraint and put it politely). Maybe he should stick to posting items on obscure television shows that no one cares about, instead of asking for entire communities made up of thousands of fans to be ignored. The Dystopia Mod and Source Forts in particular show huge promise. What an Idiot. -Waargawn.

  • KeepThis page is highly informitive and does a good job of adhering to encycleopedic standards. Dystopia is a total conversion consisting of compleatly new content and gameplay in every way compared to HL2. It's no less notable then any retail project. SwiftSpear 07:53PST, 12 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 Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic waste forums[edit]

Non-notable and unencyclopedic. Almost advertising. Delete. --worthawholebean talkcontribs 18:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's not "almost advertising", it's "definately advertising". -- Shinmawa 19:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Sub-stub. ~MDD4696 22:09, 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. Ichiro 00:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden: Source[edit]

As was agreed in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Half-Life_2_DeathMatch_Pro debate, individual mods for video games are not inherently notable and do not deserve Wikipedia articles, no matter how colorful and well written. Hidden: Source is another HL2 Mod article and on this same principle, I move it for deletion as non-notable matter. Additionally, this article and game mod articles of it's kind are advertizements stuck into Wikipedia and are matter more suitable for fan sites and game promotional websites, neither of which is a function of Wikipedia. I nominate this page for deletion as useless fancruft and an advertizement. GestaltG 18:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The words "hidden source" and game [24]returns 43k hits on google= notable. Englishrose 21:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should merge these with the listings page? Put more of a description next to each listing, and eliminate the individual pages for them? Just a thought. Kcbnac 00:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's already a list at List of Half-Life 2 mods -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a pretty good idea but the page may become too big so rather than merge, I still think it's best to keep and have indivual pages. Englishrose 01:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "The Hidden" is a very popular Half-Life 2 mod, it's been featured in PC Gamer, and at any given time there are many servers full of players. As for merging, I don't think this is a good idea; List of Half-Life 2 mods is already very long and wouldn't be able to fit full-on pages for dozens of mods. Cyde Weys votetalk 06:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, mods are not notable -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable Half-Life 2 Mod. RadioActive 22:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A mod can easily be noticable, and this one has been noticed by many. If you do delete the mods that actually get noticed, then you'll have to delete Counter-Strike and Day of Defeat too, considering they're still mods. Sonicdahedgie January 11
  • Keep Why losing a piece of the internet if it can lead to hours of fun?This mod has a lot of effort put in and the gameplay is great.Surely it's worthy enough for a little spot in here.~@BLOODy
  • Keep Aggreed. They can provide useful information for those looking to try something new. The Snee
  • Weak Keep I'm of the opinion that any total conversion is at the same level of value as retail content. That being said, this entry could use some beefing out, but at the base level it still is informitive and relevent. SwiftSpear 8:02PST 12 January, 2006 (UTC)

Keep Def keep, it is a great mod that has been noted by pcgamer.

  • Keep Mods can be notable, depending on creativity, uniqueness, or popularity. Hidden:Source may not be the most popular mod, but it is certainly creative and unique. Absolutely no reason to regard it as not notable, when many retail games that are not mods are less creative or unique, and are regarded as notable. --EntRo 23:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Ichiro 00:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also suspect that some of the votes originated from sockpuppets, however, discounting the sockpuppets, the consensus is still to keep.
It appears that 98% of the users voted to keep have less than 50 edits, however, there are no strong consensus for deletion, so I'm closing as no consensus for now. --Ichiro 00:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SourceForts[edit]

As was agreed in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Half-Life_2_DeathMatch_Pro debate, individual mods for video games are not inherently notable and don't deserve Wikipedia articles, no matter how colorful and well written. SourceForts is another HL2 Mod article and on this same principle, I move it for deletion as non-sense. Additionally, this article and game mod articles of it's kind are advertizements stuck into Wikipedia and are matter more suitable for fan sites and game promotional websites, neither of which is a function of Wikipedia. I nominate this page for deletion as useless fancruft and an advertizement because of these reasons. GestaltG 18:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no free web hosting. Gazpacho 20:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • SourceForts has its own completely functioning website. The content of the Wikipedia article pales in comparison to it. Can you explain how you think they are using Wikipedia as a free webhost? --Cyde Weys votetalk 02:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 4 votes does not a precedent make. Each article must be handled on a case by case basis and in this case I think SourceForts is sufficiently notable. It is constantly maintained and constantly being played. Cyde Weys votetalk 06:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I just don't see the logic on stating that a mod's wikipedia entry is an 'advertizement'. I guess an encyclopedia entry on soft drinks is an 'advertizement' because it mentions Dr. Pepper. Plus, our article is more of a history of our mod, rather than an overview of its key features. - Stieffers 22:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, If this is an advertisement, are you going to get rid of the CS:S article too? The first version is the most popular online game ever, but if this "precedent" is to get rid of any mod pages, I guess that will have to go, too... Finnegar
  • NOTE As a developer of SourceForts I may be considered biast, hence this is not a vote. However, I believe SourceForts to be representative along with Gmod of a new genre of construction games based on physics simulations. It would seem to be a shame to lose a record of what may prove to be a starting point in gaming history. - Voltaire 22:11, January 2006 (UTC)
    • "Voltaire" has a good point here. It seems to me that the people voting "Delete" have not played this game. If you had, you'd realize how revolutionary it is. It's pretty much the first FPS where you build the map in-game and then go on to fight in it. --Cyde Weys votetalk 22:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It's absolutely ridiculous to use such a broad interpretation of "advertisement". The SourceForts article contains an overview of the mod's history, and while you may not find it particularly interesting, community members do. Likewise, I don't find the history of Bolivia's economy very interesting, but many might, which make it a legitimate encyclopedic entry. I'm curious why you're focusing your efforts solely on Half-Life 2 mods, and not Half-Life 2 itself, or other games. Further, I'm curious as to how you can consider your article on the Beastmaster series, GestaltG, anything other than an advertisement if you consider this article to be such. SourceForts stands as a unique game, offering unique gameplay experiences that defy current genres, and it's certainly one of the first to do so, which may very well turn out to be a landmark in computer gaming history. That alone is plenty reason to consider it a legitimate encyoclopedic entry. -EntRo 22:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, From a personal perspective I use wikipedia as a first port of call for information on anything. The article is a history and description of a somewhat revolitionary mod rather than any advertisement. -ICR 22:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I feel this article is worthy of keeping. The article is fairly well written and encompasses not only a description of the mod's features but also of its history, making it more than a mere advertisement. In addition, it is worthy of note as a modification, breaking previous definitions of gaming genres/modes. It is a landmark in mods. 00:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, This is probably the best and most well designed mod available for HL2 right now. If you delete this, get rid of the [Counter Strike] article.. after all, CS is a HL1 mod. Why should preference be given to it just because it is larger then SourceForts?
  • Keep, This mod is Very origianl. Granted, Deathmatch Pro isnt very original, just a group of people making small changes to a game already released by VALVe. Sourceforts, on the otherhand, is on the same line as mods such as Dystopia, Art Of Acencion, Counterstrike(when it was a mod), Day Of Defeat (when it was a mod) and coutless otheres that brought in ORGINAL content into the game and making it fun. Also, as a Sourceforts Community member, i see this article, not as an advertisement for the mod, but as a informative article about the History of Sourceforts (which i was around for most of it and can verify its integrity) and how far the mod has come. Kylegar Jan 9th (9:22 PM PST)
  • Keep, This article is just as meriotus of being here as any other mod article, and you don't see event the most trigger happy deleter suggesting that all mod articles get removed. Darthdavid 05:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wiki pages are not free web hosting for mods, nearly all mods have sites up before distribution, not to mention distribution servers. If a mod has the ability to host several hundred megabytes of digital content in distribution packages per download then it is able to host it's own web space. Mods are not the game that they modify. Game engines are incredibly open ended and what can be done with an individual game engine. Mods entirely or partially create all new game content and play styles, and have completely separate communities from their senior engines and often the general modding community. Mods are not a lower form of gaming then a retail project such as Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines which is a full length real time role play title made using the HalfLife2 engine. The only notable differences are licensing, profit distribution and the fact that the development teams are armature led and unpaid. The Source Forts wiki page is informative encyclopedic and contains a relevant development and community history as well as purely non-technical facts about the game. It's also the first mod or game to combine base defense game play with capture the flag in a full open 3d environment. The Source Forts wiki page is no more free advertising for Source Forts then any other wiki page is for any other retail release or project. Wikipedia is for everyone. People who don’t play games should not be telling gaming communities information that is highly relevant to us is not valid Wikipedia material. SwiftSpear Jan 9th (12:58 PM PST)
  • Keep, I also do not see why mods of games may not be on WikiPedia. Why would this article be removed? I dont see this article violating any rules. Please state why you want it to be removed, except for your own personal oponion. Because you are against the modding of games, doesnt mean it shouldnt be on WikiPedia. Mods are video games too, just as much as other video games, so they should have the right to have their articles. TommieV 16:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I thnk its good to have a wiki page on all these mods as its a good way to get across information about these mods to people who dont know much about them and its more presentable Welsh 16:40, 10 January 2006
  • Keep, This article is nor an advertisement, or a 'personal website'. The link to the SourceForts true homepage is neither highly opressive, or for that matter standing out against the rest of the material. The article is non-biased, and in one of the first, if not THE first entirely-third party based game modification in which physics simulation is the most prominant feature, then this may infact provide interesting background for future readers into the past of physical based games. Khuskan 20:51, 10 January 2006
  • Keep, Firstly, This article is not an advertisement. It explains the history and evolution of a revolutionary mod. If this is an advertisement, then wouldn't the McDonalds article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mcdonalds ) also be an advertisement. After all, it speaks extensively of the food that they have and thats there for no reason other than drawing people in. Secondly, the "agreement" that GestaltG speaks of was made by four people, less than 1% of the people that read wikipedia. Also, no 1 agreement can be made for game mods allowance on wikipedia, all are different. If there was 1 agreement then mods such as Counter strike and Day of Defeat would have to be deleted same as Half-Life 2 DeathMatch Pro. Monty (13:58 PST), 10 January 2006
  • Keep, First off, this is a unique game, many ideas have never been seen before, or if they have been present if past three dimensional games, this is a definitive new blend of creation and destruction. Theres my view on the game, as far as the legibility for deletion is concerned i am staunchly against it, and any other well written, informational pages of Wikipedia. You must ask yourself, where is the harm is this page? Where is the slander? The lies or the "it's the best game of the century" slogans? There are none, this is no more damaging than the wikipedia page for rubber ducks! Furthermore i think it is rather ignorant to believe one topic in one forum discussed by a limited population can, with immediate results create a sweeping and generic moral high ground against all game mods. I would consider such things as being blind to reason and bowing to a mob mentality. At the very least take the time to individualy inspect each case rather than go on a crusade against all mods. After all there are many who say that murder is wrong, yet when war or self-defense is considered people change their minds. No sweeping statements are ever correct. So just let this page be, so that Wikipedia users can find out about this mod if they should so CHOOSE to, nothing here is being forced upon people. Is this advertising? I think not. Once again using the same example, this page makes people want to play (its free anyway) the game no more than the rubber duck page makes people want to buy little bath time ducks. Freols 16:51 GMT, 11 January 2006
  • Keep A unique game it is. I can't see any reason why anyone would delete the article. -BLOODy
  • Keep I personally found it a useful article. It is in no way unworthy of note. I can't see any sane reason to remove it. The Snee
  • Keep, I don't see any reason for removing an informing article. It doesn't matter what the subject is, as long as it is realistic and well written.
  • NOTE, I'd just like to point out that GestaltG's effort to get the Dystopia article deleted has failed, with many more people voting on that one than the HL2DM Pro article. If GestaltG thinks that a four person vote on the HL2DM Pro article creates a precedent where he can assault other articles, than surely the results of the Dystopia article remove such precedent. --EntRo 18:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE, What has me laughing the most is the pure ignorance of the three users posting in favor of the deletion of this article. It is now clear that many users have found this article useful and interesting. Not only have we stated our opinions clearly, and concisely, but we have also provided supporting details to back our opinions. GestaltG, you have taken a broad and sweeping generalization and tried to use it to your power. Not only were you almost completely wrong, but you have now made a fool out of yourself. As well, the two users posting in support of removing this article have been completely disproved, although I'm not sure how you can disprove the argument of "per nom" stated by Thesquirrel. Those in favor of deleting this article are either completely ignorant to the point where they do not comprehend valid arguments, or they are following a mob mentality of which the mob is extremely small. For the sake of your reputation GestaltG, I am asking that users refrain from posting further arguments as to respect the already downed original poster. -Stieffers 19:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was going out on a limb here, delete. All keeps were dependent on a cleanup, but this article is a clear-cut copyvio. We have no place for copyvios on Wikipedia, so deleted under CSD A8. Johnleemk | Talk 07:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Saint Andrews[edit]

Extremely POV, no attempt to disguise religious affiliation of writer. Advertising. --worthawholebean talkcontribs 18:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • At least some of the article seems to be a copyvio from here. Having said that I'd rather see the article cleaned up than deleted. Very Very Weak Keep dependent upon a MAJOR tidy up. Jcuk 19:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. In its current form, it is essentially copyvio from the school's website. The school itself is barely notable as it only became accredited 2 months ago and USNews doesn't rank it at all. Nevertheless, there might be a decent article here somewhere. -- Shinmawa 19:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please after a clean up Yuckfoo 03:34, 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 keep. —Cryptic (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plan of Attack (computer game)[edit]

As was agreed in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Half-Life_2_DeathMatch_Pro debate, individual mods for video games are not inherently notable and do not deserve Wikipedia articles, no matter how colorful and well written. Plan of Attack (computer game) is another HL2 Mod article and on this same principle, I move it for deletion as non-notable matter. Additionally, this article and game mod articles of it's kind are advertizements stuck into Wikipedia and are matter more suitable for fan sites and game promotional websites, neither of which is a function of Wikipedia. I nominate this page for deletion as useless fancruft and an advertizement. GestaltG 18:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another notable game wrongly up for deletion. Englishrose 22:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete: it's not a game article, it's just a mod, and as such is not notable per precedent cited. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The "precedent" you all are citing is nothing; four votes out of hundreds of thousands of users establishes a precendent? Yeah right. These delete votes need to be handled on a case-by-case basis, not by phony precedent. I'm voting for KEEP because this is a released mod with many players and has been featured in PC Gamer. Cyde Weys votetalk 06:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The idea that a mod does not deserve an article simply because it is not a complete game is bull. I am not voting for every mod to be allowed an article, but mods such as this are very popular and therefore this article should be kept. -- Ortzinator 06:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A mod called 'my-first-little-mod' adding a weapon that shoots 50% faster does not really add anything and a page of it should be removed.A mod like plan of attack however is pretty much an entirely new game with a new community.Deletion of this would be ridiculous.~@BLOODy
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 00:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Cross[edit]

Delete. Subject was once a candidate. Did not win party's nomination Lbbzman 18:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The election is over. No other info is given with regard to the person. The link to the external website is dead as well. Crunch 19:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ~MDD4696 22:09, 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 no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 06:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hussein 'Abd al-Majid[edit]

Given the lack of information about Saddam Hussein's father, this page should be deleted and the information in the article merged into the Wikipedia article on Saddam Hussein.--TommyBoy 08:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So merge and redirect per your suggestion. There's no need to afd. The article's contents are already on the Saddam Hussein article, besides the Arabic spelling of his name. - Bobet 16:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ideally expand and keep failing that merge with Saddam Hussein Jcuk 22:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Saddam's father=notable to me - max rspct leave a message 21:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, that's why it would stay as a redirect to a place with more information about him. However, he was a shepherd (according to the Saddam Hussein article; information you missed because this wasn't a redirect :( ), so there's no room for growth for this article. Being related to a famous person isn't notable on itself. - Bobet 14:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 19:07, 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. Mo0[talk] 04:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Langman[edit]

Wikipedia is not a news report. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this entry - it is important that this name be made public because the British authorities are trying to conceal it.

  • Weak Keep if more information can be added, otherwise delete. - FrancisTyers 13:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since then, more info has been added to this entry. --Vodex 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I can find the mention that the newspaper in question published a name, but not any information that this actually is his name. If someone can verify it, change to keep. - Bobet 13:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since then, this person's identity has been verified. --Vodex 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't see it. There should probably be an article on the kidnappings, but not on one person stated to have been there at the time. Do we have other articles for bystandeers? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete By all means have an article on the purported kidnappings. But by the nature of the supposed D-Notice it seems impossible to link these to Nicholas Langman Dlyons493 Talk 14:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since then... see above. --Vodex 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since then... see above. --Vodex 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here is the Greek newspaper article published on 25 December 2005 Stavros-Athens

http://cryptome.org/br-gr-spies.htm

    • That's a picture of something that mentions MI6 certainly. The red box is hard to read - looks something like Atpna K Lakman. Seems inconclusive to me. Dlyons493 Talk 21:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Other Greek press report the same name these days, see for example from Ta Nea http://ta-nea.dolnet.gr/print_article.php?e=A&f=18426&m=N09&aa=1 as to the person's name, and some image of a memo from the same article, http://ta-nea.dolnet.gr/print_article.php?e=A&f=18426&m=N09&aa=1, shows the original English spelling of the name. I agree additional information beyond the name should be included to keep this article. ArielGlenn 23:40 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Langman has been named in a national British newspaper (The Morning Star), one of the rare occasions where a British media organisation defies the D-Notice system and admits to having done so. He is also reportedly the subject of a criminal complaint in Greece and the complainant intends to seek his extradition. Rugxulo 15:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an article, but add in additional information about him and NPOV the allegations. --Vodex 00:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Serious allegations against him related to an important event, the July 7 London bombings, very little other information about him available Chaikney 19:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep British newspapers have now named him, in defiance of the D-Notice Stavros-athens 18:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 19:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that he has appeared in the press. The issue of information obtained by torture/maltreatment in the GWOT is highly notable. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Too much evidence to remove. Story is not false. Verified in English Media. As shown in links on page.
  • Comment The incident is clearly notable but personally I've yet seen nothing that links this persons name to it. None of the article links appear to and I don't see it in ArielGlenn link either. Could someone spell it out for me please? Dlyons493 Talk 21:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it should also be wikified in a better way, shouldn't it?!? --Angelo 00:59, 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 BOTH ARTICLES. GTBacchus(talk) 08:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Druth and Drooth[edit]

Wikipedia is not a slang guide. This is an unverified dicdef of Scottish slang. See also Drooth. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 19:19, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 06:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Muslim Islamic scholars[edit]

All of this is already covered in List of Islamic scholars. Not sure whether to merge and redirect to that, or to Portal:Islam. freestylefrappe 16:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to List of Islamic scholars. This article, along with Muslim scholars and Islamic_scholars, seems to simple be trying to add context to the names on the List of Islamic scholars. That can easily be done on the list page and would be more appropraite there so the context is provided for the list. -- JLaTondre 02:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is lots to say about Non-Muslim Islamic scholars, just needs that anyone gets around to actualy do it. This is a stub of a notable article.--Striver 13:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 19:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 22:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 07:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gadget Shop[edit]

non notable company using Wikipedia to advertise business and web site Gator (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meets WP:CORP point 1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself from the link above. --Nick123 (t/c) 22:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change vote to Strong keep per comments from NickMartin. How can this be advertising when it was posted by a high school student? That would have been clear had the nom checked NickMartin's user page. -- JJay 03:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per  Guy, ; Gadget Shop is/was a notable chain in the United Kingdom. Humansdorpie 23:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Nick123 Gilliamjf 16:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creater of the article, I would like to point out that I am a teenage American, and have nothing to do with the company. So therefore it is invalid to say that the article was created with any sort of advertising intent. The company is noteworthy enough to have been mentioned in another article. The non-existance of a link to the company's article is what inspired me to research and create the article. NickMartin 01:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Been inside this shop, shop has also been in the media. Good enough for me. Englishrose 21:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 19:23, 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 05:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in Sind, Pakistan[edit]

Bad english, no value. Comfort 19:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename, hopefully will attract people to fill in those red links. Kappa 19:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are various lists of streets in Paris, villages in Slovenia, etc. I don't see why this geographical list in particular should be deleted. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute keep. NO less notable than a list of towns in a British or even an American county. Of which there are plenty on Wikipedia, so tell me what's wrong with this article?
    • It's been cleanuped somewhat since the nomination. Kappa 00:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sind has roughly the same population as California. Choalbaton 02:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cities are encyclopedic. Gazpacho 02:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --NaconKantari 02:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of cities in Sindh. Title has a systemic bias. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It also has a typo, I've taken the liberty of fixing your redlink. Kappa 07:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. utcursch | talk 05:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Evaluators[edit]

This article was nominated for a speedy, and I originally deleted it as such, but I'm having second thoughts, so I will put this and Frank Ochieng (this show's producer) on AfD instead. However, I think this article can be safely deleted for non-notability, though not speedied. --Deathphoenix 21:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete "local access cable program" seems to me the author is admiting non notability. --Pboyd04 22:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contextualise If this subject is of note, context for the programme should be provided. If it really is non-notable, please delete -- (aeropagitica) UK 00:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 19:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Voicemakers[edit]

This was originally nominated for a speedy. Another creation of Frank Ochieng, this fanzine is definitely not notable. --Deathphoenix 21:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 19:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied. r3m0t talk 23:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason jericho[edit]

Delete. A hoax page about a supposed twin brother of Chris Jericho that is pure vanity. --Oakster 19:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 05:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Corbett[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion as vanity, but it asserts he plays semi-professionally for Gloucester City so he is of interest to fans of the the team and should be kept in my opinion. YMMV Kappa 22:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yep he does Keep (mind you, you have to search for the bugger, he isnt mentioned on Gloucesters official website!!) Jcuk 00:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template and expand. The creator, Joycie 15, appears to be an inexperienced newbie. Someone from the Welcoming Committee should really explain the point and purpose of WP to them. If this footballer is not of note, delete. -- (aeropagitica) UK 01:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete not notable.Gator (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 19:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't really think semi-profesisonal football players for a non-league team is notable really. FredOrAlive 00:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BIO on account of his time at fully professional Cheltenham Town. Choalbaton 02:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have expanded this player stub to provide more biographical information, appearance and goal detail, complete with sources. Dave Hatton 01:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability confirmed. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he's played in the Football League, and he helps fill the Cheltenham Town players category. ArtVandelay13 10:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 05:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jam Creative Productions[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion, but companies aren't speediable. Bringing it to AfD to respect the wishes of the anon user who tagged it for deletion. No vote. howcheng {chat} 22:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 20:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The article lists several claims to notability. However, I'd like to see some references the back them up. ~MDD4696 22:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup Sjc 04:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like advertising. Atrian 06:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep but cleanup. This stub desperately needs some TLC, but the basic article is correct: Jam is one of the two biggest jingle creators in the world, and is a household name to anyone in the radio industry. I'm surprised it never had an article before now. I could try to bring it up to standards, if it survives the AfD. --Aaron 05:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup. Notable company, needs some sourcing and a good list of radio stations. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This company is a part of American pop culture. Probably every person in the Western world has heard their radio jingles at some time. I orginally posted this article and I was really surprised that no one had written about JAM prior to this. They are an icon in the radio industry. I would request that this be taken off the Deletion list. I am interest as to why it was put on it in the first place.Bkirby 00:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Once an article has been nominated for deletion, I don't think there's any procedure to just de-nominate it. If there's an overwhelming consensus in one way or the other, the discussion can be declared over, but we don't have a clear consensus here, if for no other reason than not that many people have voted at all. Hopefully once the latest five-day voting period is up, an admin will declare the vote as "keep but cleanup" and I and others can work on rewriting it. I'd start rewriting it now, but I'm not going to waste my time as long as there's even a 1% chance that it's going to get deleted. --Aaron 00:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Vas[edit]

Biography that reads like a hoax. Taking up arms against the Soviet Union in 1994 doesn't sound very convincing, because it had ceased to exist. Buying a book for a cheap price isn't a claim to notability either, and even that is unverifiable. The article is closer to a hoax than patent nonsense so it's here. - Bobet 20:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There are no matching search hits. -- JLaTondre 19:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adrik Vas seems to be a character in the 2002 movie Bad Company. Delete nonetheless. Punkmorten 16:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 00:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam De La Lone[edit]

Delete as unsubstantiated? The origin appears to be an unsourced assertion repeated on various genealogy websites (see [25]). But I can find no independent verification of the existence of an Adam de la Lone as a commander in the forces of William the Conqueror - nothing in Encyclopaedia Britannica, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford Reference Online, Domesday Book online... Tearlach 20:27, 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 no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 06:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support_(mobile_framework)[edit]

  • Delete -Entire article appears to be original research Anastrophe 20:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. Several of the sources listed were published by reputable organizations, such as the Journal of Mobile Networks and Applications (MONET) and the IEEE/ACM, and it is therefore not original research as defined by WP:NOR. Although the references were all authored by the original contributor, this article does not fall under any deletion criteria. ~MDD4696 22:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is original research, albeit OR citing sources. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 00:00, 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 redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 06:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badda-Bing, Badda-Bang (DS9 episode)[edit]

a duplicate of another page about the same subjuct, without any details or notes Random articles 20:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 06:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AncECFull[edit]

Song from the game Civilization III, even if the article was any good, it wouldn't be very notable and this probably isn't its real name either (103 google hits). - Bobet 20:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- JLaTondre 19:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — personal essay/research. — RJH 23:29, 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 redirect as per Obli. Johnleemk | Talk 16:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bones family[edit]

NN Harry Pottercruft Paul 20:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete all. enochlau (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of streets in Comerica City, 15th Street (Comerica City), List of Comerica City streets, 23-42, Goddard Street (Comerica City), Broadway Street (Comerica City), Sixth Street (Comerica City), Comerica City's Major Avenues, First Street (Comerica City), Second Street (Comerica City), 2nd Street Spartan Supermarket, Third Street (Comerica City), Antoine Street (Comerica City), Alex Elementary School (Comerica City)[edit]

Looks like fanfiction or something. See Talk:Peanuts#Alex_Elementary_School_.28Comerica_City.29. Kappa 19:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this and related contributions by User:Gerald15. Some kind of Charlie Brown fan fiction by a kid in Detroit. Gazpacho 20:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ~MDD4696 22:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD discussions now merged here. Votes below were on one or more of the individual articles.
  • Delete along with all other Comerica fancruft. MattHucke(t) 21:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - all Comerica City articles are fancruft with anorak tendencies of the highest order. doktorb | words 21:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • VERY STRONG DELETE. Patent nonsense! OCNative 06:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't need every corner store in the world. This is worse than the "Taylor, Michagan" streetcruft and the Toronto buildingcruft we saw a few weeks ago. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Astrokey44|talk 10:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only do we not need an article on every corner store in the world, this store doesn't even exist in the fictional world. None of this "Comerica City" nonsense has ever been mentioned anywhere in any comic strip, movie, TV special, book, interview, or cuneiform tablet by Charles Schulz. Gerald15 keeps creating made-up articles regarding the Peanuts characters. --Birdhombre 20:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions Charlie Brown and Linus so I assume it's the school that these fictional characters attend. That wouldn't make it eligible for inclusion in any serious encyclopedia but, hey. Sbz5809 18:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would we verify that these fictional characters attend the school? Kappa 18:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it were up to me, I'd require that the person who posted it provide verification, and if such were not forthcoming, I'd delete it as meaningless garbage. Actually, I'd delete it anyway, but that's just me. Sbz5809 19:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming it can be verified, I'd vote to Merge this with the main peanuts article Jcuk 19:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New votes here

Delete as rampant fancruft. We would probably not allow these trivial streets even if they were real - whcih they are not. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 00:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all, cruft that got out of hand. I couldn't find anything about this comerica city so none of these have any chance of being notable.- Bobet 00:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All This is worse than the "Taylor, Michagan" streetcruft and the Toronto buildingcruft we saw a few weeks ago. NOTE: I'm moving this vote down to here since I now want to vote on all the articles. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 02:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who nominated these things, I would have thought my nominations would count as deletes, but since they don't, delete. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete. Information about Comerica could be added to this article. Very large portions of all the different articles should be deleted though. - MB (Talk) 11:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would make sense if there is good evidence that Comerica City is normally associated with the Penuts strip. A Google for "Comerica City" Peanuts reveals precisely one hit - and that's the author's edit to add this list to the article on Peanuts (comic strip). As far as I can tell (and I am not a Peanuts weenie) the name Comerica City was made up by the author and is not used elsewhere, certainly not in the strip itself. If this is wrong then I will change my vote to merge for all verifiable information - but here again we may have an issue since the only source I can find for any of these names is the author's Wikipedia articles. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad. Delete per nom. - MB (Talk) 14:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by R3m0t as a copyvio. - Bobet 00:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mytempdir[edit]

nonnotable web service; started by Mytempdir (talk · contribs). (ESkog)(Talk) 21:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. ~MDD4696 21:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Haakon 21:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 05:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utah v. Evans[edit]

Transwiki to Wikisource and either delete or rewrite into a real article. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for cleanup. Supreme Court opinions are per se notable. Gazpacho 21:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Articles which contain nothing but a quote from the decision belong on Wikisource. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Excellent discussion of this Supreme Court case. -- JJay 22:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Gazpacho's changes to the article make this a useful article on a notable Supreme Court case. Cedars 03:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep its been cleaned up now thanks to Gazpacho -- Astrokey44|talk 15:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep implies that the nominiation was made in bad faith. I resent the implication. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didnt mean that, its fair enough that it was nominated looking at what it was. but its been cleaned up now. You did say it should be rewritten into a real article which has been done. -- Astrokey44|talk 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It wasn't my intention to suggest that the article was a bad-faith nomination either. Cedars 01:18, 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. Results counted: Keep: 11, Delete: 3. All other votes were disregarded as sockpuppet votes, and/or personal attacks. →FireFox 17:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chantelle Houghton[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO. Is ordinary member of public taking part in a game show - would create massive headache for precedent if all such public members were allows articles. Is not notable under Wiki rules and has been instructed to lie about celeb/notable status on screen. doktorb | words 21:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no less notable than several other TV personalities. Already several participants on "ordinary" BB have entries. She is more than just an ordinary member of the public making a transitory appearance on a game show. Whether she succeeds or fails, her case raises some significant questions about the nature of celebrity, and (along with the recent Space Cadets programme, the line between fiction and reality on programmes like this. PatGallacher 22:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. Englishrose 22:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice could be argued as deletion as she is not famous. However, reports that the page will cause legal problems are untrue, the page is for information only, and any deletion of the page claiming to be for legal reasons in vandalism. However, contestants on regular BB have had pages created, and she is certainly going to be known for her appearance, particularly as it is the first of it's kind. However, I am not willing to either argue for or against the deletion, i just want to give advice. Mikeroberts 14:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per PatGallacher Jcuk 23:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being on Big Brother in the first place at least makes her well known. Keeno 00:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Indeed she is only a participant in a game show, but the voting record for BB is in the millions and she has already got dozens of column inches in the British tabloids (which contributes to one of the criteria). On her exit various magazines and newspapers will be willing to give her thousands for interviews & pictures, at least one photoshoot for FHM or equivalent would be more or less guaranteed (more contribution to the same critera). By the nature of BB as a gameshow & it's populatity, more or less all it's participants are recognisable by the UK public which fulfills another of the criteria in WP:BIO MGSpiller 00:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Other BB contestants on other 'ordinary' shows have pages --Prof Jolly 01:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- She's become a major part of the early part of the show.Logan1138 13:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as PatGallacher and MGSpiller above. Sweetie Petie 14:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Delete, nn-bio, not really a 'celebrity' in the same light as Mariah Carey or Tom Cruise. Ideal candidate for speedy deletion. --Sunfazer 13:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. She is on BB which means she's already getting loads written about her in the press. There will be much more written as the time progresses. Also, there is something of notable about her situation which makes her stand out from all other BB contestants. Evil Eye 15:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep once she took part in that game show she was no longer an ordinary member of the public -- Astrokey44|talk 15:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - SHE IS NOT A CELEBRITY. WHY THE FUCK DO YOU ALLOW THIS SHITE?? SHE IS NOT A CELEBRITY. END OF. --205.234.187.222 16:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep/merge; either keep (which seems better to me), or merge into an article covering al l this series' Big Brother contestants. — Zazou 16:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new users[edit]

Delete - she will sue if she reads this. Remove for legal reasons. --BekahHarlow 13:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's third edit. →FireFox 14:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I know the individual, and she wants this removed. Also she isn't a celebrity, she's a Joe Public. Please remove. --Gazza1980 14:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit. →FireFox 14:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can you say she wants this removed when she is locked up in the Big Brother house with no outside contact? --Prof Jolly 14:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Channel 4 employee has informed her of this, and she has stated explicitly that she wants it removed. --Gazza1980 14:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that ver much as it would be against BB rules --Prof Jolly 14:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Prof Jolly, the employee of Channel 4 has informed her and she has explicitly stated it should be removed. She is aware of this article, you know. --Gazza1980 14:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if this is to be deleted why have he profile on Channel 4 pages[26] --Prof Jolly 14:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know Channel 4 has informed her of this page and why should we believe you? Sweetie Petie 14:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Totaly agree Sweetie Petie --Prof Jolly 14:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Chantelle is a friend of mine, do we really need every single person in the UK on here?? Surely this should be removed. --Dannii Harman 14:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit. →FireFox 14:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I know her, this article is a waste of space. She wouldn't be pleased to see it. --ClaireJanssen 14:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's second edit. →FireFox 14:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably a huge number of people who don't like their Wiki entries but there is nothing libellous in the entry as it stands.If you could perhaps expand as to what wouldn't be liked then it might help in making your point?Logan1138 14:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Delete - not appropriate on here, breach of personal privacy. I know her well. --JoanneCoolChick 14:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's second edit. →FireFox 14:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If she didn't want her "personal privacy" breached, she probably shouldn't have gone on Big Brother in the first place. Nothing said on that page isn't already available in newspapers or on the internet. Sweetie Petie 14:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Keep. →FireFox 14:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WE DO NOT WANT THIS SHIT ON WIKIPEDIA. WE CAN SUE!!! REMOVE IT NOW! --JaneAndrews1 16:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit. →FireFox 16:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would say she is a celebrity already and so wholly meritous of remaining in Wikipedia. After all, Faria Alam is famous for having slept with Sven and his former boss! Shes appeared on a TV programme and is commanding alot of press attention as a result. Shes the star of the programme, and good luck to her.

Delete - Obscene content, not a celebrity, remove. --Thesunandthemoon 16:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit. →FireFox 16:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Obscene content- where? So how does appearing on a TV programme watched by millions and commanding tablotd inches not make you a celebrity?

Delete - No need for this shit. Stop drinking soda. --Andrew P. Lin 16:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit. →FireFox 16:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Strong delete - Not a celebrity, this is a vanity page written by the Willy on Wheels --Kinuther 16:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit. →FireFox 16:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, what an absurd comment. The page has never been edited by Willy on Wheels (or is that possible seen as the user appears to have been banned for over 10 months). I also cannot see any reason to call it vanity, as vanity would probably apply Chantelle herself writing the article. As the article appears to have been started after BB started, that is also impossible as there are no internet connections inside the house. This whole list of brand new users who's first (and often only edit) is to vote on this user page is not going to make those votes count as much as those (both in favour of delete and keep) from long standing members. I'm not sure if they are the work of the same person or numerous people. But if it is just one person, I do ask them to stop wasting their time in creating new names to vote with. You've made your point and getting angry will not help you further your point of view.Evil Eye 16:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments These arguments are getting loonier. It can hardly be a vanity page if someone unconnected wrote it. It's also clearly not Willy on Wheels - I, amongst others, have edited it. I'm neutral on the AfD, although if it's deleted the information should go to the Celeb BB UK article and a redirect established.
Some of the votes here are remarkably similarly worded. <whistles> --Whouk (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Surely the reaction on this discussion page shows why she is important- by provoking reactions allround! Becoming a celebrity by being a non-celebrity. Surely that must be a first!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob77 (talk • contribs)

DELETE WHAT A LOAD OF BLOODY SHITE. --Gibraltarian11 16:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit. →FireFox 16:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is not the place for such shit. It should fuck off to Uncyclopedia. --Goulberno 16:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit. →FireFox 16:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I am getting rather concerned that people here are using multiple entries to try and settle some sort of scores!? I fail to see what the poor girl has done to merit such abuse. Is there anyway to report this to the administrators so they can take the multiple "delete" votes from the same user into account?

That is what I have been doing, marking as "User's first edit"... The closing admin will take this into account. →FireFox 16:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Delete Fight!! Yay, this is a great Wiki-brawl.... good fun to watch! Delete this odd article!! Wikipedia is Communism!! --Covono 17:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV-FORK!! Wikipedia is Communism!!! Wikipedia is Communism!!! It's a POV-fork!!! --Wickwar 17:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What a bloody pile of shite!! --Brambigan 17:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Get rid of this page on the little slut. And User:Pigsonthewing needs to start having a wheel war with User:Firefox. --Hoyeo 17:11, 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. If AfD is a debate and not a vote, I think the "deletionists" called this one. Johnleemk | Talk 06:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vulgar libertarianism[edit]

This term is very non-notable. Basically, someone put it up on his web page, and that's about all the use of it (in this context). It gets only 338 Google hits. The first three are 1) Carson's introduction of the term. 2) This article 3) An article using it to mean something else. [27] It constitutes a neologism. MrVoluntarist 21:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By my count it gets 411 [28] and only a handful of those relate to Carson's Mutualist Blog (335 include no reference to it [29]). Furthermore, my understanding is that neologisms are only in violation of Wikipedia policy if they are part of original research (see Wikipedia:Deletion_policy). This is not original research. The term exists in print (as noted in the article) and on 270 pages that make no mention of the originator, Mr. Carson, whatsoever [30]. - Nihila 22:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know people other than Carson have used it, but they don't use it the same way. Ergo, it doesn't count toward the total for this use of the term. Like I said, the first link after Wikipedia and Carson's blog is someone who uses it to mean something else [31]. It has not entered widespread use. Wikipedia is being used to spread the term. Wikipedia is not a platform.MrVoluntarist 00:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please clarify which Wikipedia problem category this article falls into? The fact that you find it non-notable / in limited use does not make it a candidate for deletion unless it is a "Completely idiosyncratic non-topic" [32]. Obviously this is not the case as the term exists in print and is in at least limited use on the internet. - Nihila 05:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I don't find it notable. It isn't notable. You can't just invent a term on your blog and then put it in Wikipedia. The third hit on Google, after the Wikipedia article and the blog that invented it, is it using the term in a different context. So in the extremely limited use that this term has gained outside the inventor, a different meaning is the most dominant. If you want a specific policy, among many, there non-notability, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not here to get people to use a term you invented. It's here to report on terms once they become significant.MrVoluntarist 05:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern about the term's notability, but I'm not sure what your basis is for the claim that I invented it. I am not Kevin Carson. - Nihila 05:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you invented it. I was using "you" in the general sense, i.e., "you can't bring a horse to water and then expect it to drink" does not mean I think you brought a horse to water and expected it to drink. MrVoluntarist 05:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then I don't understand your claim that this violates "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". The three points listed under that heading are "Propaganda or advocacy" (I have not seen any disupute about this article being NPOV), "Self-promotion" (I didn't coin the term) and "Advertising" (there is no link in this article to Carson's blog or published work). [33] - Nihila 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand what it means to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. It's not limited to the three things they're specifically enumerated. Any attempt to use Wikipedia to popularize something that hasn't caught on on its own is using it as a soapbox. Carson started usin a term on his blog, and then someone added it. If we had to add every jargon anyone invents for their blog that hasn't caught on, we'd have disambiguations for everything. MrVoluntarist 01:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable neologism from a barely notable author-blogger (disclosure: I'm a Misesian and probably a vulgar libertarian.) Paul 22:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See above. - Nihila 22:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-otable neologism (i.e. unverifiable from reliable sources). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad no one uses it except to mean something else, and even then, only 400 Google hits. MrVoluntarist 01:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All that says is google gave it 400 hits. Google is not the last word on notability -max rspct leave a message 13:49, 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 no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 06:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan jason[edit]

This person is not notable and may be a vanity page. Was proposed for speedy but author Montydog wished to have it discussed so I felt it proper to grant him that request. Nick Catalano (Talk) 21:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete If his company is of any note beyond the boundaries of his town, then the article could be stubbed and bettered; if it's a small holder of no note, or the company is barely known beyond a small circle of customers - and this latter point is implied by the article as it currently stands - then deletion seems appropriate. doktorb | words 21:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know that Mr. Jason has quite a following in B.C. and most likely elsewere for his passion on the issue of GM seeds and the preservation of crop biodiversity. My original intention when I first wrote the article was to make it a stub that others would better, but as you know I,ve only been contributing to Wikipedia for some 2 hours now and I havn't yet figured out how to do that. I just Googled "Dan Jason" and I found 11,200 pages. "Salt Spring Seeds" returned 842. So clearly he and his company are well known outside his hometown. ((User: Montydog, 1:54 PM Pacific Time, Jan. 7 2006))
  • Keep Person and company are notable enough. Seeds of Diversity is a recognized grass-roots company. I added cleanup and bio-stubs. Atrian 06:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous young-earth Creationists[edit]

This list is inherently POV, factually innaccurate and not worthy of inclusion. We already have a List of Young Earth Creationists which are most of the modern players. This is different it is a list of supposedly famous scientists of the past who were young earth creationists (Oh and bizarrely, two famous actors and a deceased astronaut). Probably sourced from Henry M. Morris, [34] (though not even Morris was foolish enough to include the actors, darling). Note young earth creationists, not creationists, which is interesting because Answers in Genesis identify Agassiz as an "old earth compromiser".

Anyway, basically it's an appeal to authority, made even better because dead people can't protest. Given the lack of evidence in favour young earth creationism, they do resort to such silly lists. Mosts of them aren't even biologists, though to the credit of this list it excludes those who died before the 1858 publication of Darwin and Wallace. However the modern YECist movement arose in the 1960s (led by aformentioned the hydraulic engineer Morris) in response to the secularisation of society and all (apart from the actors and astronaut) predate this.

Some on the list are demonstrably false; see There have been many famous scientists who believed in special creation in the past and the subclaims relating to Babbage, Fabre, Kelvin and Pasteur. The rest I don't know so much about (except for Mendel and he most probably was't), and given the propensities of the YECists to bearing false witness, proper secular references are in order, and they are missing. — Dunc|☺ 21:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom...see talk origins.org Jim62sch 22:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There needs to be very clear verifiable evidence provided before such a list can be created, especially when listing people who are no longer alive. As nom indicates, many of these people died before the YEC movement arose. That means that the list risks being anachronistic; it is probablw that few of these people woudl have been aware of the contemporary debate, and so claiming them for one side or another can only be done with clear evidence. This list is not appropriate to Wiki. JGF Wilks 22:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since almost all entries are unverifiable and the very term "famous" is inherently POV. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

quote "Given the lack of evidence in favour young earth creationism, they do resort to such silly lists." unquote. Could we please try to stick to neutral terms on AfDs. One persons silly list is another persons time and effort (and possibly quite a lot of both) putting said list online. Jcuk 23:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into List of Young Earth Creationists : WP guidelines already state that we do not need to add "famous" to list titles, as it is implied already. The criteria seems fairly tight: if entries do not belong (and there is only one redlink), remove them. If not merged, keep delete. Turnstep 01:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • After visiting some of the links, changing from merge/keep to merge/delete. Turnstep 00:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Already have a list. --24.12.29.115 03:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV article duplication -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thesquire. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There's no way to know what any of the deceased people on the list would think of the modern issue. Might as well also list them as "people who refused to watch TV." Mark K. Bilbo 16:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an anachronism and a POV fork. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, inaccurate, misleading, and POV. WarriorScribe 04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 06:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The characteristics of god[edit]

Original Research, or copyvio Sceptre (Talk) 21:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as per nomination; this type of material is not within the purpose of Wikipedia, even too much for a user page. The initial editor appears to be both new and misunderstanding the nature of Wikipedia. We should remember to be nice and helpful -Acjelen 22:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. tregoweth 22:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment original research yes, but quite well done all the same....as far as wiki is concerned its a delete, but give the author chance to put it somewhere first (IE geocities or somesuch space) Jcuk 23:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research and POV. Userfy if the author wants it. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to say the author emailed me and said I was right to put it up for AfD. I'm not sure if this means he wants it deleted though Sceptre (Talk) 23:46, 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) 00:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulcht[edit]

Nonsense article about a "pseudo curse." WP:NOT urban dictionary. Paul 21:59, 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. enochlau (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spooo Presents[edit]

Delete, (or merge if someone knows a relevant page). However, I vote delete since this page looks like advertising, not a notable comic. JGF Wilks 22:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted for copyvio. enochlau (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeevani[edit]

nn supplement, adspeak. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. Obviously important given the allegations and news coverage surrounding patent stealing from indigenous peoples. [35]. Speaks directly to fundamental issues in the ongoing debate concerning globalization. -- JJay 22:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertorial for snake oil. <900 Google hits, mostly adverts. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete copyvio of http://www.nutriscienceusa.com/productinfo_39.htm . -- Perfecto 23:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete May be notable due to media coverage, but the article instead is just an advertisement. r3m0t talk 00:00, 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 Speedily deleted for nn-band. enochlau (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ways To Kill[edit]

Local band that I can't find any info on, no albulms released. My first AfD, so let me know if I do anything wrong. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The band seems to barely exist, much less worthy of an article. tregoweth 22:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing good ever came from Edmonton. This is a scientific fact. Also not in the usual places, so just another band vanity. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free photos[edit]

Not an encyclopedic term. Article likely created for being a link collection. Haakon 22:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 06:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Marvin Gossett[edit]

nn bio Hirudo 22:43, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 06:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trade-peror's Unified Economic Theory[edit]

Strategy guide for the computer game Civilization. Five google hits, all on Civilization fan forums.[36] Vary | Talk 22:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Original research, unverifiable from reliable sources, indiscriminate information, vanity. Gamecruft and forumcruft combined to create one massive lump of onanistic unimportance. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am a new user, and I am very sorry to have offended the Wikipedia community. The only reason I have listed this body of suggestions on Wikipedia is because it has come up in a number of discussions on various forums discussing the improvement of Sid Meier's Civilization. I thought Wikipedia could serve as a standard reference. Since that is apparently not acceptable, feel free to delete if you wish. I will be more careful in the future. Trade-peror 00:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Trade-peror[reply]
  • Comment Hi, Trade-peror. Please don't feel you've offended anyone; it's just that this isn't the sort of article we usually keep here at Wikipedia. I don't do a whole lot over there, so I don't know for sure if this would work, but Wikibooks has a near-empty page on Civilization. [37]. Maybe they'd be able to use your content over there? At any rate, I'd go ahead and copy the article right now, before the page is deleted, if you haven't already. I see you put a lot of work into wikifying it. -- Vary | Talk 01:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:02, 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) 00:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Sutherland/Temp[edit]

The article "Peter Sutherland" is a full article. This is a stub. Valentinian 22:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most interesting. Delete per nominator. If possible, Speedy Delete - there is no possible function for this stub. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 22:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, temp article with one sentence that hasn't been touched in 8 months. - Bobet 00:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 07:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Institute of Gifted and Talented[edit]

I stumbled across this article while searching Category:Wikipedia cleanup. It appears notable, but a Google search produces no results with quotes [38] and no relevant results without quotes [39]. In addition, the website it provides (cigt.ca) is nonexistant. Thus, this article cannot be verified. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - appears to be defunct. Google finds it's actually the "Canadian Institute for the Gifted and Talented", which produces lots of hits for a dead message board. The Internet archive finds the (also defunct) site. Much of it is in Korean; it says it's "a nonprofit organization, dedicated to the needs of Korean-Canadian gifted and talented children". However, the site being down and there being no other search results, it looks either nonexistent or too small/ill-organized to be notable. Tearlach 02:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Tearlach. Atrian 06:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 05:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1972 Cup Winners Cup final[edit]

A final not notable enough to have its own article, delete or possibly merge usable content into Rangers F.C. and Dynamo Moscow. -- Elisson • Talk 23:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I wouldn't like to have an article for every final match played for all football competitions ever (Cup Winners' Cup was abolished a few years ago). --Angelo 23:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since I don't believe any single football match with the possible exception of the 1966 World Cup final is actually independently notable. And even that is only because I'm English :-). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No matter how long ago it was, it's the final of one of the major European club competitions, and should at least be linked to from the Cup Winners Cup article, from the list of finals there (I'm assuming there is one.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeno (talk • contribs)
    How does that make it notable? There are some matches that truly deserve their own articles, such as the 1966 World Cup Final, the Jahrhundertspiel or the England v Hungary (1953) match, but what is so special about this CWC final that it deserves its own article? -- Elisson • Talk 00:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Usually I'm not a deletionist, but, really, IMHO it is quite stupid to make articles of every final match. Just relevant ones, like the 1966 world cup final, and, for example, Italy-Germany 4-3 (1970 world cup semifinal, considered among the most amusing matches ever). But, please, not every final, or semi-final, match! --Angelo 00:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. I wouldn't want people creating articles for run-of-the-mill league matches, but European finals are notable enough to have their own articles. It's not very good at the moment, but I could see this becoming a very good article given time. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with UEFA Cup Winners' Cup 1971-72 (when created), as with 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65. No need for the match to have its own page apart from the tournament page unless it is significantly notable. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 00:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Finals of major international club competitions are notable. Carioca 01:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The final of one of the three (as it was then) all Europe football competitions is not a standard game. Choalbaton 02:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with UEFA Cup Winners' Cup 1971-72 (or alternatively Rename and expand) as per Albinomonkey. Qwghlm 02:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Albinomonkey -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Albinomonkey. Create articles about several finals, not just one final per article. - MB (Talk) 11:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is. Individual articles are more flexible for linking and categorising. It's already in Rangers' category and the Moscow club will probably have its own category some time. The Rangers article will get far too large and will not be able to contain all the content about the history of Rangers. Rangers F.C. already has an article size warning, so things need to be taken out, not added in. The coverage of the history of Manchester United already runs to 6 large articles. Bhoeble 14:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why not do a similar article series for the history of Rangers F.C.? The final is of course worty of mention on Wikipedia, but IMHO, it is not worthy a separate article. -- Elisson • Talk 15:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve Palx 15:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 07:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep less notable than superbowl, but still...  Grue  14:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bhoeble --Loopy e 21:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Burke[edit]

Seems like a lot of CV puffery. The claims don't bear up under Google scrutiny. Only two Google hits for "Jamie Burke" + "Ammo Films", and they make no mention of his running the company. Zero Google hits for "Caradoc Wolfe James", "Caradoch Wolfe James", or "Caradoch James" and the 16 hits for "Caradoc James" don't seem to be the person mentioned here. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's pretty much my reasoning and conclusion. Delete. Melchoir 23:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • PotentialVanity. Creator has been adding much poker-related content. -- Perfecto 00:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari 00:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Total vanity page. Creator has been making multiple duplicate aricles from content stolen from various webpages. 2005 21:09, 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 Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian smith[edit]

From speedy, but not a candidate. "Hoax". Delete. r3m0t talk 23:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:V. I made Gill smith point to this article, so give that one the same fate as this. -- Perfecto 23:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. (Oh, all right.) Melchoir 23:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be deleted. Not true. Obviously a wind up. No such person exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.106.4 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 8 January 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radomir Naumov/Temp[edit]

Duplicate article of "Radomir Naumov" Valentinian 23:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T.T.A.[edit]

Non-notable Flash series. tregoweth 23:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable and the article is just an amazing collection of linkspam. - Bobet 23:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow's Nobodies[edit]

Non-notable Flash series (691 Google hits). tregoweth 23:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, alexa rank of 960,183 for the website. No claim of notability in the article. - Bobet 00:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bobet - Foamy they're not -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:53, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 06:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kisbacs[edit]

Was speedy marked, but is not a candidate. r3m0t talk 23:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, unless it's a really small town, I can't seem to figure out the size of it. Any Romanians know? Obli (Talk) 02:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Keep, I've been to Kisbacs, so I'm quite sure it exists. I'll inquire shortly into its size and try to update the article. (I'm the primary author.) Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.209.61 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep if you can find something verifiable on it. It gets Google hits, especially when properly accented as Kisbács, but I'm not up to reading them. Tearlach 04:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The name Kisbács would appear to be a Romanian name for the Hungarian village of Baciu. It seems that if at least 20% of the population of a Hungarian conubation are of an ethnic (possibly only Romanian, but I cant work it out) minority, they are entitled to bilingual signs. Mapquest recognises Baciu. [40] but not Kisbács. Jcuk 08:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Thanks for the research! Actually, Baciu is the Romanian name. Mapquest recognizes it and not Kisbács (the Hungarian name) because it's situated inside the borders of Romania. Note that if you Google Kisbács, you find a number of Hungarian-language sites. Also note - the letter "k" doesn't exist in the Romanian language (except where they borrow words from abroad), and neither does the letter combination "cs", which combines to make the equivalent of our "ch" sound in Hungarian(or something like it.) Thanks again. --128.192.209.61 15:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)The guy who put up this entry.[reply]
  • Keep, but try to include all names, including German name.--RBrancusi 01:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • commentI agree with that. There is already a link to the Romanian name of the village. I am unaware of the existence of a German name. (Although it's certainly true that most towns in Transylvania (Siebenburgen) have Romanian, Hungarian, and German names.) --128.192.246.117 20:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) The original author of this entry.[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 00:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Westgarth[edit]

The subject's claim to notability is a website that no longer exists; the article claims it "won some awards", but I couldn't find any on Google. Melchoir 23:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, only claim of notability is the website. The newest version of it I could get to load with wayback machine was on june 2003 and it hadn't been updated since november 2000. In the site's news for that day it said it had had 1729 page visits in the prior 4 months, ie. not notable by a long shot. - Bobet 00:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I hadn't tried that. Ahem: delete. Melchoir 00:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari 00:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bobet -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it doesn't belong in the article namespace but please userfy it. The man has passed away and the user who wrote the article is probably his relative. Moving it to the user's space would, I hope, be more gentle than deleting it outright. Also see the message I left at User talk:Westy22 (before Melchoir put up the AfD). - Haukur 00:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westy22 - this really did have big hits - but after his death, word got around and the site was updated so people didnt visit it anymore.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 00:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jefferies[edit]

From speedy. Hoax? r3m0t talk 23:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's unwikified, it's POV, it is totally unencyclopædic in tone, and, more importantly, it's a total hoax. And not even a good one. Delete. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 00:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Delete.If it's not a hoax, then the facts are completely wrong. Either way it's of no value. Crunch 01:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nn-bio, bordering on patent nonsense. Turnstep 01:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax unless proved otherwise. Conscious 15:32, 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. Ichiro 00:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of books by Barbara Cartland[edit]

Non-linked, unwikified list of romance novels; can be linked and wikified, but what's the point? Paul 20:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Given the number of second-rate bands with their own discographies, why shouldn't a well-known, best selling author (of potboilers, to be sure) have the equivalent? Monicasdude 23:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question Looking at other authors, it seems the precedent is to have catagories of books by said author. I was originally going to vote merge as a bibliography on Cartlands page, but given the apparent precedent, shouldnt we catagorise? Jcuk 23:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and expand to include all her 724 books (according to the Barbara Cartland article). We do have detailed descriptions of individual pokemon. Why should we treat silly pop cultural topics differently depending on whether the target audience consists of teenage geeks or middle-aged uneducated women? (OK, I'm sure that was a prejudiced generalization, but whatever...) A category is not a great idea, as I doubt we will actually get articles on individual books. u p p l a n d 00:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a category wouldn't be in chronological order and couldn't give the dates of publication, as I'm sure this will eventually. Kappa 00:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: this page would be far more coherent as a wikified bibliography on her own page. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 00:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
    • With 724 books? Kappa 01:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's essentially a bibliography and bibliographies are in encyclopedias. I take it will end up too large to be in her article though so having it as a separate list sounds valid.--T. Anthony 01:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep (in line with what u p p l a n d says). Personally, I think Barbara Cartland novels stink, but we've got (for instance) exhaustive lists of Bionicle Toas, Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game cards and baseball statistics. It would represent a systematic bias - call it ageism, sexism, classism, whatever you want - not to include these massively popular novels just because they're outside the usual patterns of geekery. Tearlach 02:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per u p p l a n d Choalbaton 02:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Moat books wouldn't or shouldn't have their own article, but a list of their names and perhaps brief details/points to note about them would be a great idea.Evil Eye 15:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This author is certainly notable and prolific enough for her own bibliography page. 23skidoo 20:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep God help me. But nly because the alternative, an article on each book and a category, is simply too horrible to contemplate... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I take it back, then. Paul 23:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 07:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JzG, this is the lesser of two evils. Mike 12:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_7&oldid=1116878893"