Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 3

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - brenneman^(t)(c) 13:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

385, ski run road, Blooningburg, N.Y. 12721

"Biography" of a non-notable residential/family home. Not encyclopedic. ERcheck 21:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: If it were a person, not a home described, it would qualify for speedy delete as a non-notable bio of a real person. ERcheck 21:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Both unverifiable and non-notable. Even the name of the suburb is spelt wrongly. Capitalistroadster 21:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ••MDD4696 ( talk - contribs ) 22:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even with a hole in the swimming pool liner, it's non-notable. Chris the speller 22:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Eddie.willers 23:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I just speedy deleted it. No need to waste anybody's time with this. - DavidWBrooks 01:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by RHaworth. Chick Bowen 19:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Ferrer Florit

Not really any assertion of notability. 1 google hit. Punkmorten 17:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for heaven's sake. --Impaciente 18:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity or something... Some guy 19:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Dude WTF. Delete. Herostratus 08:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what seems to be a vanity article, without any real assertion of notability, and no properly sourced, verifiable facts. *Dan T.* 16:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delte NN-bio --Bachrach44 17:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (tagged as non-notable bio) Stifle 14:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 14:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Falconer

Unverifiable, probably hoax (first paragraph of article more or less says so), no trace of claimed albums. Dalbury^(Talk) 03:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article itself says the teens "have decided to give themselves interesting back stories to add to the mystique of the project" which indicates that it is a fabrication. Hu 03:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The hoax paragraph at the top was added by 12.77.118.135, who also added it to Sam Lazerwitz, so you may want to take a look at that, too. -- Saikiri~ 03:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment However, I did try to check out the albums 'Falconer' supposedly recorded, and got no hits at all. Still smells like a hoax to me, independent of that first paragraph. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 04:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I meant was the Sam Lazerwitz article is probably a hoax of this flavor as well. Well, I'll go AfD it now. -- Saikiri~ 05:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as silly vandalism. This man was born in 1976 supposedly became Elvis' successor then went into hiding for 28 years. That would mean that he was 2 when his recording career was at its peak. Capitalistroadster 04:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hoax. -- Saikiri~ 05:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No relevant google hits. Pound with asteroids --YixilTesiphon 15:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obvious hoax. Alex Falconer should refer to the former Member of the European Parliament. David | Talk 19:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but not speedy: Because it admits that it's fiction, it's not vandalism. However, original fiction is disallowed from Wikipedia, including fan fiction and self-fan fiction. Geogre 20:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; fictional biographies are not suitable for Wikipedia. If the project of which it is a part is (or becomes) notable, some of the info here might be suitable for an article on that. *Dan T.* 16:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 10:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American Patriot Party

Although Google hits are substantial, the results are muddled by entities other than this "party" founded in 2003. A search of 600+ American newspaper archives from 2003 to present shows 3 results. 2 are in passing reference as part of a list of third parties. 1 cites the website for historical info on the revolutionary war. There is no evidence of campaigning or any political activities. Probably 1 man and a P.O. box. delete

Comment That is your offhand opinion. "Probably"? You are speculating. --Fahrenheit451 02:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are the only member? confirmed? Lotsofissues 21:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lotsofissues 17:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The "2006 candidates" section contains 1 person, which they endorse: Independent candidate Brian Lee Merrill from 1st District, SC who is running for Congress. The state party section indicates that a state chapter has only been formed so far, in Florida. But apparently more are forming at the moment. The national committee reportedly consists of three people. Punkmorten 19:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Florida party isn't functioning very well, according to [1]. There is a website for the Oregon Patriot Party [2]. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 18:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CommentYou are acting on the opinion of one person who runs a so-called "third party" website as truth?--Fahrenheit451 02:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. Jtmichcock 02:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep; of marginal notability, but I prefer to err in the direction of inclusionism. *Dan T.* 18:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete So this one has enough to close with a consensus, definately not notable, unless starting a political party consisting of single digit membership is worthwhile, in which case I say we here start the "American Patriot Party AfD Voters Party", and our main platform can be that everyone should vote to keep or delete this article. karmafist 19:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks pretty insubstantial so far. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 18:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an extant U.S. political party.--Fahrenheit451 02:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Argument for delete not clear. -- JJay 05:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of verifiability. Friday (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist Soccer

I'm not sure this QUITE meets the standards of notability. It's also partially a copy violation, and a duplicate of Anarchist soccer. Tom Lillis 00:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable, and borderline cruftish.Gateman1997 00:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete local membership levels, unless I'm corrected by, look pretty low. I might be convinced otherwise if hefty national figures can be quoted. Alf ^melmac 00:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Modify not sure what cruftish means. definitely a duplicate, so one copy at least needs to be deleted. local membership levels and how widely spread hard to confirm due to organisational structure of anarchist organisations. however a.s. also features in many U.S. national protests (g8, wto, IMF etc) and is undoubtably derived from the well established (and also anarchist) anti-racist world cup - http://www.mondialiantirazzisti.org (see faq) held every year in italy since 1995 or 1996. This seems notable, so perhaps article should be modified to incorporate that more. please point out copyright violations. Limes 19:23 2 December 2005
  • This users has only edited this page. Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sorry, but I don't understand what mondialiantirazzisti has to do with anarchist soccer. Can you point ot a reference that makes the connection? -- Dalbury^(Talk) 18:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've redirected Anarchist soccer to Anarchist Soccer, since they were the same and created by the same IP. Chick Bowen 01:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and start over if notable. --YixilTesiphon 02:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seems original research, and unencyclopedic. I'm holding out for anarchist (gridiron) football — with firearms! Smerdis of Tlön 05:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Anarchist Soccer--MONGO 09:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm? Anarchist Soccer is the article under discussion. Chick Bowen 15:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, you're right...Delete--MONGO 16:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I originally posted it. i'm going to try to rewrite it in a more encyclopedic manner and incorporate more background/establishing info and tie in the a-r world cup info. apologies for posting a very unfinished entry Limes 16:03 3 December 2005*
• Weak keep; there does seem to be an actual movement of this name, of marginal notability now, but the bar should be pretty low given that this is not a paper encyclopedia. If the author intends to rewrite it (and it does need extensive rewriting as it now stands), he shouldn't call for its deletion, since deletionists around here will then insist on speedy-delete of any future versions attempted to be posted under this name, as they regard an AfD outcome as meaning that the topic is banned here until the end of time. *Dan T.* 18:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How nice of you to speak on behalf of all deletionists everywhere. Maybe next time you could try for a little less POV. Denni ☯ 21:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Modify: apologies again, i'm new to this, but i'm going to do a speedy rewrite, in a more encyclopedic manner and incorporating more historical and supplementary information. Limes 02:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This users has only edited this page/this is a doublevote.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems fine to me. Stifle 14:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sounds basically like 'pick-up' soccer, or a joke that has spread between colleges. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 18:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with Dalbury. Eusebeus 14:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Per votes here and per Pilatus. Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B4632 road

This is a British backroad between Cheltenham and Stratford-upon-Avon. Google Maps shows it as the grey route between the two towns. In British terminology B roads are collector routes that do not carry much traffic. This particular one may have some nice scenery but is altogether unimportant for infrastructure.

Delete this per the consensus at Wikipedia:Consensus/B_roads_in_the_United_Kingdom. Pilatus 15:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per B roads discussion above. - Hahnchen 18:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete minor road entry. *Dan T.* 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Hahnchen. Stifle 14:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep B roads as per discussion. --SPUI (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep B roads. Kappa 02:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the consensus identified by Pilatus. And as we can see, clearly working. Eusebeus 14:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete per strong B-Road Consensus.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B500 road

As this link shows, Charterhouse Street (designated B500 road) is a short stretch of road in London. It has no historic significance, it doesn't have an industry named after it (think Broadway) or is famous for anything else (as Tottenham Court Road is). It just exists.

Non-British Wikipedians might wish to consult the article on B roads to gauge the claim that this is amongst the shortest so designated roads in the country – there is no national register for B-roads, they are collector routes, and the number is merely for bookkeeping.

Delete this per the consensus at Wikipedia:Consensus/B_roads_in_the_United_Kingdom. Pilatus 15:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per B roads discussion above. - Hahnchen 18:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete minor road entry. *Dan T.* 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Hahnchen. Stifle 14:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep B roads as per discussion. --SPUI (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep B roads. Kappa 02:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 14:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 14:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Clone Troopers

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as nonsense (the original nominator put the speedy tag in too, but it was removed by the creator). - Bobet 16:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fan fic 'humor' or hoax. Not a speedy though. PJM 17:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonsense. I think a Speedy would have been valid, but I guess it depends on the reader's knowledge of Star Wars.Some guy 19:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh gods... Kill it. Kill it now. Saberwyn 11:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What is this, original fanfic? That doesn't belong here. *Dan T.* 19:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete JoJan 20:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Banter

dictdef thats already in wiktionary. delete. BL kiss the lizard 00:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as dictionary reference. Jtmichcock 01:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as nearly identical dicdef was Transwiki'd on May 10th (see deletion history. Peyna 01:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Speedy per above. Herostratus 05:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• What they said. -Theaterfreak64 07:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete --Merovingian 07:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, dic def with absolutely no possibility of expansion. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Folks, if you're going to say an article ought to be speedied, tag it as such. I have done so. --YixilTesiphon 15:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last time I did that I was told not to. Admins will speedy if they see it here and decide it worth a speedy. Peyna 15:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done it on a few articles recently and haven't been reprimanded. It seems to me this can bring it to their attention quicker and get it off WP. --YixilTesiphon 15:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No big deal either way. It's not going to cause any problems having the speedy tag. Peyna 16:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedied as A5 JoJan 20:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 16:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bass trombone/Temp

This was only meant to be a temporary page; the original trombone article has an extensive section on the bass trombone already. MToolen 06:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nomination -Meegs 15:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete temporary page apparently no longer needed. *Dan T.* 19:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 18:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE Rd232 ^talk 22:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Best-Prescription-Prices.com

Obvious Spam. Delete --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib)

• Delete per Monty Python. JHMM13 19:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advert. David | Talk 19:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I really hate spam Deyyaz 20:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obvious advertising spam. ERcheck 22:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spam spam spam humbug. Reyk 01:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Why do those spammers like domain names with several hyphens in them so much? *Dan T.* 06:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

because some some search engines pay attention to that in rankings. Rd232 ^talk 22:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 16:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Biffo

Another web forum article... has about 2,000 members and is hosted on a free forum hosting site. 137 results for the forum's name on Google [3]. Fails WP:WEB proposal. --W.marsh 18:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is another article that doesn't link to the site in question... you can find it here: [4] --W.marsh 18:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - without logging in, how can I check to see how many members? I am not too keen on logging in just to decide which way to vote. Can someone else do it and establish for sure what its notoriety is? For the moment I abstain on the basis of being temporarily unable to verify. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can log in with L: Wikipedia P: Wiki. 1,246 members as of this posting. --W.marsh 16:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete responsible for a few internet memes a year? kill it. --Bachrach44 04:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Maybe if the article documented which specific Internet memes (notable enough to have entries of their own here) were created on this board (with citeable references), it would make the board notable, but not enough info is given here to make this any more than a reference to one of numerous non-notable web message boards. *Dan T.* 19:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, utterly non-notable. Stifle 14:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 18:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Xoloz 22:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 14:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 16:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bojunk testavez

Unverifiable. Orphan article which cites no sources. Only things I can find on Google is this article, nothing on other sites, nothing on newsgroups. I see no evidence this drink actually exists. --W.marsh 00:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with flying colors; NPOV issues out the wazoo too. --YixilTesiphon 00:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ••MDD4696 ( talk - contribs ) 04:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Put it out of its misery - one sentence orphaned articles don't belong in Wikipedia. B.Wind 04:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete farce and unencyclopedic anyway.--MONGO 09:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Hurricane111 22:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't seem notable. *Dan T.* 00:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no widespread knowledge of this drink that I can see. - murder1 03:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 03:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bondish

unverifiable. Article even pretty much admits its a hoax: "The above comment is now a lie". Might be based on a drawing from some Deviant Art user. --W.marsh 02:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Will work on that now. --YixilTesiphon 02:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listed for speedy deletion. --YixilTesiphon 03:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 00:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Gritton

Listed as a speedy, but I don't think it quite counts. It almost does, however. It has only a very minimal assertio of notability; maybe if there are additional details I'd change my mind, but for now Delete. -- SCZenz 20:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Though not a Béla Bartók or a Daniel Barenboim, Gritton has toured in Europe, Israel and the US, recently playing at a concert in Washington DC in honor of the Ambassador to Mongolia. Notable enough. ERcheck 22:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteas non-notabale. Tens of thousands of people have toured the world and played concerts before ambassadors. Logophile 14:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Also, Google gives 131 hits. --Missmarple 17:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep; has a marginal degree of notability. *Dan T.* 19:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only 74 discreet Google hits. Denni ☯ 22:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Dsmdgold 20:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Eusebeus 14:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bundles

Unverified slang usage (WP:WINAD even if it were verified) / advert for non-notable blog. Repeated anonymous removals of afd tag [5] confirm even further that it's some kind of vanity entry. Tearlach 00:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Can someone hurry up action on this? I'm getting bored with reverting to the afd version against anonymous users edit-warring. Tearlach 23:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom.--Dakota t ^e 19:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neologism. ••MDD4696 ( talk - contribs ) 22:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom.--nixie 00:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it! Advertisement and stolen topics. -unsigned comment by 82.6.0.19 (talk · contribs)
• Delete; neologism term, combined with "ad" for non-notable blog. *Dan T.* 19:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 194.247.226.254 18:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Business Etiquette in Ireland

Breaking the rules of What Wikipedia is not, this is a "personal" essay of sorts from a website, just slightly re-worded. No use in an encyclopedia, and no need for an article. Harro5 05:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
• Delete agree with nom. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (Wikipedia is not a travel guide) --YixilTesiphon 13:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a travel article but one with tips about business meetings. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to. Perhaps transwikiable to wikibooks. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; it's an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. *Dan T.* 19:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete with the possibility of a transwiki to Wikibooks. Stifle 14:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chambeers

The article creator said it himself: Chambeers.com isn't a very popular site, (there has been only 1500 people there in the past month). A Google search for Chambeers Buttler gives 2 results. Rampart 01:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails the WP:WEB Alexa test by having no rank at all. Kevin 02:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Olorin28 03:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Herostratus 04:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. Half the content is about the creator or other sides, so it could also be a CSD A1 if pruned. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unpopular Web site by author's own admission. *Dan T.* 19:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charissopoulos Georgios

I was tempted to speedy this under criteria A7 (non-notable person), but was uncertain if being "President of the greek community Wiesbaden in Germany" qualified as a claim of notability. Delete as per WP:BIO. --Allen3 ^talk 12:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It needs to be edited for tone at the very least, but whether he's notable would IMO depend on the size of the Greek community in Wiesbaden. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs editing, certainly; can anybody with knowledge of the area speak regarding the notability of the community in question? *Dan T.* 20:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• A claim to notability means it doesn't hit A7, but it's still a non-notable bio to me. Delete. Stifle 14:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think this could have easily been speedied. Eusebeus 14:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; article merged. Johnleemk | Talk 10:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles T. Shaw

Non-notable upper school principal. Article created for more than 6 months and tagged for importance more than 1 month - yet no imporvement in the article. Willing to withdraw nomination if importance is demonstrated. Hurricane111 22:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete User:Ejrrjs says What? 22:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Cranbrook Kingswood. Eddie.willers 23:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete A7 - nn-bio. — Haeleth Talk 01:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Cranbrook Kingswood. --Interiot 03:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Cranbrook Kingswood; doesn't seem to have any info deserving of a separate page. *Dan T.* 04:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing to merge. Stifle 14:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charmers

Vanity page about a group of people who chat over IRC. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 20:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete vanity page about non-notable internet group.--Alhutch 20:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. ERcheck 22:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ••MDD4696 ( talk - contribs ) 22:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; non-notable group of friends in non-notable IRC channel. *Dan T.* 20:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Attaway

Non-notable subject; local Michigan printmaker. Returns about 20 hits on Google for "Chris Attaway" + artist. (User:Wmjuntunen has created a large number of these bios for non-notable local artists) Humansdorpie 14:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Humansdorpie 14:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 17:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; seems only of local interest. *Dan T.* 20:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Stifle 14:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Uh...let me count...1, 2, 3, 4, 5... (11 delete, 7 keep, 7 merge) no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 00:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision advocacy

This article is original research. It defines an activity in a novel way that has little or no mention in reliable sources, then interprets multiple persons and activities in terms of this definition. Jakew 10:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. For the reasons above, the whole article looks like a violation of WP:NOR by being a "novel synthesis" of facts put together to advance a particular position, which is explicity disallowed by the policy. Any useful information in it can be moved to one of the other articles about circumcision. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to History of male circumcision. I understand "original synthesis" to mean citing authors in support of something they did not say. This article doesn't do that. It is well-cited, and its only fault is that it presents some anti-circumcision results as the last word. Gazpacho 11:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Gazpacho. Not original research as sources cited. Well known term. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the original research lies in the interpretation of the cited source, Zordrac. Silly example: suppose I wanted to write an article about glowing angels in the sky. I could cite many documented examples of stargazing ('angel viewing') and identification of new stars ('angels'). It's still original research in spite of the sources, because of the novel interpretation. Jakew 12:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this particular term is in widespread use, so its not original research. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you know better than I, Zordrac. Could you please point me to a definition of the term or an identification of the 'advocates' discussed in the article? I've been unable to find anything in any reliable sources. So Dan Blackham has found a passing mention of a different term - circumcision evangelism - in a J Med Ethics article, but that's all. Jakew 13:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jakew, Can you point out where this article is misrepresenting sources? Gazpacho 05:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not suggesting that it does, Gazpacho (though I personally disagree with some interpretation). The problem is one of verifiability. How can one verify that circumcision advocacy is how the article describes it, and how can one verify that these persons are advocates? If nobody has made such an interpretation previously, it must be the opinion of the Wikipedia editor(s) -- clearly a novel view, and thus original research. Jakew 13:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator — clearly original research. Nandesuka 13:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Although I have to admit, just the other day I was saying to myself "You know what Wikipedia really needs? More articles about circumcision!. Nandesuka 13:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I recommend that editors read Talk:Circumcision advocacy. There is a long discussion of this there. Uncle G 17:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second Uncle G's recommendation that editors read Talk:Circumcision advocacy. -- DanBlackham 22:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant, troll magnet. JFW | T@lk 22:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. as per nominator. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Izehar 00:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The AfD nominator for this article has been editing this article since Jan 2005 [6], back and forth with another editor. The article is unusually well-referenced by WP standards, and the various authors discussed in it (read the article, read the talk page) clearly 'advocate' circumcision. The 'original research' argument seems to be a last resort, and the article is (IMO) too long and too different to merge into History of male circumcision. --Squiddy 01:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Gazpacho. A topic worth addressing within the contect of a relevent article. Jtmichcock 02:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment ∾ AfD is not a process for resolving long-term content disputes. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 13:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes the only solution for a long-term low-grade content dispute is to delete the offending article. Some concepts do not let themselves be knocked into an article with the best will in the world, especially with a paucity of hard sources and a lot of strong opinions. JFW | T@lk 10:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content dispute was/is actually over another issue (whether an obscure indirect source for materials distributed by one person should be explicitly specified). Jakew 10:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contrary to what Jake alleged above, the dispute was whether the article should give an accurate attribution of where a doctor obtained his information. Dr Jesin's webpage [7] is a copy of a Circlist webpage [8]. I felt it was essential that this was acknowledged. Jake, a member of Circlist, was determined to remove this evidence. When it appeared that this was faltering he changed ground and began arguing that the article was original research. Michael Glass 11:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a pity that you assume bad faith in your interpretation of events, Michael. Nevertheless, it is good that we agree that the issues are distinct. Jakew 11:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am sorry that Jake has taken my summary of the dispute personally. I respect his right to his views and his right to advocate them. However, in this case there is a clear conflict of interest in being a member of Circlist and making every effort to remove information about this organisation from an article, even when he admitted that this information was correct. For details about this, I urge other readers to study the discussion page Talk:Circumcision advocacy.Michael Glass 11:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Please read the discussion page Talk:Circumcision advocacy. I believe the attempt to delete this article is based on ideology rather than rationality. Michael Glass 14:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete more cut cruft. Klonimus 17:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to be a well-researched, sizeable, and longstanding article. The existence of articles with "advocacy" in their title (just like the existence of articles with "criticism" in their title) has some POV issues, but is defensible when there is a significant movement in favor of (or against) a subject, where describing it would be too lengthy for the main article. *Dan T.* 20:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obvious original research, no evidence such movement or social activity actually exists. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Claiming that no evidence exists for circumcisionadvocacy is just silly. Just look at the likes of Brian Morris who pushes human genital mutilation against the medical positions of every organization on Earth which has a medical position about human genital mutilation. — — Ŭalabio‽ 07:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If deleted someone would just restart the page. This article does not fit will in any other article because it is too large (this article split out of circumcision because it no longer fit there) so merging really does not work; besides, merging will not solve the real problem, which is contentdispute. Indeed, the real issue is a contentdispute. This whole vote seems like an attempt to solve a contentdispute by making the problem go away. — — Ŭalabio‽ 07:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I find it most interesting that nobody who has opposed deletion has addressed the issue of original research. As far as I'm aware, the policy is no original research, not no original research unless it has other merits. Jakew 10:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, NOR. --nixie 10:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A Google search with "circumcision advocacy" in double quotes yielded 127 hits. One was used in an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics [9]. One article using this term was republished in Jake Waskett's own website [10]. Another group using a very similar term is Advocating Circumcision Today a Jewish group [11]. Usage of the term seemed divided between references to circumcision advocacy and anti-circumcision advocacy. Therefore as other commentators have said, it is a common enough term. As for the claim that no-one addressed the question of original research, this is just not true. Gazpacho, Zordrac and Squiddy all specifically argued against the notion that this article is original research. If there is something in the words circumcision advocacy that raise concerns, then a term should be sought that people feel more comfortable with. Michael Glass 11:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • These three uses merely use the term in passing. They do not define it, nor do they identify any advocates. These latter are introduced by the article. The remainder of these hits are activist sites, not reliable sources, and as you note, frequently refer to anti-circumcision advocacy. As for an alternative term, fine - let's use whatever someone else has already used! Jakew 11:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that people use the term in passing and without defining it is evidence that they are using natural English and not a technical term that needs to be defined. The fact that the same language is used in activist sites is further evidence that it is part of the vocabulary of these groups, something that I would have no problem in noting in the article. However, this usage is not restricted to these groups. One example is in Rachel Gathercole's article on the Medicaid funding of circumcisions. She wrote: "Some circumcision advocates still contend that the surgery results in slightly fewer infant urinary tract infections, a possible decrease in incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, and the prevention of penile cancer." [12] The term circumcision advocate is used quite naturally here in a newspape article. A Google search of circumcision advocate yielded about 1260 hits, and this is further evidence that the term is natural English and not some tecchnical term that has to be defined.Michael Glass 11:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You said above that it yielded 127 hits. Now you're claiming ten times that number. Surely there must be a mistake? Anyway, there is a problem here in that you're saying that the term doesn't need to be defined yet the article defines it. How do you propose to remedy this? Jakew 12:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • 127 hits for circumcision advocacy; 1260 hits for circumcision advocate. Ask Google a different question and you get a different answer. I am glad that you are now talking about improving the article. One way to improve it is to use a dictionary definition of advocacy . Michael Glass 20:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Addressing the NOR question: it does not appear to me that searching for the specific term "circumcision advocacy" is enough to deny the existence of a large group of people who advocate for circumcision. Circumcision, oddly enough, is one of the most heated and contentious subjects on the internet. I always avoid these arguments because I frankly don't care one way or the other. However, I think that most people here know that there are pro- and anti-circumcisionists. Whatever name is chosen, the collection of information characterizing the views of each side only makes sense. And, honestly, it could be done much worse than this well-references, well-balanced article. InvictaHOG 13:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge - A lot of the information is not original research. The article is well written and well referenced. The article contains relevant information on the subject of circumcision which is not in other articles in Wikipedia. --Dumbo1 13:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no original research. Stifle 14:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. From the lengthy discussion on the Talk page it appears that this AfD is a continuation of a content dispute. I agree that the 'original research' argument seems to be the last resort attempt to delete information. -- DanBlackham 07:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have noted that those arguing for keeping the article have argued the case at some length. On the other hand, nearly all those who spoke for deletion simply dismissed the article in one line, citing original research. I find it curious that the debate is so polarised. I see the article as fitting the description of "source-based research" as defined below:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia WP:NOR.

Michael Glass 11:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So where are the sources defining circumcision advocacy or identifying circumcision advocates? Jakew 12:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use a dictionary definition of advocacy and apply this definition to tthe examples of those who have advocated circumcision. This would be source-based research, and is strongly encouraged, according to the policy. If we don't recognise the right and indeed the duty of us to collect and organise information, Wikipedia will be like the position of ijtihad in classical Islamic scholarship, when progress in learning was stifled by defining it as illegitimate. Michael Glass 20:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You mean using the dictionary definition of one word and interpreting the activities of individuals accordingly? That's the very definition of original research. Jakew 21:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that using a dictionary is to be defined as original research? Is that the straitjacket in which you want to bind those who disagree with you? Please follow this link: ijtihad Michael Glass 10:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Michael, it's a slippery slope. If it's okay to use dictionary definitions to create an article, what is to prevent anyone from creating anti-broccoli advocacy, as discussed on the talk page? The answer is nothing. It opens the door to any article coming into existence, just because the central term is an accurate use of language. That's original research, it's junk, and it devalues the rest of Wikipedia. Jakew 13:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jake, please note the civil tone that Slrubenstein uses. I do not see the subversiveness in using a dictiionary. I do not see that sourced-based research can be deemed to violate the "no original research" policy, or that it is a slippery slope. Please read ijtihad for an example of what can happen when a society deems certain approaches off-limits. Michael Glass 19:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you felt my comments were uncivil, Michael, though I can't see how. I would agree - source-based research is not original by definition. But this article is not source-based. The central theme of the article is that there is such a thing as circumcision advocacy, that is consists of "social and political activity to promote it and ensure access and funding for circumcision" (though the introduction is better now, that's still implied), and that the various individuals listed in the article are advocating circumcision. All of these must be sourced in order to be verifiable. Sure, certain facts are sourced, but the interpretation of them as circumcision advocacy is not. This is the problem.

Imagine, if you will, a hypothetical book. Let's call it Bloggs' Circumcision advocacy through the ages. In it, Bloggs discusses advocacy at length, noting Morris, Schoen, and so on. Now when we cite Bloggs, it's a true source, because there is no interpretation. The reader can check Bloggs and readily see that these people are indeed identified as circumcision advocates. As it is, he's just got Wikipedia's word for it. Jakew 21:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and NPOVify cited information into Male circumcision and History of male circumcision. There can be no justification to delete valuable, cited information; it is not irredeemable in its presentation.--Eloquence* 22:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge. I have serious NPOV qualms about the article. But if it can be merged with the Circumcision article and NPOV'd, that would be fine. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please say what your NPOV concerns are. Michael Glass 12:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am troubled by the very nature of an article on "advocacy;" I think the topic itself is a POV. I know that people who have contributed to the article have tried very hard to conform to our NPOV policies, I am not accusing anyone of deliberate policy violation. But all the things that are good about the article, that address multiple points of view and place them within a larger NPOV context — in short, material I think has value — goes so far beyond the specific topic of advocacy, that I think it should all just go in one article on "circumcision." Slrubenstein | Talk 16:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I feel that advocacy can be discussed, just as any other topic can be discussed. If we say that certain topics or even certain approaches are off-limits, this raises concerns about what is being said and what is left unsaid and why. For instance, if some things are left unsaid, whose interests does this serve and whose interests are discounted? Michael Glass 19:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your general point; if we disagree it is in its application. I think any NPOV discussion of circumcision advocacy is best placed within the circumcision article, which provides a larger context for the issue. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or at best merge. Much of this does not belong in an encyclopedia; what does should be moved. Eusebeus 14:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This article - JDJ -

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Monopoly (game) - SoM 14:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

City in a box

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was it is a rather unencyclopedic article. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Monopoly (game). The later page already has a section devoted to localizations for UK cities. -Meegs 16:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge: lacks proper context. Some guy 19:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge; the Monopoly (game) article already discusses games of the same genre localized for particular cities. *Dan T.* 20:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Meegs. Stifle 14:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Club de Football Universidad de Corinthians

notability--Melaen 00:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. An article apparently about this same unverifiable football team went through an AfD beginning October 9 -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universidad de Corinthians -- and it was deleted as a result. I believe this may meet WP:CSD G4. --Metropolitan90 01:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unable to verify the team even exists. Peyna 01:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy possible hoax. unverifiable Olorin28 03:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I checked the previously deleted article and this is not the same. However, the only results for a search of "Club de Football Universidad de Corinthians" was two Wikipedia mirrors see [13]. Delete as unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 17:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Verify and Keep-- --(U | T | C) 08:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That's the whole point, it cannot be verified. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 18:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a Brazilian team called the Corinthians, which was involved in a controversial domain name dispute [14] a few years ago. However, that's not the one being allegedly described here; Delete unless its existence and notability can be documented. *Dan T.* 21:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, my family is from and I still live near Wexford and this is almost certainly a hoax. Stifle 14:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I also see that there are no hits on Google for either "Copa d'Albany' or "Capital City Harriers" -- Dalbury^(Talk) 18:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unverifiable. Chick Bowen 00:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting theories

For a start, this article is currently a mess, full of POV and factual errors, and would have to be completely rewritten no matter what. But more importantly, I don't think this is an encyclopedic topic and I'm not sure what could be said about it that isn't covered in articles such as scientific consensus, scientific method, falsifiability, or theories and sociology of the history of science. I don't think this article has a future, even in the best of all possible worlds. --Fastfission 02:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, pointless article. --YixilTesiphon 02:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fastfission just stole the words off my keyboard :-) Vsmith 03:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Worthawholebean 04:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Issue is complicated by article's edit history... some previous work has been deleted. Anyway, this work is too good to just throw away. It's not great work, but its hella better than a lot that I've seen. I think the editrs bit off a bit more than she can chew -- it's a very complicated and fraught subject -- but I would not like to discourage her. Herostratus 07:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I'm not sure this has anything that isn't found in other articles, and much of what it does have is either wrong or much more problematic than it currently is made out to be (i.e. the simplistic accounts of the Copernican revolution, Lysenkoism, and Michelson-Morley). --Fastfission 17:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete essay. No difference between "conflicting theories" and "different theories." Perhaps redirect to theory which discusses related matters. Gazpacho 09:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; seems like too vague a topic. Maybe some of this information can find a place in other articles relating to Theory. *Dan T.* 21:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 14:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Continual renewal

Either nonsense, copyvio, or original research. Probably the latter. Stifle 15:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems like original research. I got no match for any several-word strings that I tried on google to indicate copyvio from the web. -Meegs 16:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, WP:NOR. PJM 16:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It reads like a concept paper for a new religious philosophy. Some guy 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; seems more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. *Dan T.* 21:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete after excluding sockpuppet votes. Resistance is futile!. - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conviction 365

By the article's own admission the website has never ammounted to much ("Little was accomplished for almost a year"). Not of encyclopedic value. Chick Bowen 01:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn. Not sure why it was considered notable. Ashibaka (tock) 02:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I put some kind of effort and research into writing that, I see this just like the article on George Ouzounian, there's no reason to delete it, so I would vote no on doing so. 08:10 2 December, 2004 Comment posted by User:69.254.230.101, the article creator. The original version claimed otherwise, though he has now edited this.

I don't mean to question your integrity, but what you put seems odd to me. Why would the author vote to delete his own article? That doesn't make sense. User:64.218.194.120

And yet you said delete? Whatever, I don't see this as too bad an article. Keep --YixilTesiphon 02:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is it notable? Ashibaka (tock) 03:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn site.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 03:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Olorin28 03:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a decent article, keep it 09:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC) —preceding unsigned comment by 64.126.61.223 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-03 03:39:03 (UTC) (User's only edit)
• Delete - it's a decent article, but it still isn't notable. Worthawholebean 04:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn website with no alexa ranking. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete With Extreme Prejudice. Site does not even exist yet for chrissakes. I mean there's a page but it says under construction. As a bonus, author on his blog has posts like this (re "protesters": "Well you suck dick. You retarded hippys have no other life other than to piss the rest of us useful people off." Gee that's a contribution to the sum total of human knowledge. Herostratus 04:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The site does exist, both blogs are there, the fact the site needs work isn't a fact anyone is trying to hide, both the author of the wikipedia article and "Rise and Fall" admit that they're still working on the site. I agree with you in that some of the stuff "Rise and Fall" have written is kind of rude, but as I said earlier, George Ouzounian has said some pretty offensive things in his blog thing too, but he's still notable. These guys have a website that gets some readers, I don't know why we would get rid of the article. 10:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Maddox is an internet celebrity, and The Best Page in the Universe is an extremely famous website. "Conviction 365" is not an extremely famous website, and "Rise and Fall" are not internet celebrities. Therefore we keep the one and not the other, for the same reason that we keep George W. Bush but not Mrs Eleanor Thrunge of Battersea. — Haeleth Talk 22:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Notice. All of the above comments with date stamp but no username are by User 69.254.230.101, also the author of the article in question. User 69.254.230.101 has voted at least twice in violation of policy. Let's put this one out its misery, shall we? Herostratus 04:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I voted once and wrote the last comment. I want to preserve my work, that's all. Since, evidentally, you're looking up IPs anyway, why don't you look up the one for this "*Keep It's a decent article, keep it 09:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)" That wasn't me and there's no username on it either, I've voted once, according to policy. If you're going to accuse me, it helps if I've done what you accuse me of.

You may be correct. You have 12 edits her so far and I can't be bothered to sort out all of them. However, I note that you wrote "I read through it and I think it's a decent article." A bit disengenuos since you are the author of the article.Herostratus 05:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry if that's been confusing, I've only voted once, just trying to perserve my work. I edited my vote to make it more clear. I didn't think I'd made that many edits, most were just to fix a typo or something. 11:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. I believe you and I sincerly apologize. I have stricken out my previous notice. (In future, you should sign comments with four tildes, not five, to avoid confusion, though.) Herostratus 05:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep it 09:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC) (User's only edit)
  • Anonymous vote by 66.232.195.60. - Mike Rosoft 09:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Vanity, spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 09:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Note to author: It's generally believed by Wikipedians that only websites with a significant number of visitors or some noticeable effect on society deserve an article. Since this has neither, it needs to be deleted. Still, this debate will stay open for 5 days. You can just go into the edit screen again and take a copy of the text for yourself to keep it preserved, but I'm afraid Wikipedia is not the place to put it. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity spam. Nandesuka 14:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-noteworthy. Ifnord 14:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Despite the creator's mistaken impression, this website is not notable in the sense that The Best Page in the Universe is, and does not appear to have a large enough audience to belong in an encyclopedia. But feel free to come back when you've got a huge readership. — Haeleth Talk 22:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I think it's a good website, I know some people who follow them (meaning Rise and Fall),and it's gained some national attention, so I'd say it's notable. 10:31 3 December 2005 (UTC) unsigned comment by anon user 64.126.63.2
• Delete. It's an under-construction personal Web site with rants, like any of thousands of others. I've got a personal Web site with rants too; why doesn't it have a Wikipedia article? *Dan T.* 21:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I like the article because it has much meaning. Rise and Fall have gained some national attention, they ran one of the most popular Xangas ever. Keep the article. 8:13 21:08. 5 December 2005 (UTC) —preceding unsigned comment by 64.218.194.120 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nominator. Lots of apparent sock-puppets and random unsigned comments make me think unnotable and unwanted. Stifle 14:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article has gained much attention lately. I don't understand why you can't keep it. There's no other source writing about the website, and it does have some facts about the website. The website obviously gained enough attention to have an entry here, so leave it. User:EncycloMichael 11:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User has two edits: one to his user page, one here. - Mike Rosoft 13:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Author obviously spent much time on this article, it is well researched. Plus, consider the fact that the author put his social life on hold to write this article, so count this as a pity vote. User:Elminster41111 11:36, 5 December, 2005
  • User has three edits: one to his user page, two here. - Mike Rosoft 13:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not MySpace. Until we start allowing any user to create an article detailing his internet "life", this shouldn't exist either. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-5 19:36
• Keep - The guy did write the article out of his own time. Why take that away from him? 10:21 5 December, 2005 (UTC)
  • Unsigned vote by 69.247.164.49; user's only edit. - Mike Rosoft 13:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Please note that votes from anonymous users and newly created accounts which have only been created to influence the result of the vote will likely be disregarded. - Mike Rosoft 13:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiousity, why is that? Shouldn't the fact that so many people have come out in support of this show that there is indeed a fanbase for these people? If nothing else, they show that the website is notable so it shouldn't be deleted. User:VanillaX 10:20, 6 December 2005.

See Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. Chick Bowen 03:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - web vanity. - Longhair 08:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Yup, this should get Deleted Eusebeus 14:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable web vanity. --Hurricane111 17:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cougarboard

Article is a rambling personal essay about some unspecified webforum that deals with the BYU Cougars. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 04:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it's a messageboard found in what?...the school or college newspaper?--MONGO 10:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what the hell is going on with all the vandalism to that page? By the way, here is the link to the home page: [15]. I am not convinced that 591 hits with no claims of notoriety is good enough though. But the constant vandalism to the page suggests that this is the work of trolls. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It is a lame chat board disguised as a forum for sports but these fine men hammer out all of the life challenges they face every day. Oprah should be the moderator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.186.134.103 (talk • contribs) 15:59, December 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think a messageboard devoted to one team is, generally speaking, notable enough for inclusion in a separate article; if it's locally notable among that team's fans, it may deserve a mention on the page about the team itself. *Dan T.* 21:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as non-notable biography. Capitalistroadster 03:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Csaba Petre

Vanity; article does not establish notability. Demiurge 00:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per nom. Demiurge 00:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity/resume. Some guy 00:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete this under nn-bio tag. No claim to notability. -- malo ^(talk)/_(contribs) 00:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedily deleted it now under nn-bio. But I don't know how close this thread (e.g. putting the box around it); if someone can do that it would be great. Thanks! Enochlau 00:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE nn-bio. If it even said who his famous wife was, I'd have let it stay. -Splash^talk 22:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Simone, Novelist

"A new novelist" who hasn't released anything yet. At least a google search for Crossroads of Distractions gives 0 hits. Punkmorten 20:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Alhutch 20:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.. non-notable bio. ERcheck 22:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Deyyaz 22:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article on novelist who hasn't actually had a novel published yet. Revisit for possible notability if/when the book comes out. *Dan T.* 21:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as non-notable bio. Stifle 14:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Nation

A book "to be released in the summer of 2006". See also the nomination for Richard Chandler (American author), below -Rholton 15:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable, unverifiable. Humansdorpie 16:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. PJM 17:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, books released in over 6 months are not notable or verifiable. No reliable info known about the subject. (2 Google hits). - Mgm|^(talk) 20:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As-yet-unreleased books by authors who are not yet notable for their other works probably don't deserve articles here. Revisit if/when book is released and possibly achieves notability. *Dan T.* 21:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, after minus sockpuppet votes. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 00:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DarkWars.org

Delete, not notable, no indication of importance in article, WP:NOT/WP:Web Dbchip 08:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You sure you got the right name there? That page doesn't even have a delete history. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
  • Fixed. In such cases check the discussion article name. Gazpacho
• Delete non-notable MUD. Gazpacho 09:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - thousands of users. Not a MUD - its a graphical game. See their webpage here [16]. Passes google test with 952 hits, and seems to pass WP:WEB, although Alexa's ranking of 167,279 looks poorly. Has enough players though to assert notoriety. Is not a webpage and hence WP:WEB does not directly apply. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• del nonnotable 300 unique hits, none of them with a review. Severe wikipedia:Verifiability problem. mikka (t) 11:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I already voted, but I did link to their actual web page, and there are a lot of reviews available for them that are independent. 309 unique google hits actually, if we are being 100% accurate. You can choose to vote delete if you like, but I just disagree with you. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry, but which of these does not look like a review to you? [17], [18], [19], [20] (and a lot of others) all look like reviews to me. No problem with verifiability. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of them. The first merely tells us that someone with a pseudonym claims to have played something called "darkwars" and tells us nothing about either. The second is a web directory listing on a self-submission web site (that is even called a "games directory"). The third is a banner advertisement collection that doesn't even mention Darkwars at all. And the fourth is an anonymous web discussion forum posting, a classic example of what is not a reliable source, that tells us to "ask mickey he shud be in first page of world ranks and he wil teach you how to play it". Please familiarize yourself with the concept of reliable sources. This is not the first time that you've cited anonymous discussion forum posts as purported sources. Uncle G 15:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What you meant to say was: this is not the first time you've been abused because of making a valid argument. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • What I meant to say was what I actually wrote. No-one has abused you, here or elsewhere. Uncle G 16:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - whilst I most definitely do not appreciate the comments from Uncle G, it led me to do more research. I checked. http://www.tucows.com/, http://www.download.com/, http://www.shareware.com/ and http://www.cnet.com/, all of whom you would expect to have a review about it if its claims to notoriety were true. They all came up completely empty. And, whilst there are reviews for "Dark Wars" that is in fact referring to something to do with Star wars and is irrelevant. It seems that the web site in question is guilty of link spam. Nonetheless, I don't think that abuse such as that from Uncle G is really required. No, you shouldn't be writing to me 4 times pushing your point of view across. It's not something that you "have" to do either. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Pasting this from Talk:Darkwars: don't delete this article, i will expand this article very soon!!! 71.240.141.128 03:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd really like to keep it, being pretty inclusionist and having a pretty low bar for notability, but there just doesn't seem to be evidence of this game being notable, or even of it being mentioned anywhere not apparently spammed by the game creator themselves. A promise of article expansion by some anon editor isn't enough to keep it, when even the person who originally voted to keep has changed his mind. Delete. *Dan T.* 22:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Indpentdent Conservative 03:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see why you should delete it. If you can't find it in google then I have no clue what you are doing wrong. Just type "darkwars" and hit enter. If it has to do with the content of the article I'll come back to make sure it adheres to proper English and worthwhile content.--Anime2000z 10:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Zordrac. Stifle 14:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This page was moved, twice, by User:Suril.amin. I know I'm breaking WP:AGF here, but I suspect foul play. A second AfD discussion has begun at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DarkWars.org. Would someone who knows how merge the two discussions do so? Saberwyn - 06:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you that it was likely foul play. I think that the page should be deleted post-haste. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article was tagged for {{afd}} by User:Dbchip [21], but no discussion page was created. A few hours ago, User:Suril.amin created a page from the red link and entered an unsigned vote which is preserved below. Listing it now with no vote. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 06:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This site was once featured on the news... Though I have no clue where I could find the article.--What does this do? 09:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Anime2000z, whose comment this is, has no edits except to the article and its deletion discussions. He also already voted above. —Cryptic (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep do not delete, this article is getting bigger by the minute!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suril.amin (talk • contribs) 20:42, December 5, 2005
  • User:Suril.amin already voted above, signing as "The Indpentdent Conservative". —Cryptic (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Alexa ranking of 167,268 and falling. Google has only two unique pages linking in. There appears to be no media attention, at least according to my crude Google search. No way to determine number of players without signing up, which I refuse to do. Therefore, this article fails the proposed guidelines at WP:WEB.

  In addition, there is no information in the article demonstrating how this online game is different to any others of its kind. Saberwyn - 06:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• In the interest of fair play, I have copied the 'votes' (at least thats what I think they are) from the article's talkpage and pasted them below. Saberwyn - 06:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete this article on Darkwars!!! Man, this article is providing so much info on it and will soon cover everything there is to know on it! Sahil.amin 02:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm... Deleting would probably not be the best idea. If he wants to write about it, I will come back through and edit it for grammar and spelling and try to make sure it only contains information pertinent to the game.--Anime2000z 10:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • don't delete this article, i will expand this article very soon!!! 71.240.141.128 03:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am working on expanding this article. 71.240.141.128 03:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also expanding this article, on the darkwars forum the link to this article was posted, many darkwars members are working on expanding it. The Indpentdent Conservative 03:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that a discussion page was created. This article was originally named Darkwars, and the existing AFD discussion is still open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darkwars. This is why one should not rename articles being discussed unless one is careful and follows the instructions in the Guide to deletion. Uncle G 06:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The move appears to have been made by User:Suril.amin, one of the contributors to the article. Its bad to not assume good faith, but I suspect foul play. Saberwyn - 06:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Special:Contributions/Suril.amin strongly indicates that it was not malice, but simply inexperience. Uncle G 07:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still suspicious about the reasons behind the move, but will not let that influence my decisions regarding the keep or delete of this article. Saberwyn - 07:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite how instrumental it may be to the daily lives of some people, it is not notable enough for inclusion at wikipedia. Flyboy Will 08:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • • • COMBINE THE 2 AFDS! Or remove one of the AFds, or whatever needs to be done. This is just too confusing. Since both look like being deleted, why not just consider that a consensus has been reached and delete them? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete poor Alexa rank, no verifiability besides the voter above who says rather vaguely it was "once featured on the news". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Starblind. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 17:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, advertising. —Cryptic (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep comeon on guys, just look at this page's discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.141.128 (talk • contribs) 21:28, December 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this article!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.13.3 (talk • contribs) 18:58, December 7, 2005 (UTC)
• KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP THIS ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.132.88 (talk • contribs) 23:52, December 7, 2005
• Delete ugh. Eusebeus 14:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirected. Johnleemk | Talk 10:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of classical music eras

Basically a talk-page discussion made into an article. Undoubtedly this topic is legitimately part of European classical music but doesn't need a separate article. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Background: this article was created as part of a revert war over the starting and ending dates in Renaissance music and Baroque music. But not only is this article useless in general, it doesn't solve the revert war problem. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wahoofive. --worthawholebean _talk^contribs 20:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What else are we to do with this information? Any general-interest reference that discusses classical music contains this information -- it is not mere talk page content. It is not suitable for a template. It should not be duplicated in each of the era-specific articles. There is a need to link to it from each of the era-specific articles. And while it could be merged into European classical music and linked as a subhead, that article is already lengthy and such an exposition is unlikely to survive there. I would like to note that I have not participated in the aforementioned edit war, but rather I stumbled upon it because I've been watching the affected page for link spam. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I thought from the title this would be some kind of timeline, which seems fine. But it's just meta-commentary. Possibly useful as talk-page fodder or perhaps even some kind of larger policy discussion, but not as a main article. rodii 22:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with European classical music. Denni ☯ 22:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into European classical music. *Dan T.* 22:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge per above. Eusebeus 14:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 03:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"David Corney"

I'm not too sure about the validity of this article, given that the thing he supposedly invented turns up 0 hits on Google, and the thing that Google suggests doesn't seem very notable, either. A search for David Corney on Google also does not suggest anything definitive or suggest that this person is notable. --Spring Rubber 01:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no Google hits for "David Corney" Amoxitobol see [22] so there is no verifiability of his one claim to fame. If we were to keep it, should be moved to David Corney. Capitalistroadster 02:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only patent I found with this name was for "Earthing Plumbling", "Plumbing is earthed by clamping an earth wire 26 by means of a clamping screw 20 in a transverse passage 18 of a cylindrical brass body 14 soldered into the offset 16 of a teepiece 10 incorporated in the plumbing." granted in 1984. [23]. Nothing at the USPTO. Peyna 02:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete udner CSD A7. Harro5 03:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 06:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Perkis

Doesn't appear to be notable beyond a few vague assertions. I'd speedy it, but I tend to hesitate when the content is well-assembled. Tom Lillis 07:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I tried to give him a reason to be, but its just too difficult. Born 1986, what could he have achieved? He's all of 19. Published author? But he's in university. Good on him getting a scholarship - these are hard to get. But he should be careful with the kinds of writing he is making, especially in light of the current attitude about terrorism. By the way, when I tried to vote here, it got me editing the main page. Some admin needs to fix this. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, google has no relevant hits. There are relevant hits for a David Perkis at Purdue University, but the article says clearly he is at Sydney University. And considering that the other one lives in USA, I doubt its the same guy. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a few articles published in student newspapers does not establish notability. Demiurge 10:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like a speedy delete. Maybe one day he'll be famous, but not yet. Ben Aveling 11:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep! - I was quite amused when I stumbled across this entry. Being a student of USYD myself, it was interesting to see a wikipedia article on this, shall I say, infamous character and I think I would be one of the better suited people here to comment on the topic. David Perkis caused a lot of controversy with some of his writings and more importantly his reaction to critics & most people on this campus and others in Sydney would actually know who he was if you asked them. That is certainly a notable achievement in my books! I may not agree with his views but the fact that one person could become so well known throughout the university deserves an entry here IMO. If you look at the google australia website you'll see he is mentioned on quite a number of veritable sites (govt, political and educational). I heard that the university actually retracted his articles from their online publication after some of the events covered in his wiki-biography. Anyway, he has become somewhat of an infamous character here in Sydney and I'm sure most people who have heard of him in Sydney would agree that this is a definite keep! Kevin_Grady

Kevin_Grady was created 3 dec and has only two edits, both to his own user page. [24] The above paragraph was by 144.137.64.141 [25] who has no other edits [26]. Ben Aveling 07:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. It seems to be a well-written, reasonably balanced article about somebody who has at least some local notability, according to the last writer here. That's probably still a bit short of normal notability standards, but I hate to see an article of reasonable quality just deleted... it doesn't seem to be the usual vanity junk. *Dan T.* 02:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As the writer of the entry in question, I thought it would contribute to the debate if I presented the relevant information regarding the article's notability. Apologies in advance for the lengh of my post, but I feel that it is necessary in order to explain the notability of the individual written about and as to why it should remain on the site. I actually met David Perkis at a writing seminar held at the University of Sydney campus at the beginning of this year. Needless to say I become reasonably well acquainted with Mr. Perkis because he was certainly an intriguing character - he was definitely intelligent, but more noticeable was his outspoken nature. He openly stated his views to all people he encountered (even those who did not ask about them), and was not afraid to share his beliefs. What was also interesting was the fact that, in spite of his young age, he had already attracted people who I could only classify as serious followers of his unique convictions. I had the chance to get to know Mr. Perkis reasonably well over the period of a month and a half or so and during that time he showed some of his works to me. And it was quite evident that it wasn't just a matter of vanity - he actually seemed to firmly believe that his political views were pivotal for others to consider for the "benefit of society", as he put it.

Anyway, as I attend UNSW, I lost contact with him afterwards and not subscribing to his set of beliefs, I didn't seek him out any further. Then, about two or three months later, I started hearing about him from all different directions. A large amount of people on the UNSW campus were talking about him on a pretty grand scale, in spite of the fact that he attended USYD (an institution with which UNSW has what would best be described as a heated academic rivalry). Friends of mine, who did not know that I had ever met Mr. Perkis, had asked me if I heard about "that David Perkis guy", based on the controversy he was stirring up. Apart from his writings and the actions I wrote about in the wiki-entry, he had gotten into arguments with several high-level lecturers and actually developed quite a firm following at his university campus (not to mention sympathisers at UNSW). To put this into perspective, USYD has close to 50,000 attendees and UNSW has about 40,000. I have spoken to many people about Mr. Perkis following the events which took place, and it would not be excessive to estimate that an amount of people equal to at least 10% of attendees from both campuses have heard about him and his exploits, and a far higher percentage in the humanities and politics-related faculties relevant to his activities. That in itself would constitute in excess of 10,000 people who would have come to know about Mr. Perkis to a large extent in the past year or so (including those who attend other universities in the area and have heard about him). I completely agree with the USYD poster on this discussion when he said that Mr. Perkis attracted quite a lot of attention from his works, but it was largely a result of his actions that gained him his notoriety.

I took it upon myself to research more information about Mr. Perkis and write what I see as a well-presented and accurate wikipedia entry, due to the fact that some topics relating to Australian academia have been largely neglected on this website. With such a large volume of people having heard about a single person based on his beliefs and actions would alone constitute an entry into wikipedia, and so I definitely think that the David Perkis article merits a "keep" on the website. I hope my explanation above has convinced others that this is true. Cornelius S 06:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this user was also created 3 dec and has only edits to 4 pages: this page, users own page, David Perkis and Brian Dorofaeff, a not clearly notable school teacher. [27] Ben Aveling 07:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a matter of whether we believe you or not. We still need some independant and verifiable evidence of notablity. Where did this controversy happen? Where was it reported? Regards, Ben Aveling
• I never claimed it was about whether you "believed" me or not. I simply wrote my side of the story to display more information regarding the notability of the person in question. I only joined a few days ago.. so what? I've been busy with university all year and haven't had the time to do any entries up until now. The fact that I've managed to construct what I see as two good quality entries in a few days is quite a good achievement in my books and shows the amount of entries I intend (or intended) to add to this site - not everyone has a multitude of free time on their hands to write entries all year. I thought that if I started writing now during my holidays that I would gradually be able to build up my level of work because it does take time to research and write wikipedia entries. I thought that the fact that Perkis is mentioned on sources such as an official Australian government website, a leading member of Australian parliament's website, the university itself's website, the old and highly notable school he attended's website and various other official state educational institution sites (not to mention the online version of Perkis's work that I could find in the short space of 2 days) would provde "independant and verifiable evidence of notablity", as you put it. Obviously not it seems and so I am attempting to find more sources... University controversies aren't generally published on the internet. Do you really think the USYD would want that type of publicity?

The fact that you would also describe a Mathematics PhD. who has had his postdoctoral work published in at least 3 different countries in numerous advanced mathematics and physics journals thus far as "a not clearly notable school teacher" speaks volumes to your ability for discernment, in my opinion. Also, what are you implying by posting the other user's IP address and his date of registration? I emailed my peers the links to the entries I made and asked them for their comments and to pass them onto anyone who knows of these two people as there would surely be a large amount of those in study circles that would. The fact that you are clearly implying something more nefarious again is extremely insulting - perhaps you should consider reading about not biting the newcomersand to assuming good faith before you bash a newbie who was just trying to add what he saw as relvant additional entries to wikipedia, and accuse him of all sorts of things. It's disheartening to see the level of attacks you have written and implied in your last posts for something which I thought would be trivial at best. If I had known that I would be personally attacked like you have done then I clearly wouldn't have bothered putting in the hours of work necessary to construct wikipedia entries in the first place.Cornelius S

• Delete, there may be an assertion of notability but there sure ain't any notability itself. Stifle 14:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable by encyclopedia standards. -- DS1953 01:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Could this be an attack page? Pilatus 02:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Whether an attack page or not, the subject is wholly nn. Eusebeus 14:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily delete per WP:NOT and WP:IAR. No sense leaving this up 5 days. FCYTravis 01:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Davis High School German 4 Class

This page violates WP:NOT (specifically that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information). Also none of these individuals nor their class are notable. Gateman1997 00:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It might violate WP:POINT too. Delete the campus-cruft, as established by Room 108 and Third desk..., though it scares me that we need a precedent. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 00:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Some guy 00:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per third desk from the left... Silensor 01:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, WP:NOT, and WP:VAIN (the author's name appears to coincide with one of the students profiled). --Metropolitan90 01:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as advertisement. Mo0[talk] 12:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dbk

vanity/advertising by commercial business StanZegel (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is merely advertising for a commercial firm. Speedy Delete --StanZegel (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Blatant spam, lifted from a commercial website. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 09:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete should have been speedied...nothing but spam.--MONGO 09:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; redirected to DES. Johnleemk | Talk 10:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DES (disambiguation)

DES probably used to redirect to Data Encryption Standard, but someone who thought Diethylstilbestrol was more important decided that DES should redirect to DES (disambiguation). Well, what's the point in having DES (disambiguation) then? Why not just use DES as the disambiguation page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.163.173.185 (talk • contribs) 00:47, December 3, 2005

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a perfectly fine disambiguation article. This nomination is the result of a slow burning revert war at DES with Matt Crypto on one side, who asserts that this should be a primary topic disambiguation with Data Encryption Standard as the primary topic, and several editors on the other side who believe that this should be an equal weight disambiguation, since when they came to look up DES they were looking for the drug. It has been discussed, but not resolved, on Talk:DES. Furthermore, the choice between the two forms of disambiguation is a simple matter of whether DES redirects to Data Encryption Standard or to DES (disambiguation). Deletion is not involved at any stage, and AFD is not the place for deciding this. Please learn how to use WP:RFC. I am strongly tempted to close this discussion, and take measures to encourage both sides to resume the discussion on Talk:DES that they have abandoned. Keep. Uncle G 16:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Redirect DES to this page. I also Endorse User:Uncle G's suggestion about closing the AfD and moving the discussion to the talk page. This did not go under ANY discussion at all. The disambig is appropriate. Don't assume that just because you wouldn't search for the drug, that everyone else wouldn't either. "Data Encryption Standard" and "Diethylstilbestrol" get about equal hits on google. It's an acronym commonly used to describe both things, and to arbitrarily assign importance of one over the other is probably not NPOV. Peyna 16:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • I've went ahead and added a comment to Talk:DES and left notes on all related pages for people to refer to that discussion in the event that this AfD is eventually closed due to irrelevance. Peyna 16:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with User:24.17.48.241's statement below. Peyna 19:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move or re-submit to Wikipedia:Requested moves--no reason to waste time and resources passing primary disambiguation thru a redirect. DES should either be the disambiguation content (or the "Data Encryption Standard" or "Diethylstilbestrol" content, although neither seems deserving of primary disambiguation, IMHO), but it shouldn't be a redirect to either. 24.17.48.241 18:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First: Wikipedia:Requested moves involves deletion, too. Deletion is not a part of solving this problem. Second: Neither of those two articles should ever be at DES, per our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms). Third: DES redirecting to DES (disambiguation) is an equal-weight disambiguation, not a primary topic one. Fourth: Redirecting the undisambiguated title to the "X (disambiguation)" article is a common means of setting up an equal weight disambiguation, and doesn't "waste time and resources". Redirects are cheap, remember. Uncle G 06:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Note that someone has added a third expansion, Delivered Ex Ship. FreplySpang (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep until this matter can be resolved per User:Uncle G. Ian13 21:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Update. I have changed every wikilink to DES to refer to whatever article it actually meant to refer to (most of which were for Data Encryption Standard, but I did come across a few others (I also didn't change anything on talk pages). I have replaced DES with a disambig page, which makes DES (disambiguation) now an unneeded duplication of DES. If someone would be willing to double-check and make sure I have everything pointing the right direction, it would be appreciated. Peyna 23:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, based upon the above comment by me. Peyna 23:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've forgotten that the {{otheruses}} and {{otheruses2}} templates rely upon this page existing, even if only as a redirect. Moreover, what happens when Matt Crypto reverts you? My opinion remains unchanged. There is no reason to delete this article, and deletion is not involved in solving the problem. Uncle G 06:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no-longer-needed disambiguation page now that DES is the dab page. (Hopefully, any edit-warring about this will come to an end once this is complete... wishful thinking?) *Dan T.* 02:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to DES or keep. Kappa 02:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was closed as an inappropriate use of AfD. FCYTravis 19:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disney World Girl

I am actually asking that only edit 29959282 (the last one for 12/2) be removed due to the publication of personal information following the PrimeTime story Thursday night, which as anyone reading the article would agree should not be made public Wiki'dWitch 18:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If the person is deemed notable enough for a Wikipedia page, their current city of residence is not generally considered "personal information." It is a basic part of a biography. I see nothing wrong with posting the city. If it was a street address, I'd feel differently. FCYTravis 19:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: I can't find a source that verifies that information, however, which means leaving it out of the article is proper. AfD is also not the proper place for this discussion, so I'm going to close this here. Please open a discussion on the administrator's noticeboard if you wish to discuss the matter further. FCYTravis 19:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dramatic Phrase: The Firstname Surname Story

Funny as I found this, it's just a list of external links and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. I fail to see how this article could ever reach a length that couldn't covered in the TV movie article Maccoinnich 01:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's a useless list that is an example of a million lists that could be fabricated at the drop of a hat and would choke Wikipedia. All of the links are external links to the imdb site. Hu 02:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Moderately entertaining, but utterly useless. - Gobeirne 03:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Worthawholebean 04:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this would be useful on some of the trivia sites, but not on Wikipedia. B.Wind 04:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as list of external links and being a list of loosely associated topics, both specifically forbidden by WP:NOT. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but... as others have observed, it is kind of funny. Put with Bad Jokes? --Christofurio 18:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It's not really a joke, or nonsense. It's a real list, that is inherently funny. It's belongs *somewhere*, but I'm I just can't think of where... Maccoinnich 02:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing but a link farm. Denni ☯ 23:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete... these lists can be interesting, and there are a number of them already on Wikipedia (such as various song lists based on trivia about their titles). However, such lists ought to link to the Wikipedia pages on the items in the list, not an external site like IMDB. *Dan T.* 02:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edison Eagles

An article (if you can call it that; it's just stats) about a U.S. high school football team. This should be deleted, or if it really has any worth whatsoever, merged with Edison High School (whichever one of those on the dab page it is). See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EHS 2005 Freshmen Roster - the list of the team roster. Harro5 05:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. NN. There's a lot of high school football teams out there...What makes this so special? --64.12.117.5 05:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would say merge, but there are at least three mentioned Edison High Schools and the Edison Eagles article gives no clue which one it is. It's junk anyway.--MONGO 10:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - belongs in the high school newsletter, nowhere else. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. fails to provide context or references or even full sentences. If it said any more on the team apart from a few numbers I would've voted to merge, but since we don't know where to, that's pointless. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; we probably don't need pages on all high school football teams, especially when they don't have much info anyway. *Dan T.* 02:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For what it is worth this is Edison High School (Fairfax County, Virginia). I gather this because a google search] for Devonte Baskin (a player on the Freshman roster) lead to this page which has a phone number 703-924-8090, which is in the staff directory on the home page linked from the article Edison High School (Fairfax County, Virginia). Perhaps there might be something worth merging here. Dsmdgold 19:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing on this page is encyclopedic. -- DS1953 00:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Speedy delete under A1 and A7 by Capitalistroadster --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

Edward C. Minus

I'm not entirely sure Edward C. Minus is notable considering his Google hits, although I'd certainly hate to be him in college considering the temptation his professors must have had to give him a slightly less than average grade. JHMM13 08:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: no claim of notablility. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Egjug

Not sure if this is a speedy but I know that it's spam Delete --Aranda 56) 18:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless article can be expanded with sources that company is notable. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above.Some guy 19:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Jtmichcock 20:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; seems to be a Java user's group in Egypt, but it doesn't give any reasons for notability, but consists merely of a bunch of bullet points that might have been taken out of a PowerPoint presentation given at the founding meeting of the group, with an ambiguous date (1/10/05; is that January 10th or October 1st? How do they write dates in Egypt?) at the top. *Dan T.* 02:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EHS 2005 Freshmen Roster

Just a list of high school football players; a connected article to Edison Eagles, also up for deletion here. Even less useful than the article on the team itself. Harro5 05:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per my vote for Edison Eagles, worthless info anyway.--MONGO 10:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete it. —Brim 10:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a whole page of red links, all waiting to be filled in with unimportant non notable articles.... Ah, the terror! Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails to provide content and is a list of redlinks which cannot lead to proper articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; redirected to U.S. presidential election, 1828. Johnleemk | Talk 10:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Election of 1828

The title of the article is U.S.-centric. The article describes the Presidential election of the United States in 1828. As I suspect most editors will agree, there were many elections in 1828, and not all of them took place in the U.S. Thus, to have a single article titled "Election of 1828", and to have it speak of the U.S. Presidential Election of 1828 as though it were the election of 1828, is disrepectful to our international brethren and sistren. Aside from which, the contents of Election of 1828 largely duplicate the contents of U.S. presidential election, 1828. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 16:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment ∾ It seems that there are several of these "Election of $YEAR" articles, some of which have been redirected to "U.S. presidential election, $YEAR". I find these redirects to suffer from the same U.S.-centric problems as the articles themselves. So, at the suggestion of Kelly Martin, I'm going to track these rascals down and make disambiguation pages out of them, starting with the page which prompted this AfD in the first place. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 16:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. If there were other notable elections in 1828 (and I'm sure there were, I just don't know if we have articles on them) then make Election of 1828 into a disambig page describing and linking these elections. Firebug 16:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Does it make sense to create a disambiguation page if there is only a single relevant article? This is not a relevant article since it's about an election which already has an article, so I would say Delete. Kreydon 16:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am indeed having difficulty finding comparable articles about other elections in the stated year, and begin to lean more towards your view. There's no point in creating a disambiguation page if there is no ambiguity to disambiguate. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 16:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment ∾ As a further comment, I have found similar pages at Election of 1796, Election of 1824, Election of 1860, and Election of 1948. Of those pages, only Election of 1796 required minor disambiguation. The other pages have no ambiguity to disambiguate as far as I can discover, and are currently serving as redirects to U.S. presidential election, 1824, U.S. presidential election, 1860, and U.S. presidential election, 1948, respectively. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 17:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig. There should at least be multiple American elections in any given year (presidential, congressional, gubernatorial) even if there were no votes held elsewhere in the world. - SimonP 18:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't that go into US election of $BODY in $YEAR? This is en.wikipedia, not wikipedia.us! 82.26.160.214 18:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In its present form the article can't be kept because this is English-language Wikipedia, not US wikipedia and there is a better duplicate in the proper place. People would search for, say, 1828 US Presidential Election or 1828 British Parliamentary Election. Election of 1828 is a particuliarly clumsy page title. Election of what? Iff another election of a head of government or parliament took place in 1828 it can always be turned into a disambiguation page. 82.26.160.214 Pilatus 18:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• If we have articles on other elections held in that year, it should be moved to Elections of 1828 and used as a disambiguation. If not, it should redirect to the U.S. presidential election, 1828 article until such time as we do have articles. Capitalistroadster 19:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Comparing the two articles, the non-nominated article is far more advanced. The nominated article should be deleted, but without a redirect due to the US-centric concerns above. Then rename the balce of the articles using the U.S. presidential election, 1824 format. Jtmichcock 20:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate on the condition that there were other elections in 1828. List of state leaders in 1828 certainly demonstrates that there were other republics in that year and thus other elections may or may not have happened. --YixilTesiphon Say hello 21:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate if there's something to disambiguate between, otherwise delete. Redirecting a general election article to a US presidential one is POV. Redirects should point to what users are looking for and you can't assume the election they're looking for is the US presidential one. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If there's any new info that isn't already there, it can be added to U.S. presidential election, 1828 where it belongs. *Dan T.* 06:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely not a keep. Possible to disambiguate, redirect, or merge. My preference is to merge. Stifle 14:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

English for Special Purposes

Misguided page relating to an editor's personal experience. Bordering on a speedy delete. — Itai (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks like some personal variation on ESL. Durova
• Delete. as per nom. Olorin28 03:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with nomination. Hu 03:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ••MDD4696 ( talk - contribs ) 04:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, personal experiences - not an article. And I think that if this user was teaching English they'd know how to use capital letters too, so I'm not even sure if that part is true. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to English as an additional language. FreplySpang (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: there is in fact such a field as English for Special Purposes, or, more common recently, English for Specific Purposes (Google: [28], and see here: [29]). It's a legitimate academic field, with degree programs and peer-reviewed journals and the whole thing. It's not a "personal variation on ESL", nor is it the same as EAL, but it is related. That said, this article is worthless. It would be good to have an article on ESP, but this is not it. rodii 00:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete so many reasons to delete I can't pick just one. (original research, not encyclopedic, probably untrue, etc. etc. etc.). --Bachrach44 03:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete personal anecdote. *Dan T.* 05:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 23:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia (pseudonym)

No obvious notability? Long time candidate for a cleanup. Might be worth a merge -> Marvel Comics if anyone can be bothered?Ben Aveling 11:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - why no obvious notability? She is the informant for Marvel Comics. I would say that that classes her as notable. She is a spy, basically. Verified too. Don't delete it just because it needs a cleanup. That's what the tags are for. This is a collaborative effort. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong Keep. Obviously notable, and I say that as one who couldn't care less about the comic book industry. Logophile 14:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Zordrac -Meegs 16:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep interesting piece of comics history. *Dan T.* 02:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does it deserve its own page? Would anyone object to it being merged into Marvel? Ben Aveling 02:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as copyvio JoJan 20:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fendalton Open Air Primary School

Non-prominent school advertising, with a significant portion of the text obviously copied from school advertising; nonsense vandalism in for others. Znode 19:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete as per nom. Although I'm not totally against school pages, the world might be better off without this one and the job it would take to rework it. On another note, anyone south of the equator wish to tell me what an "Open Air Primary School" is? JHMM13 19:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as copyvio (tagging it now). --Alan Au 20:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedied as A8 JoJan 20:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fleng

• Delete NN programming language and a NN blogger - TWO good reasons for deletion
• Delete; article can't even make up its mind what it's about, but doesn't give reasons for notability for either of its subjects. *Dan T.* 03:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, quickly. Stifle 14:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fúsíjama Basketball Club International

This article was mandated for relisting by Deletion Review, so here it is. New information was provided by virtue of the following links: [30], [31] (KKÍ is the Icelandic Basketball Federation). -Splash^talk 18:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• See the first debate here. Punkmorten 22:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we have a translation of these sources for the benefit of the discussion? - Mgm|^(talk) 23:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally can't help. I was just copying links from the DRV debate. Sorry. -Splash^talk 02:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete; insufficient evidence of notability provided. *Dan T.* 04:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless notability is proven between now and vote expiry. --DDG 17:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion2

Blatant advertising. Worthawholebean 14:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Worthawholebean 14:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertising. And I don't think you're supposed to vote as per your own nomination...Some guy 19:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable advertisement. *Dan T.* 02:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gadi Lifshitz

non-notable. I could find no unique hits on google. I vote Delete Deyyaz 20:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and the articles on G-Radio and GadiArchive should go too. They're this guy's claim to fame and don't seem very viable (to put it mildly). - Bobet 23:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Apparently non-notable person with some rather... odd... ideas. *Dan T.* 02:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gandlake

Non-notable, and/or unverifiable. Article makes no claims of meeting WP:CORP. Only 14 hits for "Gandlake Technology", all of which just mention the name in passing, without really giving any details, let alone an actual site for said company. Searching for just Gandlake still only gets 84 displayed hits[32]. "Gandlake Computer Services" aka "Gandlake Ltd" seems the most likely candidate to be what the editor meant, but unfortunately the microstub article contains so little info there's no way to be certain. Doesn't seem to be any indication of being included in either a ranking index or a stock index, or "...multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." 24.17.48.241 18:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless expanded to indicate notabilty. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I get 504 hits for Gandlake Technology and 33 hits for just Gandlake. But Delete per JiFish. Punkmorten 19:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless more info is provided. *Dan T.* 02:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Enochlau 06:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gogoblank

Doesn't comply with WP:MUSIC, and Google only turns up 8 hits for Gogoblank. Delete. --Spring Rubber 06:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under CSD R2. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 nearly incomprehensible and blatantly incorrect. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greater than tens place borrowing subtraction rule

Looks like primary school instructions for substraction. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - delete. - Mike Rosoft 09:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
• Delete, nonsensical. Gazpacho 09:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while there is an argument that explanations such as these are encyclopaedic by their very nature, including them in an article by themselves, especially with a heading like that, is useless. If we included things like this, we'd have a million articles on everything. I cannot see any way that this can be justified, and hence, while it is accurate, notable etc, it cannot be here. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the author can't even come up with the correct difference. —Brim 10:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as nonsense. The instructions are incomprehensible and the mathematical examples are blatantly wrong. --Metropolitan90 16:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I suspected that the instructions were written by a primary school pupil, too. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 17:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Anyone who needs to know this info won't understand the explanation. Is also blatantly wrong in one example. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as advertising. Mo0[talk] 23:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Health-Pharmacy-Online.com

advertising

• Delete - advertising JoJan 20:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Spam. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best-Prescription-Prices.com. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam/advertising. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viagra uk.--Alhutch 21:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. ERcheck 22:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedily deleted. This is pure spamvertising. -- ChrisO 22:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy crude oil

Recommend transwiki to Wiktionary. Peyna 04:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article can be significantly expanded. ••MDD4696 ( talk - contribs ) 2024-05-7 03:13
• Keep per above. --Worthawholebean 04:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Potential for expansion. Capitalistroadster 04:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above; an informative stub. Smerdis of Tlön 05:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge into Light crude oil; it seems like the articles could benefit from being able to compare the two terms without having gobs of redundancy. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 06:14:52Z
• It's an encyclopaedia article about heavy crude oil, not a dictionary article about the phrase "heavy crude oil". The latter wouldn't satisfy the Wiktionary inclusion criteria anyway, because it is not idiomatic. It is a simple combination of heavy and crude oil. Uncle G 06:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems pretty idomatic to me, who would guess that "heavy" in this phrase means "does not flow easily". Kappa 02:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename it to Heavy oil (over 500,000 Google hits). There are lots of issues on refining it too. User:Ejrrjs says What? 08:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway, the world might survive w.o. Light crude oil, as it is the std stuff User:Ejrrjs says What? 09:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The nominator decides this might be worth Keeping after all. Peyna 14:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect this and Light crude oil to crude oil'. The provide little additional context and are better covered in its entire context. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; it's a distinct type of oil. *Dan T.* 02:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to know if someone is lying

An original research essay is not what Wikipedia is for. This is, or should be, covered at Lie and this article serves no use as a redirect as it is unlilely someone would search for this title. Harro5 02:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Would keep, but seems to be unsalvageable (is that a word?). At any rate (if it can not be merged/cleaned up or whatever - even though it sounds interesting) I say delete εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "unsalvageable" is a word. I used it myself to advocate a deletion just minutes before I saw your use of it here. However, if sources are referenced, I think it would be salvageable. Hu 03:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsourced and POV. People who have respiratory allergies scratch their noses often. Does this make them habitual liars? Nonsense. Durova 02:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The subject is better covered in the article on Lie anyway. -- Saikiri~ 03:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: This is useful information, mostly common sense, some based on research which should be referenced. Not much loss if it is deleted. Hu 03:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:NOR  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 03:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because if its common sense than it need not be on an encyclopedia, because its just telling readers stuff they already knew. Like Hu said, good to know, but like I say its not necessary in an encyclopedia. Croat Canuck 04:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - looks like an original essay for a college class rather than a publication. Not referenced, and a "how to..." which Wikipedia is not. B.Wind 04:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this persons term paper.--MONGO 09:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for want of verification. Gazpacho 10:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced OR. As far as I can tell much of it is wrong as well and it fails to mention one needs to study the subjects base behavior before trying to detect lying behavior. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Original research. Further, it's at a non-encyclopedic lemma. Geogre 20:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The answer to the title question is "When their lips are moving!", of course.  :-) But delete... WP:NOT a "how-to" essay collection. *Dan T.* 02:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Have Dreams (band)

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was Vanity page, doesn't meet band requirements. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, based on the article and the linked website. Wrote three or four original songs, with no albums and no media coverage. - Bobet 16:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly doesn't meet WP:NMG. PJM 16:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete... band that broke up years ago, and didn't seem to do anything particularly notable while they were together. Their official Web site is so poorly designed that it didn't show anything in my Mozilla browser; I had to view the source to find the URL of the real site, which was supposed to pop up in another window (yuck!), but didn't seem to do this for me. *Dan T.* 02:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Bobet. Stifle 14:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to x86. - Mailer Diablo 00:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IA-16

Duplicative of x86. Intel does not use IA-16 term. Mirror Vax 02:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to x86 (if nom is correct). Some guy 19:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, but don't delete; Intel may not use the term, but other people do, and redirects are cheap. — Haeleth Talk 01:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. *Dan T.* 03:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 'RENAME' to 16-bit Intel CPU architecture 132.205.45.148 21:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Motorola 68070 merged and redirected (to preserve history); others deleted. Johnleemk | Talk 10:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola 68050, Motorola 68070, Motorola 68080

Hypothetical article about something that never existed. Mirror Vax 02:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• I consolidated these three AFDs into one since the underlying facts are identical. Firebug 16:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next time you may want to consider making the articles point at it. —Cryptic (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As noted in the corresponding articles, these chips never actually existed. Firebug 16:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. PJM 16:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge as section of Motorola 68060,. ...dave souza 20:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article under WP:NOT/Crystal Ball. These may exist as "true" styles in the future, but we don't know that, and it appears unlikely.
• Merge the "odd number" fact into their corresponding even number styles that they upgraded. karmafist 20:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete articles on nonexistent chips, but put info on numbering scheme in remaining related articles. *Dan T.* 06:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• REDIRECT 68050 to 68040, 68080 to 68060 132.205.45.148 22:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP 68070. The CD-i article claims that the 68070 is the chip contained in the unit. So it's a real chip 132.205.45.148 22:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 15:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

InkLink

No obvious notability. Overly longstanding need for cleanup. Ben Aveling 11:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've heard and played the game. It gets several thousand hits on Google. To me, that's notable. Halo 11:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep for 95,400 hits with main web page here [33]. It exists, verified, notable. Nuff said. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of those are for a different InkLink. (Seiko Instruments USA Inc. - InkLink) InkLink + game gets about 25,000 hits, mostly but not all for the InkLink game, and most of those seems to be sites that have a copy of every free shockwave game known to mankind. Ben Aveling 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I've got no idea how to determine the notability of a Shockwave game, but the tricks section needs to go. It tells there's tricks but doesn't explain them. So they're bare of info. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I'm not sure of the notability, or what the criteria for games ought to be, but it seems marginally notable at least. *Dan T.* 04:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Dtobias. Stifle 15:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intergroup conflict

Personal essay dealing with Islamic relations with the Western world. Delete as per Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Allen3 ^talk 13:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Original research/eessay. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; we're not an essay collection. *Dan T.* 04:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with possible transwiki to Wikibooks. Stifle 15:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPod hacks (second nomination)

This page is nothing but links, mostly to commercial sites. This is what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - This page is an important resource. Please look at under the heading Different Prespective under the discussion page for IPod hacks. In it I explain why the current page is necessary, and how the purely commercial links are being weeded out. -FromACanteen

I looked at that. Please review what Wikipedia is WP:NOT...one of those is a link repository. The whole reason it was saved the first time was on the condition that it would improve the content. Adding more links is not adding content. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way we can set it as an archive? Then the data would remain while users could draft a new, more WP friendly page? -FromACanteen

• Delete May have some real purpose on wikipedia, but in this form, it's just not it. Bobby1011 23:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing but a list of links. Some of these might be useful in another article. --Hetar 23:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a user guide, please move it to Wikicities or another location. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Made a copy here

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a link farm. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Cuñado - Talk
• Delete --Terence Ong 03:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT a link farm Just zis Guy you know? 10:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a list of external links, nor is it a how-to. Stifle 09:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was consensus to merge. Johnleemk | Talk 10:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irvin Favre

No other claim to notability except that his son plays football. —Cryptic (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - written in a reasonable style, but I concur totally with the nomination. Colonel Tom 06:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
• Merge to Brett_Favre#Recent_events. The relevant information in the article relates to the various family tragedies that Brett Favre has suffered in recent years. Laszlo Panaflex 06:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the Kiln and Recent events sections in Brett Favre. -- Saikiri~ 07:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge relevant info into Bret Favre article. Herostratus 07:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Brett Favre per Laszlo Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Brett Favre as per above. Capitalistroadster 18:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Brett Favre. *Dan T.* 04:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Delaney

This footballer plays on the reserve team for a seventh-tier club in England. Punkmorten 15:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the article solely consists of the fact that this person is a non-notable footballer. Sliggy 15:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:BIO, since AFC Wimbledon which he plays for is a semi-professional team, and he has only played for the reserves for them (based on the club's website). It just makes me sad that I probably spent more time writing this afd vote than it took the creator to make the article. - Bobet 16:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not meeting WP:BIO. Reserve-grader for semi-professional team. Capitalistroadster 19:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; near-empty article on minor player for minor team. *Dan T.* 04:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --Merovingian 04:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This player is a player of good quality, has had trials at Reading F.C. over the summer and is only 17....I also have very nice hair. That was cut recently. Thank you for keeping my page.

Jake...P.S. I could have all of you..because I've got Shaan as back up. Im 6ft 4 inches tall and very sexy. I also wrote an incredibly well informed essay on Marvell and Duffy relating to the imagery evoked by these poets. This means that not only am I a very good footballer but I can also speak very good english compared to the rest of America who are incredulously stupid. And by the way...colour is spelt with a U as is favoUr, and no not all Muslims are terrorists you stupid country...and if you would like to read the rest of my essay ( i am aware they may be some words you do not understand if you have been born in America) then you will have to keep my entry so that I send you the rest.

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

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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Hawkins

""Keep"". This guy is widely known in the mid-south. He is famous in high school footballLenwood 07:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC) Delete. I'm not entirely sure this is even remotely notable. He's been nominated for some obscure "Coach of the Year" award and hasn't even won it yet, which still wouldn't make him notable. See the page for yourself. JHMM13 08:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, speedy delete non-notable. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
• Delete slowly. High school football coach albeit one with a good record. A Google search shows an American footballer and college basketballer who are more notable than Coach Hawkins see [34]. Capitalistroadster 09:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - definitely who he claims to be. [35], [36] and [37]. Notable person per google matches: 188 hits, using "Joey Hawkins" and "football" and "jackson", including this [38], this [39], this [40], this [41] and others. Don't be confused with "Joey Hawkins" the new NFL star - this is the coach. Consider a disambig as they both seem notable. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What's your definition of notable? He's one of the best high school football coaches in The State of Mississippi. High school football is one of Mississippi's most beloved sports, and communities really rally around their teams. Hawkins is one of the best. Deleting this post would smack of elitism. —preceding unsigned comment by 199.111.188.213 (talk • contribs) 3:57 AM, 3 December 2005 (EDT)
  • Elitism? Is that the best defense you can come up with? This is an international encyclopedia, not a local register. Please take your "elitism is destroying the common man" rant to someone who believes illogical and poorly laid-out arguments. JHMM13 09:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You haven't given a valid reason to delete the post. You're uncertain Hawkins "is even remotely notable", but you fail to articulate what is notable, at least for an entry on Wikipedia. Should an individual have minimum contacts in more than one state? —preceding unsigned comment by 199.111.188.213 (talk • contribs)
      • Perhaps if you could convince me that I should give a damn about Joey Hawkins, it might be worth keeping. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
        • I suppose if I said I could care less about 85% of these entries, that wouldn't suffice. We can't all have common interests. But even people for fail to appreciate high school football can appreciate a man who is one of the best in his field. He's reached the pinnacle of his profession four of the last five seasons. Very few coaches can say the same. —preceding unsigned comment by 199.111.188.213 (talk • contribs)
          • BTW, you're mistaken on the sockpuppet reference. —preceding unsigned comment by 199.111.188.213 (talk • contribs)
          • Sorry, you have failed to convince me. Time to empty the chamberpot. And no, I'm not mistaken. Anonymous votes are sockpuppet votes, and do not count. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
            • Whilst that might be your opinion, it is not actually the policy of wikipedia, see Wikipedia:sock puppet. Whilst a user is encouraged to create an account, they are not required to. Whilst a closing admin may choose to ignore suspected sock puppets, they are not required to. As the policy stands right now, an IP address can vote. If you think that this should be changed, your should comments in the sock puppet channel. As it stands, the current definition of sock puppet is someone who creates additional accounts to impersonate someone else. This is not the case here. This is merely someone who has yet to create an account. Please be nice to newbies and encourage their participation. And remember WP:AGF - assume good faith! Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The author who I assume is the anonymous voter has put a lot of work into this page. Unfortunately, it doesn't meet WP:BIO which is our guidelines to biographical entries. I would recommend a Geocities page or Google Base article see [42]. Unfortunately, while I am sure Coach Hawkins is highly respected in his home town, he doesn't meet our notability criteria. Capitalistroadster 09:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalroadster, though we disagree, you've stated your opinion eloquently and referenced the guidelines. I'm glad to see snottiness is not the culture around here, but isolated to a few souls. I've made a an account for myself. Cheers. SnyGuy
    • Thanks. I assume that you are the author. Please sign yourself with 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end so that we know who you are. As you have already voted here, you can't vote again. It is unfortunate that a lot of people are suspicious of new users at present. I hope that you continue to contribute, and even if this is deleted, that you are not disheartened, and that you continue to try to have a go. Why not try to add to existing articles? It is a lot safer, and less likely to raise questions about you. Consider following redlinks and create articles that are requested to be created rather than creating your own, at least for a while. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is it really necessary to make a separate section to accuse someone of sock puppetry? Sock puppetry is supposed to be when someone is impersonating someone else. I see no evidence of this. This is just someone who has yet to make an account. That's not sock puppetry. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have deleted the header "Sockpuppet votes" since the accusation does not appear to be supported by the facts. Anonymous votes are not necessarily sockpuppets, and they definitely are not sockpuppets when there is only one of them. --Metropolitan90 16:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Newbies != sockpuppets. I added a template I designed, {{afd-newbies}} to advise newcomers who may have been asked to come here that we have a consensus process, not a straight up-or-down vote. BTW, Delete, on the basis that this doesn't meet WP:BIO requirements. Firebug 16:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per roadster. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 17:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I really like that this article does provice some newspaper references. It's a cut above most articles of its type, actually, but it's still basically an article about a high-school coach and doesn't meet WP:BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with extreme prejudice. --Agamemnon2 18:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with respect for a good attempt. Don't bite the newbies. rodii 22:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• "Keep" In the whole scheme of Wikipedia... does one really think that having a single bio page on a pretty darn good HS Football coch will hurt? Get a life... keep the page.
• Weak Delete- Very well written article, but unfortunately fails WP:BIO though not by much. Reyk 00:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, also. It's not bad as this type goes. Although to think everyone well-known in Mississippi must have an article seems a bit peculiar logic. Daniel Rayford McGehee was a Mississippi Congressman for a decade, including a period during WWII, but there doesn't seem to be an article on him yet. Clifford Davis represented Tennessee, but was originally from Mississippi. He was also shot in the leg during the U.S. Capitol shooting incident (1954), but there is no article on him yet either. Still , to whoever the creator of it is, you should maybe keep this in some personal file in case this coach ever say gets a movie made about him or something that would warrant this.--T. Anthony 10:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep; pretty well-done article about somebody who's somewhere near the edge of the boundary between notability and non-notability, and I prefer to err in the direction of inclusionism. *Dan T.* 16:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Emotions aside, this is a non-notable bio. Stifle 15:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and dab; this is the kind of article which Wikipedia should definitely include some day. The question is when? Considering the recent work on Jackson Academy, and the detail of the article, I think we can keep this one. I do wish the contributors would also fix up Indianola, Mississippi, though. +sj + 13:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote, but this is a very well done article and I think that if we were at the point that [[User:Sj] thinks we should be at someday, I agree that this coach (with that many state championships) would be included. I am not sure that we'll ever be there and right now this doesn't fit our criteria, IMO. -- DS1953 00:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn figure, writing skill aside. Eusebeus 15:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is one of the best articles ever that never should've been written. I hope we never reach Sj's point, and keep high school coaches forever out of the encyclopedia. The Literate Engineer 02:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jungiery

Article looks like a phone listing for a small business that books musical groups. --207.136.9.28 17:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT. PJM 17:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hu 17:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN. --Bachrach44 17:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; gives no reason for notability. *Dan T.* 04:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kakfif

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, German language neologism. - Bobet 16:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Bobet. Some guy 19:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism; not even listed in German Wikipeda. *Dan T.* 04:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kaufman County ARES, Inc.

Vanity article touting a local, non-notable charity for a county in Texas. This is one of a series of vanity articles created last night about various Kaufman County organizations. The others have been speedy candidates, but this one is meaty enough to warrant an AfD. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 17:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - ARES is the Amateur Radio Emergency Service. There are thousands around the country, and they don't need their own Wikipedia page. At best, Redirect to Amateur Radio Emergency Service. FCYTravis 19:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I feel that this page has great potential and feel that is should be given a chance to remain, until otherwise shown that is does not contribute to Wikipedia. I have personally been over the Wikipedia site, looking at many articles and have seen many that I would consider either a vanity page or of no use to some people, but that does not mean it's of no use to someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.97.170 (talk • contribs) 01:59, December 5, 2005, who is the original author and primary editor of the page being discussed by this very AfD.
  • Comment ∾ The fact that there is grafitti on the south wall of the building is not a justification to add new grafitti to the north wall of the building. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 04:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; there is not generally any need for articles on local chapters of organizations if there is one on the parent organization, unless there's something particularly notable about the particular chapter. *Dan T.* 04:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agreeing with above. Eusebeus 15:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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