Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 9

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

The article has been Speedily Deleted independently of this AFD. - SoM 13:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doodleprints

Non-notable created term. Jake 00:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone can make it an encyclopedic article, which it currently isn't.--MONGO 01:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity neologism. --Clay Collier 01:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh c'mon I use doodleprints all the time. Well, actually I never do. Delete Croat Canuck 01:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Doodelete - article itself claims that the term is a neologism. BD2412 T 01:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 01:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - neologism. ERcheck 02:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Speedily As per all of the above... --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 02:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a work of fiction. / Ezeu 03:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteTheRingess 05:46, 9 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The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 16:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

West End Girls (band)

Band does not meet WP:MUSIC no albums etc. There is even a group with the same name [1]. feydey 00:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC). Hmmm looks like I missed the "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country" -- as their single reached a number 3 in Swedish single chart. Damn these late nights. Keep feydey 00:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep one of the very few notable cover bands. By the way, I've heard their take on Domino Dancing and it's actually pretty good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep minor notability.--MONGO 01:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. worthawholebean _talk^contribs 16:22, 9 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 (nothing to merge). --bainer (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

String manipulation

dicdef. —R. Koot 00:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to String (computer science). Gazpacho 00:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Makes sense... Redirect to String (computer science). —R. Koot 01:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above.--MONGO 01:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Redirect per above. Jtmichcock 02:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Bmdavll _talk 03:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think an article just about string manipulation is warranted as it is a varied and complex topic. An article that covers the basics of string manipulation as well as the type of tools that exists and specific issues that are applicable to various programming languages can be a resourceful addition. This is a notable enough topic to have its own article. I don't think it should be included in the existing article on strings because of article size limits and because there is precedence for this kind of sub-topic to have it's own article. Maybe a rename with (computers) is in order though. The only explanation given for a redirect is that another article about strings exist, none of the issues I have raised have been addressed. I'd like the other voters to describe their computer programming language experience before their vote is considered. The article that people want to redirect to doesn't cover string manipulation. Perhaps we should also redirect regular expressions too then yes? Also the article in question is a stub and should have a stub tag. (Bjorn Tipling 20:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • I respectfully disagree. String manipulation falls into two broad categories. First you have the high-level approaches: these are already discussed in their own articles, and those are linked from the "String algorithms" section of String (computer science). Second, you have the very low-level approaches. And those are very language-specific, or even implementation-specific. What middle ground can you identify that can actually support an entire article?

    Even if there is an encyclopedic article to be written on the subject, this isn't it. Anyone who can write one is welcome to - and will remain welcome to, and trivially able to, even if it is redirected. So nothing is lost by redirecting, while nothing is gained by keeping. — Haeleth

    • Redirecting an article because it's not up to a standard of quality is not warranted. What is warranted is that the article be improved. Ironically, in your argument to redirect you have given an example of the complexity of string manipulation. Had the information you have just provided been in the article from the beginning I doubt it would have ever been nominated for deletion. Perhaps instead of voting to delete or redirect you should vote to keep and improve the article. (Bjorn Tipling 20:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC))Talk 20:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have programming experience in Assembler, BASIC, C, C++, Haskell, Java and PHP. I listed this article on AfD, because I did not believe it could be expanded beyond a dicdef. If it can be, I believe it should be in the string (computer science) article, until if the treatment of string manipulation becomes too large, it can be split at that time. —R. Koot 20:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It sounds as if some here would welcome this page if it had more information. That is why there is a stub tag. What this article needs is a stub tag, and not a redirect. Just so everyone knows, I am not the author of this article and only stumbled upon it while browsing the VFD page. (Bjorn Tipling 20:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Redirect per Gazpacho. — Haeleth Talk 20:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep if updated. Stringology (which would be better name for the article) is quite established term and area of study: see stringology groups in Prague or Haifa or Helsinky. The article should cover basics of stringology and be named so (and no, I unfortunately don't have time to write it down). Redirect to String (computer science) would be misleading, the area is much bigger and more sophisticated than regex or what is described in String (computer science), better to delete the text if no one updates it and wait until relevant content gets created. Pavel Vozenilek 21:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Gazpacho Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Gazpacho. Does not deserve its own article, I think. Stifle 22:43, 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 both articles. Mindmatrix 00:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GadiArchive, G-Radio

Weird vanity hoaxes about implausible inventions related to the recent Gadi Lifshitz afd - Bobet 00:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. As the inventor was deleted it seems his inventions should go as well. Movementarian 06:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if it's not a hoax, it isn't notable enough yet to warrent an article -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 07:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Malo --Mecanismo 11:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• comment article is an orphan.Geni 18:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable self-promotion. (Bjorn Tipling 20:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete - for both. GadiArchive: self promotion. G-Radio: no evidence that this 'invention' exists or even that it has been published, so non-notable and unencyclopedic. ++Lar 19:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Malo. Stifle 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete EdwinHJ | Talk 18:19, 14 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 a hoax that reaches the level of vandalism. --Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 01:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Hoskinson

Doing very little research on this article will show that it is obviously fake. Doing a little more research will show that Charles Hoskinson created this entry as a joke, so that he could tell people to look him up in Wikipedia. Usage of Wikipedia in this way is very much against the aim of the project. It's essentially a fictional vanity. Nonforma 00:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I'll take your word for it. It doesn't seem notable to me. Croat Canuck 01:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete appears to be completely farcical. Relevent talk pages with article clearly demostrate that the article is a hoax.--MONGO 01:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. m --Clay Collier 01:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roguesci

Comment: Completing an AFD nomination by 165.189.91.148. feydey 01:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete spam and not encyclopedic anyway.--MONGO 01:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Croat Canuck 02:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spam. Jtmichcock 02:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Spam. Mat334 08:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable (Bjorn Tipling 20:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)).[reply]

comment article is an orphan.Geni 18:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Take a look at [2]. Apparently the site is being accused of harboring a terrorist network. That may make a good article with some sort of actual information, and give it some importance. --Aleron235 22:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardly, given that the information is given on the site itself (and a couple of posts on mailing lists that they have written themselves). Delete / Ezeu 03:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delay judgement The article is clearly not finished and the site is seen by many (not least its members) as a test of what accurate, yet use unspecific, information the public should be allowed to know in these post 9/11 days.
  • Yes, I am slightly bothered by the AfD vote occuring one day after the start of the article, 80.229.21.128. In the future, please make an account if you wish to vote/comment on AfDs.--Aleron235 02:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thankyou. Have added an aspect of the forum not currently included by the original author. I hope and think the entry will turn quite quickly into a balenced look at the site and that given the content and history this cannot be considered either spam or not notable. Furthurmore since names and faces can be attached to some of the casualties this makes it a much tougher test of free speech than merely theoretical, and that neither side of the argument can be easily dismissed, nor should be overlooked.--Ambix 15:11, 11 December 2005 (GMT)
• Keep Please don't be so quick to dismiss this as spam, as just like The Wikipedia, the aim of RogueSci is the free spread of information, it is not the aim of this article's creator, myself, or any other RogueSci member to generate traffic for us or further any commercial gain, we seek merely to regain contact with people who beleive that RogueSci no longer exists due to censorship of the site by some ISPs, governments, e.t.c. Ezeu, if you'd actually took some time to read the article you'd have learned that the site itself is being blocked by several major ISPs, and that's why this article was started, it is by no means finished... I ask all of you to allow this article to remain for now, so that RogueSci can get in touch with its missing members and begin to do some serious work on this Wiki entry. We have a lot of good information to contribute, and are not seeking to simply spam this site or generate traffic for RogueSci. Sorry for not making an account (but no, I'm not the same person as 80.229.21.128), I'll get to that later, but it does say that anyone can contribute to an AfD discussion. I would also like to note as an afterthought that other such sites discussing similar information such as TOTSE.com are allowed Wiki entries, even when their content is of a lower level of intellect and more focused around the uses of such information for crime and vandalism, rather than being focused around scientific discussion and the spread of information. -Xyz, RogueSci.org 202.72.172.136 09:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spam. This is an encyclopedia, not a link list for bomb makers. Opening the actual site doesn't give much confidence in the accuracy of this statement from their spokesman "around the uses of such information for crime and vandalism, rather than being focused around scientific discussion and the spread of information" Xyz.

A quick check of the site brings up quite the opposite, I quote:

"The device is constructed out of (preferably) non-metallic materials, with a mechanical or chemical delay, inserted in the appropriate orifice (and it's non-gender-specific, so we're being equal-opportunity!), and locked into place. The device is such that, when locked, it expands to such a diameter as to be unremovable without surgery (assuming you're not using it on a fisting fetishist), and begins the timer or chemical reaction that will result, if not removed, in someones ass being seperated from their body in a spectaculary lethal manner." Nbk

"Hey, the hostages are expendable, so why does it have to be removable?" Xyz

I dont trust that legitamacy of this wiki entry, and its promotion of illegal, immoral activities.(waspt 22:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)).[reply]

• The thread you have quoted above was an attempt to see things from the perspective of terrorists, to get inside their minds so to speak, and through that gain a deeper understanding of methods they may use. As such, it is totally out of context in the way you have used it. Think about it, if we really had terrorist intentions, would we post them on the internet for the whole world to see? I don't know about you Waspt, but I wouldn't. We don't promote illegal or immoral activity, we merely seek to discuss it and draw attention to it. Call it investigative journalism turned up a notch. Information should be free for everyone to know, because an informed population is one less susceptible to terror. RogueSci is also hardly a site "for bomb makers" as you put it, in fact, I challenge you to go and start a thread at RogueSci even so much as hinting at intentions of really making a bomb, just see how long it takes for your account to be banned and the thread closed. I am also by no means RogueSci's spokesperson, so please do not label me as such - I'm just someone who chooses to stand up for what I beleive is a worthy cause. -Xyz 202.72.172.136 07:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • If your not the "spokesman" then I'm not sure why you care. This entry seems to have ulterier motives as evidenced by the very thread generated in that forum to discuss creating a wiki entry. I pull a quote from the thread, which discusses the wiki:

"It'd be great for keeping track of 'recipes' as, try as I might, it's damn near impossible to do so here. How many variations on the AP process alone? Christ...dozens, if not a hundred. Then sources for the process, testing for purity, VoD and expansion values, videos and pictures, etc., etc. All this is scattered over dozens of threads over the years. If it was all consolidated into just one Wiki entry, it'd be huge! Instead of telling a newbie to UTFSE (which isn't always helpful), you point them to a Wiki entry and let them learn on their own. If they follow the 'recipes' without killing themselves (which they shouldn't because our info is CORRECT), they'll be flush with success and want to tell someone about it. Where would they then go to?" Nbk

Its said within that very forum that this wiki entry is to be used to post "recipes" for people to follow, which I can only assume to be bomb recipes. I mean REALLY if you are going to abuse wiki to post bomb making recipes, you dont discuss it openly then link into it from here. Thats just dumb.waspt 10:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)).[reply]

• • • You have either not read the thread from the start waspt, or not understood it. The thread starts,

"Has anyone any thoughts about hosting an E&W wikipedia site alongside the forum"

The key words here are 'hosting' and 'alongside'. The thread is suggesting that someone use software downloaded from the internet to host their own wikipedia and discussing what that should contain. Not that they should dump information onto wikipedia.org. There is even discussion as to where the site should be hosted! Noone there has suggested that the wikipedia.org entry should contain any methods of anykind at all. --Ambix 10:30, 12 December 2005 (GMT)

• • • • Waspt, I already explained why I care, if you'd taken the time to read what I'd said. I don't have to be a spokesperson for something to support it. Ever heard of the phrase "When you assume you make an ass out of u and me"? For the last time, WE ARE NOT A SITE FOR BOMB RECIPES, even though TOTSE.com is, and yet you allow them a Wiki entry. As I said, I challenge you to go to RogueSci and ask about "bombmaking" without getting your account deleted and your IP range banned for good. Likewise, feel free to delete any "bombmaking recipes", whatever that means, that appear in our Wiki entry. If any do appear then they certainly won't have been added by any member of RogueSci. If this is about censorship, you will find larger quantities of far more detailed information about the manufacture and deployment of conventional explosives, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, e.t.c. at the US Patent Office website than anywhere else on the web. Go censor them. -Xyz 07:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • Comment Censoring RogueSci would be stupid, and the opposite of what Wikipedia stands for. Let the article develop. As for the complaints that bomb recipes might be posted, well, search for any common term for pretty much any explosive on wikipedia, and you get a result. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Explosive_chemicals ) Try "nitroglycerin", and skip down to the "Preperation" section ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroglycerine#Preparation ) If someone posts a recipe here, it should be moved to the right place, rather than causing this rather interesting thread to be killed. '

• • • • • • ^ Words of wisdom in the post above, thankyou anonymous ^ -Xyz 07:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per MONGO-Mat334 inclusive. Stifle 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stifle for appropriate name. Delete

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

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

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 21:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ova Prima

• del Nonnotable joke. Despite being named "web hoax" is sits in the web largely unnoticed for quite some time, with about 150 unique google hits. mikka (t) 01:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the edit history for this article goes back for 4 years, but it appears to lack much notability today so I would concur with a vote to delete.--MONGO 01:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for an nn joke (It's listed at [3], and its mission statement is "to provide funding for research efforts that build a body of scientific evidence showing the egg came first.") —Bmdavll _talk 03:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Let's be serious now...this doesn't sound like its trying to be a serious article. Delete, please.-MegamanZero 17:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It was a weekly ha-ha mass forwarded through e-mail. Well, the thing about the weekly ha-ha is that it's gone by the time it's noticed. I'm sure people said/thought, at the time, "Well, if no one remembers it in a year, we can remove it." It has been four years. No one remembers it. (And, incidentally, there was a "ova prima" theory for a while that said that humans come from a woman's egg alone, that the sperm is merely a sort of activator to the egg, and that the person is fully formed inside the egg, needing only the food or spark of the sperm to grow. Inside the female persons inside the eggs are eggs that contain within them fully formed people, and some are female, who have within them eggs with.... The idea was that Eve had the entire run of humanity in her, and that is how original sin could be passed on. It was a minority theory, but Laurence Sterne satirized it in Tristram Shandy.) Geogre 17:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. (Bjorn Tipling 20:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Turnstep 16:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per mikka. Stifle 22:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable Sethie 18:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect (keep and merge votes were equal, but seeing as many keeps were changed to merge as the debate progressed, I saw no problems with merging straight away). bainer (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Life Alliance

Lacks notability, however, switching this from a speedy delete tag to bring it to a vote.--MONGO 01:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - this is a duplicate article. There are two articles about the same party, one at Pro-Life Alliance and one at ProLife Party. The actual name of the party, according to their website is ProLife Alliance, which is currently a redirect. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• If this is a duplicate of an existing article, isn't that actually a pretty good reason to delete/redirect?--Aolanonawanabe 03:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I brought this here for a vote only because I saw it was speedy tagged...but I vote to Keep and expand tag it to bring it up speed.--MONGO 06:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I agree not very notable. Croat Canuck 01:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, It deserves just as much attention as the Labour party. Chooserr
• Delete, there is no content here, essentially an excuse for the article creator to preach against abortion--Aolanonawanabe 02:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:It's not to preach about abortion, but to give information on a political party. Also Aolanonawanabe has opposed me on every level...and I believe it's been nominated only out of spite. Chooserr

• Comment: I didn't even nominate it--Aolanonawanabe 02:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: You did for speedy deletion or Mongo wouldn't have changed it to a regular delete. [4] Chooserr

• Comment This is not a blog, you can't just go around creating POV forks that serve as an excuse for you to preach against abortion--Aolanonawanabe 02:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, but an article about a political party that actually exists simply isn't a POV fork. -- SCZenz 02:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Groups lawsuit here invalidated much of Britain's reproduction law. Jtmichcock 02:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Merge with ProLife Party per below. Jtmichcock 23:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 02:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, improve, and be vigilant against POV. Very small politcal party, but 20,000+ votes in 2004 election per BBC, and we have decent articles on parties that got fewer votes (Forward Wales, The Common Good). Bikeable 02:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Uncle_G. Bikeable 19:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but improve. A magazine only needs about 5000 subscribers to be notable. If this party garnered 20,000 votes, I'd say it's notable enough for an article. --Elliskev 02:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has at least one more BBC article (past the above): [5]. Do the people who argue lack of notability really think that's consistent with some of the points in the last few Keep votes? I urge you to reconsider. -- SCZenz 02:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Uncle G below. -- SCZenz 21:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Less notable figures/ideas/etc remain without any threat of deletion. This is supposed to be a resource for information. GreatGatsby 02:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: What information does the article contain? Seeing as how the only content is a single unsourced quote?--Aolanonawanabe 02:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a stub, with one NPOV sentence about what the party believes. I agree the quote needs to be reformatted and sourced (it's from their website), and it needs to be tagged as a stub. None of these are reasons to delete. -- SCZenz 03:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I say, but with the following changes:

1. Get rid of that unsourced quote.
2. Put a political party stub on the page.
3. Add some content that assures notability.

Done, done and done! But as per Uncle G, I change my vote to merge now. --ParkerHiggins 09:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable, but needs improvement JG of Borg 03:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Could definitely use improvement, but I see absolutely no point in deleting it. --Jakes18 03:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 34,000+ Google hits and a BBC article make it notable enough for me. If it is in fact the first "pro-life" party in Europe then definitely notable. —Bmdavll _talk 04:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SCZenz. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 07:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I see this as a stub and not a vfd page. Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic 09:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the current version which includes stub info and both BBC sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. This is certainly notable enough for an article. AnnH ^(talk) 09:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It just needs more information, without forgetting NPOV. :o) Hégésippe | ±Θ± 10:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously notable. Could those who say that this party is not notable please defend their position, as those who think it is notable have? Logophile 14:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Corse it's notable, and they've actually been quite controversial at times! XYaAsehShalomX 15:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to ProLife Party, where we have covered this political party for almost two years. Uncle G 15:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as Uncle G says.. -max rspct 15:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Uncle G. Capitalistroadster 16:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge ditto --Petros471 18:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment article is an orphan.Geni 18:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious KEEP! Dwain 19:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per above. (Bjorn Tipling 20:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Obvious MERGE! per Uncle G. — Haeleth Talk 20:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Uncle G. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A political party that has any base of support is worth having in Wikipedia. --Aleron235 22:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • • On second thought, after reading the comments and rest of the votes more thoroughly, Merge with the existing article.--Aleron235 02:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is about an appearantly up-and-coming party. --Shanedidona 03:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Why is this here? -- JJay 03:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Keep voters: this is a duplicate article. It already exists at ProLife Party. That might not have been why it was nominated here, but it turns out... there's no point having two articles about the same party, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I promise you it will be merged after this AfD in any case. A merge and redirect requires no AfD or other vote, at least not in such an obvious case. So while voting "keep" over "merge" is silly, it's not binding. -- SCZenz 02:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Uncle G is spot on as ever. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  ??? per nominator?? on an AfD? Keep? --Elliskev 01:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  MONGO has written at the top that he votes keep, apparently based on all the new evidence, and stated that he brought it here because it was speedy-delete tagged. -- SCZenz 02:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Got it. Missed that. --Elliskev 14:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and merge' the articles together. Stifle 22:50, 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 speedily deleted per WP:NOT. FCYTravis 01:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Group 5 motorsport

Clear advertisement, I wouldn't be surprised if it were a copyvio. Delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 01:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it is advertising and appears to be at least partially a copyvio [6]--MONGO 01:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse us.. the intent is to build a HISTORY on our company. Feel free to purchase your products elsewhere. We have a LONG history in car shows, drag racing and track racing. We have edited the page. We do not feel as if this is advertising simply because we are attempting to build a history on the achievements that we have made and the contributions we've made to the industry. We have plenty of advertising so we did not intend this to be advertising. We have been a corner stone in the automotive performance and racing industry from it's inception in 1990. Many years PRIOR to the creatation of the store. We have a heavy back ground in RECORD BREAKING race cars and SHOW WINNING vehicles. It was not our intention to make this about advertising, rather to inform other enthusiasts of who we are and where we came from. Thank you for listening.--Group5motorsport 02:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires that articles meet a standard of notability, and the article did not assert such. If you wish to rewrite the article in a more encyclopedic tone, describing what makes Group 5 Motorsport an encyclopedic entity, please feel free to rewrite the article, in which case I will reopen the AfD. FCYTravis 02:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as nonsense. FCYTravis 01:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beerty

Neologism. — A.M. 00:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete utter nonsense qualifies as a speedy.--MONGO 01:39, 9 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. A redirect has been created, pointing to Gratis Internet. Mindmatrix 00:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free iPod

Spam. — A.M. 01:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete spam advertising.--MONGO 01:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, spam it is. Gazpacho 01:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this as spam. However, this marketing technique has become pretty ubiquitous (at least on college campuses). I bet someone could squeeze some encyclopedia out of it. ESkog | ^Talk 02:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, spam. --King of Hearts 02:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, spam, annoying, annoying spam. Croat Canuck 02:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Freeipods.com and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freeipod com. Kusma (討論) 03:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and mention in pyramid scheme. Bmdavll _talk 04:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this as spam. However, something like Free iPod (scam) would probably be a good potential article, as those website have become annoyingly ubiquitous lately. (Bah, ESkog, you stole my word!) Mo0[talk] 05:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Why oh why is there no Speedy criterion for this sort of shit? Reyk
• Delete spammy pyramid scheme. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete spam. --Bachrach44 13:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but cross-link to "pyramid schemes" or "frauds" as a record of the scams, for the education of someone who may look here to see if it is known about --SockpuppetSamuelson 15:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spam aside, its not even intelligently and carefully written; besides even the title gives this garbage away.-MegamanZero 17:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spam and badly written. Technostalgia

• comment article is an orphan.Geni 18:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete This is spam and vandalism. (Bjorn Tipling 20:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete scamcruft. Dear me, some poor little souls are all upset because they didn't get a free lunch, and after they were promised one, too! A nasty mean company tricked them into falling for a blatant pyramid scheme! Oh, the humanity. — Haeleth Talk 20:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as spam and a suggestion that this particular topic be barred from recreation just because it will attract this type of spamming in the future. Jtmichcock 23:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but Clean Up: It's a notable trend in the world of the internet, and it is also a buisness model that other advertisers follow, I feel that this deserves an article, but it needs to be cleaned up. Deathawk 00:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there's already a better article at Gratis Internet, and a redirect to there at Freeipods. — A.M. 02:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Blatant spam. Delete (candidate for speedy deletion) and redirect to Gratis Internet. - Mike Rosoft 10:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam. Cynical 12:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup, it's certainly encyclopedic but needs to be cleaned of POV and the like. Stifle 22:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding...right..? -MegamanZero 22:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I wasn't. But I don't always agree today with what I wrote yesterday. Delete, unsalvageable. Stifle 11:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but possibly the scam itself should be entered in some scam article. Maybe free ipods should redirect to a scam article. Skittle 22:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gratis Internet, which seems to cover the same ground in a more neutral fashion. -Colin Kimbrell 17:04, 13 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(early) karmafist 21:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ABATEJ

Advertisement, vanity, not encyclopedic at all. – ugen64 01:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ESkog | ^Talk 02:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JoaoRicardo 05:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Deserves speedy delete. --Mecanismo 11:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN Ad J\/\/estbrook       16:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WHO IN THE HELL ARE YOU GUYS? CENSORSHIP IS HATEFUL...

DO NOT DELETE! —the preceding unsigned comment is by Ricardo Moraes-Pinto (talk • contribs) 15:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC) who is the author of the article.[reply]

• Weak Delete as it does assert some notability "an association founded by four great Brazilian jazz musicians" although I have no idea if they are verifiably regarded as great. I'd change to a "weak keep" if it was verifiable and cleaned up to a higher standard. CarbonCopy 16:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

dear UTC: is greatness the only way to be recognized?... how to verify "greatness"? is this the poin?... what if "great" was just applied as a generic qualifier for these four people?... fine! let's take "great" off... let's leave it there so that people may offer their comments on the subject! as a matter of fact, this is one of the points in having a wiki entry - to facilitate discussion on entries so that it may become a well established truth (or not) ...

on another level, what amazes me is that a fellow national (João Ricardo), who should know about ABATEJ by this time just comes in from out of the blue sentencing ABATEJ to the discredit of havis its entry DELETED! this man should be one of the many who is daily editing the entry on our president Lula da Silva, just for the fun of it... (rmp)

unsigned comment above 16:52, 9 December 2005 Ricardo Moraes-Pinto CarbonCopy 17:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think you mean me, CarbonCopy, not "dear UTC" - UTC is the timezone for Wikipedia times! While "greatness" is inherently subjective, one CAN provide evidence that someone is regarded as "great". Awards, reviews, published articles about an artist, academic works, even sales figures (although those are probably better evidence of popularity than greatness). Brazilian sources or international sources are fine by me - just some kind of third-party evidence. CarbonCopy 20:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The group is merely a voluntary association that invites contributions. Advertising and an effort to communicate. Geogre 17:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment article is an orphan.Geni 18:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. Silly with POV. Ifnord 18:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit Conflict Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity, non-notable and badly written. Technostalgia
• do not delete: this looks like a banishing court, is this a symbol of our times? that's shameful! (rmp)

Wikipedia isn't an advertising billboard, it's a free encyclopedia. This non-notable trash, the article creator should try Google Adwords to get traffic, not abuse a free information system. (Bjorn Tipling 20:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• Speedy Delete Spam. (Bjorn Tipling 20:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete, per all the above. The correct way to respond to an AfD on your article is by, first, checking that you know what Wikipedia is (it is not a place "to facilitate discussion on entries so that [they] may become a well established truth"), and second, if you still believe the article should be kept, by ensuring it meets Wikipedia's standards for verifiability, e.g. by citing sources that show that the organisation in question is notable. — Haeleth Talk 21:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, to Haeleth: pls read rsv e-mail (rmp)
  • Comment, 'pls' is actually spelled 'please.' Also, you might find it helpful to sign by typing (~~~~), not (rmp). (Bjorn Tipling 21:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge.  Grue  18:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Father's Day

Incomplete nomination by User:Diehard2k5. This appears to be about a character from One Piece. no vote — A.M. 01:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Baroque Works and redirect. JoaoRicardo 05:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per JoaoRicardo. Minor character. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect as per nom (Bjorn Tipling 20:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Merge and redirect per JoaoRicardo. Stifle 22:54, 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. Mindmatrix 00:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Stout

Non-notable bio of early American InvictaHOG 02:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. JoaoRicardo 05:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing notable whatsoever. Mat334 08:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JoaoRicardo --Mecanismo 11:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete nn-bio and may well be a hoax. Stifle 22:57, 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. Mindmatrix 00:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Thompson

Non-notable bio of early American InvictaHOG 02:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appears to be a piece of geneological research. Jtmichcock 02:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't really understand why this person is notable. Perhaps a {{nn-bio}} tag is in order. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 08:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Looks for all the world like your basic fiction/hoax. She lived on lichens for days after being stabbed in the abdomen and scalped? She was Dutch but named Thompson? No dates given. All over fun & goofs. Geogre 17:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. The article explains that she was born in Amsterdam of an English father. This is definitely not a hoax, but it does may be a well-intentioned mix of genealogical research and fiction (see [7]). I'm not sure how to separate the history from the fiction, or whether Thompson (or her husband Richard Stout) should count as notable. I think the article author should have a chance to make the case by adding some sources and clarifying the basis for notability. rodii 18:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment S/he has five days even if we all vote "delete"... isn't that long enough? — Haeleth Talk 21:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. That was intended as a don't-bite-the-newbies hint to the author, not a plea to stop the AfD. rodii 02:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Geogre. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as nn-bio. Stifle 22:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's non-notable. --Eeee 04:07, 12 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. Mindmatrix 14:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex G. Keeling

Suspect vanity. Orphan if you don't count the one page this link was added to recently, and google has never heard of him. -- Francs2000 02:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vanity. Google showed one site, a free web site; a good indicator of someone who has NOT made it to the big time. Chris the speller 04:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete deserves speedy delete --Mecanismo 11:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It could be a speedy, but only if you think about it some. The article makes claims, but all in wiggle words. A nineteen year old film maker "perhaps best known" for a student showcase. A young man with a camera, and best of luck to him. Geogre 17:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as unencyclopedic as Chris Bensko. Yeltensic42.618 19:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, get a high-budget film and prove yourself as a notable film director than come back to Wikipedia. Croat Canuck 03:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as nn-bio. Turnstep 16:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't appear to be nn-bio because of claims to notability. Too bad that they aren't very good claims. Stifle 22:59, 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. Mindmatrix 14:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Los poco locos

NN, probably vanity ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Soared all the way to #637 and you don't think their notable? Are you a Freaking idiot!!!... I agree with you 100% Jossifresco. Definitely NN. Croat Canuck 02:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failure to satisfy WP:MUSIC and being unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 02:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, can't information about the band or their record. Not listed in AMG. JoaoRicardo 05:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, bandcruft. Stifle 23:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Vanity with some overtones of hoaxery: "In 2003 Lime Magazine ranked Los Poco Locos the sexiest new pseudo-Hispanic artist with a name containing the phrase “Poco Locos”. Contenders in the category included Esmeralda Fernanda Poco Locos-Rodriguez, who drove her car over Scarborough Bluffs subsequent to the announcement and remains to be found." Er, no. And, for that matter, record charts don't even compile down to 637^th place. Delete. Bearcat 19:25, 13 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. Mindmatrix 14:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Burkes

• Delete Hoax. See Talk:Gary Burkes for an explanation of a group of 7 articles Chris the speller 02:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --Merovingian 02:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and likewise with the entire group, as a hoax. Lord Bob 07:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax, and same with the rest. Mat334 08:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Chris, can you dig up some links to back up those claims you made? I'd like to believe you, but I haven't had enough dealings with you to trust you blindly on this. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are no links to most of these, so none to report. That is what *INDICATES* a hoax. The Mahones from the 1990s are real, as is their album, and can be easily googled. It's the *LACK* of Mahones from the 1960s that shows this to be a hoax. Chris the speller 20:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was of course, referring to sources about the real Mahones. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all involved in the constellation of hoaxes: I don't know about an Uppercut Records, but the rest of these are unattested anywhere else and are here as part of somoene's vision of funny. Geogre 18:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax. Yeltensic42.618 19:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete random hoaxes. Stifle 23:05, 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. Mindmatrix 14:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Johnson

• Delete Hoax. See Talk:Gary Burkes for an explanation of a group of 7 articles Chris the speller 02:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There does appear to be a Reggie Johnson bass player [8] but its not the guy described in the article Bill 22:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete random hoaxes. Stifle 23:05, 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. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:11, Dec. 17, 2005

Uppercut Records

• Delete Hoax. See Talk:Gary Burkes for an explanation of a group of 7 articles Chris the speller 02:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete random hoaxes. Stifle 23:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hoaxes. —Slicing (talk) 08:15, 17 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. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:00, Dec. 17, 2005

Farley Daniels

• Delete Hoax. See Talk:Gary Burkes for an explanation of a group of 7 articles Chris the speller 02:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete random hoaxes. Stifle 23:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hoaxes. —Slicing (talk) 08:16, 17 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 with no redirect. Enochlau 02:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I wrote up the real band of this name after the hoax version was deleted. The current article is not the same as the deleted version. Bearcat 03:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

The Mahones

• Delete Hoax. See Talk:Gary Burkes for an explanation of a group of 7 articles Chris the speller 02:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Pogues as I believe this was their original name, and as indicated in the talk page, the hoax appears to have been based on actual information about this band. 23skidoo 13:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Pogues, as it was their second name. :-) (They were called the Irish equivalent of "kiss my arse" at first.) This is a pretty well known alternate name for them. Geogre 18:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. After some research I've decided that this probably is a hoax, but that really wasn't self-evident. There is no reason there couldn't have been an earlier band with the same name... but as far as I can tell, there wasn't. This group of articles seems to be about a kind of "alternate Mahones." The real Mahones really did form in Kingston, Ontario, etc. Kind of a mess, but nothing to do with The Pogues. The Pogues changed their name from Pogue Mahone, which does mean "kiss my ass," to The Pogues, but were never called The Mahones to my knowledge. rodii 18:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and then redirect the The Pogues were in fact called this. -Sean Curtin 07:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and don't REDIRECT. rodii is correct. The Pogues were Pogue Mahone. The Mahones[9][10] are a different celtic rock band; from Kingston, Ontario, Canada. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 12:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and don't redirect. There is a Canadian band called the Mahones, who are notable enough to have an article but are neither the Pogues nor the band described here. The Pogues, for that matter, were never called "The Mahones"; they were called Pogue Mahone...and as far as I'm concerned, a documentable, verifiable and notable band should never play second fiddle for its own article title to a rare and largely unattested nickname for a more famous band. I'll write up the real Mahones once this unverifiable version is out of the way. They were Pogues-influenced and two of the Pogues even toured with them at one point, so their article will provide a link there anyway. Bearcat 18:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete random hoaxes. No redirect. Stifle 23:05, 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. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:01, Dec. 17, 2005

Teddy Mitchell

• Delete Hoax. See Talk:Gary Burkes for an explanation of a group of 7 articles Chris the speller 02:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete random hoaxes. Stifle 23:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hoaxes. —Slicing (talk) 08:16, 17 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. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:02, Dec. 17, 2005

Draggin the Days

• Delete Hoax. See Talk:Gary Burkes for an explanation of a group of 7 articles Chris the speller 02:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete random hoaxes. Stifle 23:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hoaxes. —Slicing (talk) 08:15, 17 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 speedied as SPAM advert for cheap laptops. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheap Laptop

I hate to nominate a page that's been around for all of 2 minutes, but this one's going nowhere -- it's an excuse to advertise a website. Nominator votes delete. Bikeable 03:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second that, the page article is simply functioning as an advertisement. Speedy delete Ollien 03:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as advertising, and redirect to $100 laptop. Pilatus 03:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Even better. I probably should have let an admin speedy it; sorry if I jumped the gun. Bikeable 03:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Nevermind, I'll take care of it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 9 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. Mindmatrix 00:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Following revolution

Not notable blog, Delete abakharev 03:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bmdavll _talk 04:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam. Deserves speedy delete --Mecanismo 11:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide, and this appears to be just a blog about a Nintendo game. Geogre 18:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -^demon 18:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam. Speedy Delete. (Bjorn Tipling 21:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a web directory. Stifle 23:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete non-notable. EdwinHJ | Talk 18:30, 14 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 redirected to Therianthropy. BD2412 T 08:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Theranthropy

Nonsense. 56 google hits.-- Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 03:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect to Therianthropy. Pilatus 03:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Pilatus. Bmdavll _talk 04:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I changed it to a redirect to Therianthropy, which it should have been if the contributor had spelled it properly. ◎DanMS 05:29, 9 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. bainer (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Varma Division

User:Robinh pointed this one out to me. Although its an interesting read, I believe it is original research. The first version of the article suggests this. I found no confirming google hits. This is especially bad, since most game theory publications are widely distributed over the internet prior to publication. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unverifiable. No Google hits, no Google book hits and 4 Google Scholar results all referring to Varma Divisions of Hospitals and Institutes [11] rather than Game Theory. [12] Capitalistroadster 04:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Some Googling suggests that the name may refer to Gopal Das Varma at Duke University, who has certainly published articles on similar topics. Nonetheless, while the subject is interesting, I'd have to vote delete unless sources can be provided. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete OR/unverifyable, willing to change vote if some references appear. Pete.Hurd 06:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In case of deletion, remove referring sentence from fair division also. Pete.Hurd 14:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Absolutely zilch on four search engines: Engineering Village, Science Citation Index, Google, Google Scholar. Must be OR. Robinh 08:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• possible redirect to split the difference or fair division procedures(?). The article does feel OR - especially in the intro/conclusion, which refer to the article as a paper, etc, as if it is in a journal. OTOH this article discusses an example of a fair-division procedure, ideas which are developing quickly in the context of experimental economics. The article needs to be encyclopedia-fyed, but the information can be presented in a WP appropriate way, and under a different title (for now). Some articles in that literature discuss things like this, but I havn't found a good reference, yet. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, very interesting and very good, but unreferenced and unverifiable. Stifle 23:08, 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 speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Horse worship/Temp

This is a duplicate article. It duplicates Horse worship and is probably a sandbox for that article. Kaiserb 03:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, yes. Please read the copyvio notice at the main article carefully. Speedy keep. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I misunderstood the /Temp designation. I wish to withdraw this request, sorry about that. --Kaiserb 05:11, 9 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 per CSD A6 (Attack pages -- Articles which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emoetry

Delete - Questionable subject. Results of a Google search on "emoetry" largely link to the same person's website. Article contains little to no content, all of which disparages the subject. -- ChrisB 04:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Any useful information is already found on Emo (slang) or Emo (music). --Apostrophe 04:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete {{db-stupid}} Reyk 08:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BattleWorlds

Non-notable. 110 or so google hits, only a few of which relate to what this article is referencing.-- Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 04:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- non-notable. LordViD 04:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam --Mecanismo 11:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable fictioncruft, probable copyvio, and non-free. Stifle 23:16, 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 01:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indianworld

A webforum, about 3000 Google hits for "indianworld", most of which refer to other sites. No Alexa ranking. JoaoRicardo 04:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Theres a strange comment on Wikipedia:Wikipedians/India at the top of the list: "Nagarjuna Kommineni (currently doing for indianworld)" ---- Astrokey44|talk 13:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Advertising at this point, but not spam. Wikipedia is not a web guide. Although non-English web sites will have lower Alexa ranks, this article does not argue that this is already a successful site, nor the number one site for Indians, nor does it even distinguish its subject matter clearly. Geogre 18:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. -^demon 18:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete never heard of it --Raghu 07:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Stifle 23:16, 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 redirect (nothing to merge). bainer (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ryan (singer)

This is a failed contestant on Australian Idol. Failed contestants don’t seem particularly notable. No other notability for this person is asserted in the article. Is there a precedent for eliminated contestants on Australian/Canadian/American/Whatever Idol? ◎DanMS 04:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. First eliminated on Australian Idol in 2003. Unlike many on the first series of Australian Idol, had no subsequent recording career. All relevant information on Australian Idol article.Capitalistroadster 05:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. .Capitalistroadster 05:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• If this Peter Ryan (singer) gets deleted, then the disambig page Peter Ryan should be changed from a disambig page to a redirect to Peter Ryan (driver), as there now are only two Peter Ryans on that disambig page. ◎DanMS 05:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting comment—no longer applies, per Malo below. ◎DanMS 16:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the first Australian Idol season page, since Capitalist mentioned all the pertinent information regarding him is in there. Mo0[talk] 05:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this person isn't notable enough IMO. However I have just added another person named Peter Ryan to that page, thus, I see no reason to move Peter Ryan (driver) anywhere. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 08:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. Sarah Ewart 09:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Mo0. His info is listed at the Australian Idol page, so readers should be directed there if looking for him. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and/or redirect. Ambi 11:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the existing disambiguation page for Peter Ryan works just fine. Change the link on that page to go to the Australian Idol page. Turnstep 15:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to discourage recreation - David Gerard 13:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Australian Idol. This may be notable, but it's not long enough. Stifle 23:16, 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 Speedy deleted as unverifiable hoax/nonsense - Lucky 6.9 05:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Troz

This one almost had me fooled. Almost. Looks good, reads questionably and...a myspace home page! Zero Google on the "well-publicized" lead singer. - Lucky 6.9 05:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under CSD A7. Harro5 05:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Ah, the sweetness of it all. Gone. - Lucky 6.9 05:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clair De AHHH

A flash animation, no google hits for its title or for their purpoted creators. JoaoRicardo 05:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• To quote from the website: Hello. I am one of the sitemasters and I am working on this website with my friend. Don't think these are supposed to be really awesome animations because we are only getting the hang of animations. Some of our videos may cause seizures, and if you don't know what that means, just know that they are not good. Have a good day. A bit too new for inclusion in my humble opinion. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 05:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lucky 6.9. Movementarian 06:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirLex Animations. Bo Lindbergh 06:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above rationale. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable, vanity, above... take your pick. Ifnord 18:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Technostalgia
• Keep, as there is nothing wrong with it. Google results have been set up, Google has not crawled it yet. See discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirLex Animations. Lexington
• Delete as extraordinarily non-notable. Turnstep 15:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable flashcruft. Stifle 23:17, 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 Speedy Deleted. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Titsofdeath

Aside from the apparentlackoftheuseofaspacebar, this does get a couple of Googles. No allmusic at all. Your comments, ladies and gentlemen? - Lucky 6.9 05:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thisgroupdoesnotmeettherequirementsof WP:MUSIC eventhoughtheyapparentlydodoabitoftouring. Mo0[talk] 05:48, 9 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) 03:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rajputs and Buddhism

A rambling stub article, seems like nonsense. Opening it up for thoughts rather than speedy deleting for lack of context and patent nonsense. Harro5 05:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep see [13], article just needs expansion. Ashibaka tock 05:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I see where the guy is trying to go, but we're dealing with a non-native speaker and a really bizarre format job. The subject matter seems like a good idea, but I truly don't see how this can fit. Keep if improved by someone familiar with the subject. Ashibaka, you're up.  :) - Lucky 6.9 05:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks to me like these topics could be merged into Decline of Buddhism in India, which covers the relevant time period. Bikeable 05:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Bikeable. --Alan Au 08:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important subject that is not often discussed. It is directly related to India's long tradition of permitting diversity of religious thought, and India's modern secularism.

The article needs to be expanded. I will add details and references. Rajput inscriptions and copperplates are the main source of direct information on this subject.

But may I ask Harro5 why this is "patent nonsense"? Please let me know. I will address those issues.

--Malaiya 15:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I first read the article, it seemed like a rant about nothing. However, this AfD has obviously told me otherwise (like I say in the nom, I wanted input from others) and if you can write this in useful prose then I am sure I would be happy to see this article stay. Harro5 21:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as the author appears to be in the process of expanding the article. It's not nonsense, just extremely lacking in content/context, particularly if you have no familiarity with Indian or Buddhist history. Suggest it may belong as a subsection of either Rajput or Decline of Buddhism in India. Let's not bite a newbie on this one. CarbonCopy 16:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep but one hopes this goes in the direction of encyclopedic rather than original research. I wouldn't call it nonsense; it needs sources, context, and should focus on scholarly consensus rather than controversy. Looking forward to seeing the result, Malaiya. rodii 18:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete though I will ad a cleanup-context tag. If it's improved, I will change my vote. Ifnord 18:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because this sheds light on medieval history of India. Shivraj Singh 06:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Difficult to understand, so I can see how it could've been viewed as patent nonsense, but I think there's a good article-in-progress here once it goes through a few more revisions. -Colin Kimbrell 17:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep V1^t 14:25, 14 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. Mindmatrix 00:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nmarkets

Not enough context to find it on Google. I get a lot of stuff German. I think it's some sort of software used within the electrical power industry? Delete it unless someone can figure out what it is... stillnotelf has a talk page 05:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sounds like spam as written, and I'm having the same verification problems as the nom. --Alan Au 08:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete smells like spam --Mecanismo 11:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the spam. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like spam, smells like spam, I don't need to taste it to say it's spam. Ifnord 18:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ewww...tastes like spam too! CarbonCopy 21:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete Nmarkets appears to be NNmarkets. Grutness...wha? 04:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Grutness. Stifle 23:17, 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 Speedy deleted as copyvio.' - Lucky 6.9 05:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baselious Gevarghese II

"This article is basically unreadable. It is very difficult to tell from the context what it is about. At first glance it appears to be a biography. It also appears to be an essay copied from a website. It's very pov and has had no edits since July 2005, except to be tagged as cleanup. It seems obvious that the anonymous creator has no interest in maintaining it, let alone improving it.DeleteTheRingess 05:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Good catch. It's a text dump/copyvio from [lightoflife.com/light_of_life_ArticlesG.htm]. - Lucky 6.9 05:47, 9 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(early) karmafist 16:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

System wars

This entry is nothing but the extension of a console flame war that takes place at a gaming forum. Given time, forum users will take to flaming each other on this entry. Nonforma 05:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree... this is a vandalism magnet, waste of time --Valermos 05:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to allow a few people create a true Wikipedia entry and then have it locked to reflect just that?HAL

I think that kind of defeats the idea of a wiki... --Valermos 06:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. There is barely any objective information you could come up when the entry title is "System Wars" Nonforma 06:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, Systemwars is a great website.

I'm not saying it's a bad site, it's just something that doesn't belong here. This is a wiki, it is meant for objective information. If you'd like to post a history of the Systemwars, then by all means do so, but you need to refrain from choosing a side. GameFAQs, for example, has a very good article.

You want this deleted yet you have an article roming around that has links to last measure and goatse. And lets not forgot orgish.com Thats a website as well.

The difference is that the articles you mention have actual information documenting the topic, they aren't constant flame wars between people who just want to be immature and deface this website. --Valermos 06:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a valid speedy delete, as it's a substantial recreation of an article about the same forum that's been deleted over and over again. FCYTravis 10:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete vandalism article --Mecanismo 11:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, completely non-notable forum insider joke. — JIP | Talk 13:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. JoaoRicardo 14:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as another piece of Internet forum navelgazing with no reference to WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 16:48, 9 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. Mindmatrix 00:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rem Efficiency

This article is a hoax. Google returns no results for "Rem Efficiency" that don't pertain to sleep. One wanker spouting off in college does not encyclopedic make. Scott Ritchie 06:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page vadalised by 128.237.232.118 [14] Agnte 22:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Joke. JoaoRicardo 06:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NNB. --Cyde Weys [u] [t] [c] 07:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, someone must be getting bored studying for finals. Mat334 08:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as hoax or inside joke. Ifnord 18:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hoax, Rubbish. Agnte 22:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, comes very close to patent nonsense but let's just slowly delete it. Stifle 23:21, 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. Mindmatrix 00:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Wagar

Non notable pagan high priest, founder of a non-notable organization. JoaoRicardo 06:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable. Mat334 08:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable with a pinch of vanity (page was created by a user Samwagar)? Peeper 11:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable vanity. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: How have you determined that the Congregationalist Witchcraft Association is non-notable? Also, if there's a limited number of High Priests in Wicca, I'd be happy to call one of them notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From High Priest: In Wicca, the high priest is a male who has earned the 3rd Degree level of recognition within his coven. A coven may also have a high priestess, either in addition to or instead of a high priest. How many covens are there in Canada? - Mgm|^(talk) 00:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. By the lack of an article on Wikipedia and few Google hits. JoaoRicardo 08:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Stifle 23:26, 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 01:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AirLex Animations

An animation company with no Google hits. Special:Contributions/Lexington makes it obvious that this is part of an advertising campaign.

Delete as advertising. Bo Lindbergh 06:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. See also Clair De AHHH, a stub for a cartoon by these animators which is also being considered for deletion. Movementarian 06:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SNTW. Bo Lindbergh 06:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advertising. Mat334 09:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advertising, non-notable. Technostalgia
• Save. Not trying to advertise. Site has been submitted to Google, and waiting for results. If wanted, I will delete the link! I just wanted to archive info about them, not advertise. And whats wrong with creating a stub about the animations? Are there not stubs for Web Comics and other cartoons? Fell free to edit the page delete what you feel is advertising, but please do not delete the page completly. Lexington

• Comment. It is not a notable animation group and does not warrant an entry on Wikipedia. When a webcomic they produce becomes popular, then they can be listed. Movementarian 07:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm sorry. I was under the impression that the purpose of Wikipedia was to archive information, but I guess I was wrong. I did not realize that it was a large popularity contest, meant only for people who show up in Google. I mean, of course! Anything that doesn't show up in Google must not be information, eh? Well, I guess that Technostalgia shoulden't have any info on him/herself in Wikipedia, seeing as it doesnt come up in Google. I can just see the very purpose of Wikipedia crumbling right now. Lexington

• Comment. I suggest you check out What Wikipedia is not. Some notablity should be established before entry to this encyclopaedia is allowed. As you can see Technostalgia does not have an article, but as with all Wikipedians has a user space. It is not the same thing. Please do not take this nomination as a personal attack (I am assuming by your passion for this article's inclusion you have a vested interest) and do not get discouraged from participating in Wikipedia. Movementarian 20:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for being very non-notable. Recreate when you come back in the top 200 Google hits for "animation" Turnstep 15:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable group. Stifle 23:27, 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. I'm pointing the link at the dab page Tuner to Sport compact#Tuning, where people can read more about tuners in the appropriate sense. There are no other links to Tuner (auto), and it's not a term people will type into the search box, so no redirect is necessary. --Angr (t·c) 21:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tuner (auto)

Sounds like nonsense to me - or at least a mode of speach particular to a very small community. jmd 06:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a legit term, but I agree that it's sure hard to tell.  :) There may in fact already be an article on the subject somewhere around here. Might wind up making it a redirect if there is. - Lucky 6.9 06:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, found something. Redirect to sport compact. - Lucky 6.9 06:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think such a redirect would be confusing. To me, "Tuner (auto)" would mean a) A person who tunes the engine of an automobile; or b) The broadcast radio receiver fitted in an automobile. Create a disambig page if necessary. jmd
• Good point. Looks like there's already a disambig at tuner and it covers the existing article. I'm going to look at this article to see if anything can be merged. - Lucky 6.9 07:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may well be unsalvageable now that it's formatted into something legible. Tempted to nuke it with a speedy. - Lucky 6.9 07:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this could be turned into a decent stub, I would vote to keep. As it is at the moment, I would vote to delete. Capitalistroadster 07:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless anybody can rewrite and merge into Tuner. Technostalgia
• Redirect per Lucky6.9. Stifle 23:28, 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Izowned

"Izowned" doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. Not sure I can put it any other way.. JHMM13 08:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Pwn if verified to have any moderate currency of use, otherwise, delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I don't see any connection to Internet usage, so why redirect to Pwn? -- Dalbury^(Talk) 00:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion did not gather enough votes for consensus, relisting. Please add your comments below this line. — JIP | Talk 06:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Movementarian 07:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary states very clearly that slang definitions are not valid content. Nonforma 07:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nonforma. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 08:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. --Alan Au 08:20, 9 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. Enochlau 02:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SNTW

Part of an advertising campaign. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirLex Animations.

Delete as advertising. Bo Lindbergh 06:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Movementarian 06:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteTheRingess 06:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Advertising. Mat334 08:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: not meant as advertising. See discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirLex Animations.Lexington 04:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Whatever happens to AirLex Animations should apply here; if it is kept then this should be a redirect otherwise it should be deleted. Stifle 23:29, 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 merge and redirect to Alcohol 120%. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol 52%

"This article is basically an advertisement for the software. The only external link is commercial. The author made no attempt to show why this article is worthy of an encyclopedia entry.DeleteTheRingess 06:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I see no problem with this entry as a stub. This software is the lesser known version of Alcohol 120%, which has an article that has the same advertisment argument. Nonforma 07:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with Nonforma - Forbsey 08:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• M\e/r\g/e into Alcohol 120% - they're both too short as it is, so it'll do them good. BD2412 T 08:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Alcohol 120%. Alcohol 52% will always but always be mentioned w.r.t. its big brother 120%, and it doesn't seem as if this article can ever be more than a stub. It would be better to include it as a subsection of the 120% article. Also, people are far more familiar with 120% and are more likely to want to read up on it than 52%. Zunaid 08:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Damn these edit conflicts! I see BD2412 T has stolen my argument ;)[reply]
• Merge per BD2412. --Alan Au 08:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per BD2412, and why would any sane person call their company "Alcohol Software"? — JIP | Talk 11:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Alcohol 120%. Crotalus horridus 16:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Not long enough to warrant a separate page. Technostalgia
• Merge into Alcohol 120% as it is highly relevant to the development of its more ubiquitous successor, but as a stand alone article means nothing. Jtmichcock 23:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge into Alcohol 120% as a parent article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Technostalgia. Stifle 23:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Keep. I'm a very happy Alcohol 52% user, but it's a pity the way the article is currently. Enochlau 12:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]