Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 21

< January 20	January 22 >

Purge server cache

January 21

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

The result of the debate was Delete DES ^(talk) 20:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forum Stage

Delete. nn, see WP:WEB. Grandfather Clock 00:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a webcartoon, but it's not a remarkable webcartoon. Ruby 00:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ruby. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ruby. - squibix 16:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above--Deiz 16:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. --Thorpe | talk 17:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Dragonfiend 17:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 20:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --84.67.140.231 21:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You don't know if it's remarkable or not, the first episode hasn't even been released and it's still in progress. I say wait a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonicFan (talk • contribs) 21:03, 22 January 2006 UTC
- This furthermore proves its non-notability. --Grandfather Clock 06:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ronabop 07:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non noteable Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 17:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --D e ath phoenix 00:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Tully

vanity, no google hits, "shot second unit scenes as an Assistant Camerman". Jgritz 00:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see here also. --Jgritz 00:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Second stringer who pads out his resume with "grip" Ruby 00:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and non-notability. Ifnord 05:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ruby -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nn bio. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. - Latinus 20:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Ronabop 07:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Lockley 23:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --D e ath phoenix 00:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dalp

Not what we need in here--Dangherous 00:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism derived from the initials of an abusive term. Ruby 00:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete I've actually heard this term used, but not nearly enough to merit inclusion Phantasmo 02:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism acronym. Sycthos ^Talk 03:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a slang dictionary. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia article, and about a non-notable neologism. JIP | Talk 13:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Move to Wikitionary Nortonew 14:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This exact same content has already been added to Wiktionary and then deleted for being a protologism. See Wiktionary:List of protologisms. Uncle G 14:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' this protologism article -- or rewrite as an article on the DALP program, which was Maryland's "Disability Assistance and Loan Program" which was cut in the mid-'90s. It gave 12 months of about $157 a month to about 21,000 disabled adults. ("Eliminating disability assistance program is shortsighted budget cutting," The Baltimore Sun, February 13, 1995). -- Dragonfiend 18:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 20:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Matthew Brown Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 17:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 10:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart eagon

Non-notable biography. Maybe a speedy- not sure. Staecker 00:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of people are amateur runners, but who has won anything? Ruby 00:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search turned up a brief bio from his college.[1] For a track star to be notable they should be competing at the world level and this runner is still not competing at the national level. --Allen3 ^talk 01:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable, vanity. Tagged as such. Ifnord 05:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --D e ath phoenix 00:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christianesque

Political neologism. No sources, but seems to be used by one blogger. Creator has only a few edits on Wikipedia. Calton | Talk 00:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article, otherwise people will start appending "-esque" to every other existing WP article, where will it end? Ruby 00:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Ruby's precise reason. - Dharmabum420 00:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ruby -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ruby. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ruby. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 20:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletesque per Ruby Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism. Cedars 12:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christianity. --Revolución (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ruby. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ruby. Ronabop 07:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete all. --D e ath phoenix 00:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ponder & Kegley, P&K SG338, P&K 76, Xander Arms

"A Macromedia Flash drawn gun manufacturer created in the late winter 2005", article by User:Lkegley9. Looks like vanity. Many related articles, check out contribs for this user. Staecker 00:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also AFD'd P&K SG338, and P&K 76 (two of their "products") and Xander Arms (another similar outfit run by the same folks), redirecting their deletion pages here. Is that OK? (not sure on the procedure for multilisting such closely related articles.) Who knew the fictional gun manufacturing business was so vibrant?

Delete this amazing ad for two products which you cannot actually purchase. Ruby 00:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ummm... so they draw pictures of guns. This is encyclopedic, how? FCYTravis 01:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per abocve -Drdisque 02:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FCYTravis -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An advert for something that doesn't exist and can't be purchased? Non-notable in any case. (aeropagitica) 11:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FCYTravis. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 20:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TestPilot 01:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we want to start adding other non-existent flash items Ronabop 07:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, worthless. incog 18:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --D e ath phoenix 00:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flora_Jessop

This person was on ABC's Primetime a few months ago but has no notability other than that. Should be deleted or merged with FLDS. Edrigu 00:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a critic is not notable, and being an ex-member of a church is not notable. Being a critic of one's ex-church is just spite. Ruby 02:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and any relevant info can be under FLDS. Grandmasterka 02:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Almost 900 Google hits, she appears to work actively in helping abused, child brides. I'd like a chance to save this and will see if I can't turn it into a real article. Ifnord 05:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. As said, she has quite a lot of relevant Google hits, and seems to have been mentioned in various news sources (CNN, MSNBC) -- Mystman666 ^(Talk) 08:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Signficant news coverage of her from various reliable sources (though not yet added to article) indicates she has been found notable. --Rob 08:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rob. Seems notable, covered on national media. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rob. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Does not seem to be someone of continuing notability, and was merely a name in the news for a few days. I don't think 900 Google hits is a lot, really, for encyclopedic prominence; I have at least 9,700 and don't consider myself an article candidate. MCB 01:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Notable critic of somewhat notable LDS splinter group. Haikupoet 19:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete flash in the pan, utterly unnotable. If this is kept, it should be brought back to AfD in a few months where what will prove to be its moribund edit history and her transient fame should be enough to trash it. Eusebeus 20:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't delete an article on focus of multiple news stories without a good reason. -- Jake 23:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Kate's Playground. This article has absolutely no content to merge, even post-AfD. --D e ath phoenix 00:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misty Anderson

A Google search indicates that this person is the model at an adult content website with an Alexa rating over 200,000.[2] I was very tempted to speedy this but was unsure if it qualified under criteria A7 (non-notable person). --Allen3 ^talk 01:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the Google search also turned up a lot more pages than her own for the same model (apparently), at least the first 50 or so. She seems to be prolific, but the article, as it is, isn't even a stub. I'm witholding my vote for a couple days, and if one of her fans can flesh it out with meaningful content, it might be worth keeping. If that doesn't happen, though... - dharmabum (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Popular model with who? Victoria's Secret? Women's magazines? Music videos? The article doesn't say. Ruby 02:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but only if expanded suitably. Kate's Playground survived an AFD and this individual is part of that contingent of models. 23skidoo 05:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and immeidate expansion per 23skidoo. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if the site she appears on is notable, she herself is obviously not, and fails WP:BIO by a wide margin. 23skidoo's argument could be taken to call for the inclusion of, say, everyone who writes for a particular newspaper that's covered in the encyclopedia, or every member of a particular orchestra; it seems to me this is not a precident we should be setting. - squibix 16:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Ruby. Kusma (討論) 18:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kate's Playground Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kate's Playground per JzG. --W.marsh 00:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete TestPilot 01:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kate's Playground.--ThreeAnswers 18:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Could not actually wade through all the dense information here, but merge can what can be salvaged. Eusebeus 20:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kate's Playground, that seems sensible. - dharmabum (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kate's Playground, or delete. Ronabop 07:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 hoax. Mushroom 22:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Corporation

Clearly a hoax article, I couldn't verify anything in it. The article contradicts it self saying it the corporation is out of business then it will be bought out later this year. It even admits that it doesn't exist anymore. Grandwazir 01:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if it is a real company, the article admits it is not an ongoing concern. Ruby 02:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. --Ezeu 02:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - their website has been "unavailable since January 12, 2006"? (Chuckle) Grandmasterka 02:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, but I do not think this article is humorous at all, and should not be put into BJAODN. Sycthos ^Talk 03:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sycthos. It is a hoax, and pls no BJAODN. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it doesn't pass the notability test (that is assuming it isn't a hoax - if it is, then it must be speedied). - Latinus 20:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --D e ath phoenix 00:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outpost Containment:Delta Team

NN. Vanity. No external links. Not even released yet. Drat (Talk) 01:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - is this a game, a movie, a tv show, a comic book, what? Ruby 02:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a machinima. Presumably made with Halo or Halo2. I've had to AFD a few articles, for series not even released, whose creators created the articles.--Drat (Talk) 02:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 0 hits on Google. Probably just one person who is planning to make a movie. (or something to that effect) -- Mystman666 ^(Talk) 08:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 20:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not Google, therefore unverifiable. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Hillel 06:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Five O'clock Dog

Delete. This article is ruthless self-promotion, of the kind that insists on inserting statements about registered trademarks, spamming editors who remove it and on blanking copyright questions when they are raised. This so-called book has no sales rank on Amazon, even though it has an ISBN, and the Copac, a union of the British Library with various UK university libraries have never heard of its ISBN [3], and nor has the Library of Congress [4]. That Amazon has an entry for it is simply because they will carry absolutely anything, whether it is vanity press or seminal text. Note also, that the website says "Stay tuned because the viral story known only as Five O’clock Dog is going Live" — plainly they are using Wikipedia to begin this. This material is vanity, promotion, unverifiable, crystal-balling and unacceptable on Wikipedia. -Splash^talk 01:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I stripped out the clear vanispamvertisement stuff. I checked the Google links, and came up with a bunch of links to a "branding/marketing" firm called "Global Branding." This appears to be part of an Astroturfing/viral marketing campaign and should be deleted ASAP. FCYTravis 01:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per Splash and FCYTravis, good job sniffing Five O Clock Dog out. Ruby 02:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be using WP for marketing campaign.--FloNight 03:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are no copyright questions concerning Five O'clock Dog. The book is copy written and Five O'clock Dog is a protected registered trademark.

All of the "Delete" users have violated many of the conditions for deletion. They are all recomending "delete" without a legal foundation, they have not contacted the Wikipedia foundation to ask for guidance from the designated/official Wikipedia IP attorney prior to recomending deletion. This is a childrens book stub. Everything on the Five O'clock Dog website is part of the story in the book and is relevent material. Are all childrens book stubs ruthless self promotion . . ?, is an admin or editors bio on their main user page "ruthless self-promotion" as they look for a higher paying job? or ask others to check out what great acomplishments they have made in their lives, hey just check out my bio on Wikipedia (Its not ruthless self-promotion - I promise). Are all the porno links and pics on Wikipedia ruthless self-promotion? The official rules of deletion ( if an article is repeatedly nominated for deletion, this is not in and of itself evidence that it should be deleted.) In some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete.) Did any "delete" folks follow this procedure. NO. Is there anyone else who wants to risk their Wikipedia credibility and just jump on the "delete" side without a Specific legal or factual reason for deletion. If all the "delete" folks want to invite a million people to talk about a children’s book stub, we are hereby not liable for any enticement of defamation or slander. We are also not reponsible for increased or decreased sales because of it. - The Publisher of Five O'clock Dog -20 january 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.32.71 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 21 January 2006

- I would recommend you visit the Wikipedia:No legal threats page. If you make legal threats, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia indefinitely. There have been no "repeated nominations" of this article - this is the first. There is a specific reason for deletion - the article is about a book which has not been published or sold or reviewed, and is potentially the subject of a viral marketing campaign to promote the book, a clear violation of what Wikipedia is not. FCYTravis 06:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to SPEEDY DELETE after legal threat from Mr. 5pm Dog Ruby 05:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll jump in here and vote 'delete and will block the above user for his legal threat. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per section 503 of the criminal code // paroxysm (n) 05:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, with user's behavior not helping matters either. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By definition, a not-yet-published book will not have 5000 sales per WP:BIO. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 06:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The book's existence does appear to be verifiable, as there was a booth listed at the National Book Expo in 2005, promoted by one Ernest Sjo - however, that's the extent of the information available on the Internet about this title. FCYTravis 06:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found listed as Young Adult 200 page book? [5] Confusing since most young childrens books aren't 200 pp.--FloNight 15:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 'Clearly no legal threats have been made or implied.' A statement of non liability

applied to any possible damaging comments by Wikipedia Admin and users is not a threat. Any PHD's in international intellectual property rights want to weigh in on what an actual threat is? Will the users that have claimed a legal threat was made state their Names and legal qualifications for doing so, as well as the detailed foundation of making one. Please also address your caution under the Wikipedia guidelines for making a false statement and a detailed description of your haste to block another user. 20 January 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.160.82 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 21 January 2006

Threatening AfD voters with an application of libel and slander laws to statements made on Wikipedia is a clear legal threat. Now, I suggest that you make an argument as to why this article should be kept, or else it will most likely be deleted. FCYTravis 08:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- Astrokey44|talk 09:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and shoot the dog! Sheesh! Eddie.willers 14:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to risk my Wikipedia credibility and just jump on the delete side without a specific legal or factual reason for deletion. AndyJones 16:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I want to risk my Wikipedia credibility and just jump on the delete side without a specific legal or factual reason for deletion. -- Dragonfiend 18:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article itself is barely credible, but following the reaction it seems necessary to underscore the seriousness with which Wiki users take the content of this project. Of little note or worth. doktorb | words 18:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I love how you guys JUMP to conclusions without really reading to understand nor to proper research on the matter. Kmac1036 19:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No research? We did more research to figure out what the article was than the article's creator did to write the article. FCYTravis 19:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertising on Wikipedia is now protected by intellectual property rights? If I vote Delete you will 'sue me for libel and slander'? Yeah, that'll be a short case. Advertise your "book" somewhere else. User:Tokakeke 21:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete edit time and article content fits with a series of hoaxes I'm cleaning up at the moment from a sock farm including Paulo Fontaine (talk · contribs). Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if it exists, it does not appear to be a notable book. Cedars 12:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a vanity book perhaps? no verification, anyway. Ziggurat 20:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and vaccinate against Wikivirus. And sanction all rules-lawyering Wikimunchkins. Haikupoet 20:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vaporware book at best, more likely painfully non-notable. Credit to Zoe for the quick action on the WP:NLT violation. Stifle 23:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Five O’clock Dog - Five O’clock Dog Book

Qualification Statement:

Upon further investigation we have come to realize that there is a very large amount of commercial fee based porn sites and other commercial services listed on Wikipedia. These pages inside Wikipedia were created and are maintained by Wikipedians as an advertisement that have direct links to the “pay a fee – buy some porn access or DVD’s - join here ” porn industry websites. (To many easy to find examples to list here)

Further Qualification:

Our Position from the beginning has been:

These aforementioned web sites are selling commercial products. The Wikipedia page for them is an informational advertisement. Large numbers of the pages contain trademarks as a site designation and heading. Many digital images on the Wikipedia website contain the ® after the Trademark. (This is just one example of many - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Intel-logo.svg)

We are Neutral regarding all maters related to this. We are not singling out one industry, only using the above as a typical example.

Summary:

Wikipedians are in the process of deleting a children’s book page. (Stub) We assumed that since we did not see an 18 or over sign on the Wikipedia front page that Wikipedia is for all ages.

At last check there was 100% voting in favor of deleting the Five O’clock Dog Book stub page. (Article) (18 Wikipedians )

We feel that we have been singled out in a very discriminatory fashion. Further, we feel that deleting the Five O’clock Dog book stub is hypocritical.

The Publisher of Five O’clock Dog - Monday, January 23, 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.160.82 (talk • contribs)

I have an email adrdess for Britannica here, you should complain to them because they're not covering it either. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 18:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be kidding me! Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When the book comes out and shatter sales records or wins a Newbery Medal then it might need an article. --Wrathchild ^(talk) 18:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As soon as the book is actually published by a reputable publishing house (read, not vanity press) and sells more than 5,000 copies, we will be quite happy to have an article about it, per WP:BIO. We will not put a link to purchase the book on Amazon, nor will we put "this name is a registered trademark" all over the article. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise things. FCYTravis 21:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above --kingboyk 22:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I very rarely vote to delete, but the publisher's comments here are simply unacceptable. I suggest they not attempt legal threats while not understanding that Wikipedia is no more obligated to carry their content than bookstores are to carry their book. Deletion is not "discriminatory", and the publisher should understand that even if Wikipedia were to be massively, unfairly discriminatory in its deletion policies, there would still be no grounds for any legal action. That said, I urge people nominating and voting on AFD to be carefully uninsulting to the subjects and authors of articles up until the point where they say things like what this publisher has said above. -- Jake 23:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete because of bad faith - the user that originally posted this article today sent me a rather long email that attacked my personal character rather than my actions as an administrator: I was the first person on Wikipedia to question this user over the content of this article. Nothing in their actions convinces me that this is nothing more than ruthless self promotion by a non-notable individual: if they were genuine I am sure their actions towards me and other users would have been much more above reproach. -- Francs2000 01:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also received a very large email. It was rather non-sequitor. It seemed it was a response to what someone else had said. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 01:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably the same as the one I received, though mine had additions to the end that were little more than personal attacks against me as a person. I believe the person quoted may have been Jimbo, I have sent a copy of the email to him and asked him to confirm. -- Francs2000

01:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --D e ath phoenix 00:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eszter Hargittai

Improperly (in my opinion this is apparently disputed) speedied under CSD:A7 now listed for due process ALKIVAR™ 01:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep recipient of the Woodrow Wilson Scholarship, Notable internet sociologist interviewed by the BBC and CNNfn. Quoted by the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, BBC News, and Wired Magazine. Mentioned in US Senate during hearings on the PROTECT Act of 2003. Considered one of the prominent experts on "the Internet and its social effects" which I believe (have to check) was the subject of her dissertation for her Princeton Ph.D in Sociology. Currently a professor at Northwestern University and Faculty Fellow of the Institute for Policy Research at that university. ALKIVAR™ 01:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being interviewed or quoted doesn't make one notable, getting a scholarship doesn't make one notable. Being an adjunct professor is not notable. This person is on a tenure-track, and when she gets there maybe that will be notable. Ruby 02:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd disagree: being interviewed or quoted DOES make one notable. You seem to be suggesting, Ruby, that for academics the ONLY measure of notability is tenure. I'd disagree; it's only one measure. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not to be a WikiLawyer or anything, but the guide for notability says, "Professors are not notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field of interest." This is a high bar to clear. The contributions of Eszter Hargittai seem to consist of writing a dissertation on the internet and being the media's on-call expert on internet issues. Now if she had invented the internet like Al Gore that would be a horse of a different color. Ruby 03:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree with a reading of those guidelines that implies that professors have to clear a higher bar than non-professors. To clarify, I don't think she clears the notability bar by very much, but I think she clears it. The article in its current state is way too vanity, though. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you call it vanity, as I'm the one who rewrote it? ALKIVAR™

23:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one interview does not make you notable. --Pboyd04 03:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A fairly close call but quite a lot on Google Scholar and the media stuff just about tips the balance for me. Dlyons493 Talk 03:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arbustoo 04:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you check the recent history, you'll see deletions of references to other interviews. Then people come back and say there's only one interview. I think one reference is enough for an entry, but the whole procedure seems problematic to me JQ 06:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC) (originally created entry)[reply]
Keep per ALKIVAR. --Rob 08:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 09:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable person Nortonew 14:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep and good catch by Alkivar. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ...as per nominator? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:BIO unless we penalize her for being a professor. Kappa 08:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO; just one of the millions of unnotable academics around the globe. Untenured to boot! Eusebeus 20:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail WP:BIO. I do note that some claims have been removed as without WP:CITE, but in the absence of references to support these claims, the removal was proper. I'd also note to there appear to be several pure votes in this discussion. To simply say "keep" or even "keep, notable" does not provide a testable hypothesis. Finally I've removed some links per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. - brenneman^(t)^(c) 07:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Those claims were removed as "vague and trivial" not as lacking citation, which at least some of them have. I have replaced them as they demonstrate that her ideas have a wide audience. Kappa 07:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please remember that WP:V is not negotiable. Right now the only claim that is supported is the BBC one. If these claims are correct, than provide some evidence. Why is that even an issue? - brenneman^(t)^(c) 07:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I regard university websites as reliable published sources. Kappa 07:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The personal pages of staff are mostly writtne by that staff member, and in this event still do not provide a link to where exactly it is that these "quotes" appeared. The fact that more time is being spent edit warring over the unsupported material rather than simply providing the evidence asked for is worrying. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 08:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think university staff are likely to lie about themselves on their personal pages, your opinion may differ. Removing credible claims without trace does not aid the purpose of determining whether users would value access to information about this person or not. Kappa 08:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Here's where I point to someone doing something constructive and sigh deeply in thanks. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 08:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Claims of non-notability are not very convincing, and tenure would make a very bad criterion. -- Jake 00:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dlyons493 Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 17:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --D e ath phoenix 00:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arachnophilia

Claims to be a paraphilia, and yet: 103 hits for arachnaphilia and paraphila together, no quotations. A lot of these seem to have referenced this wiki article. No hits on google scholar (the term arachnophilia by itself seems to be some kind of internet formatting program, zero hits associated with arachnophilia and paraphilia), no hits on a search of American Psychological Association article search with or without the term paraphilia, No relevant hits on lexis nexis (although one about nonsexual poems about liking spiders). The 100 google hits suggest that this is a role playing sex term that is in very low currency- how many role playing sex terms get so few hits on google? Compare with 409 hits for microphilia paraphilia together. Lotusduck 01:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was written entirely by 218.174.180.152 (talk · contribs), also editing as 218.167.177.106 (talk · contribs). No sources, likely hoax, definitely nn rubbish. Ashibaka tock 01:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless seriously verified. Arachnophilia is also relatively known freeware HTML editor [6]. Since WP serves almost as Freshmeat twin it may be covered. Pavel Vozenilek 01:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified -- Astrokey44|talk 09:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this is deleted then Arachnophilia (HTML editor) should be moved to this article. No vote. JIP | Talk 13:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wonder if I would have been out of line in making arachnophilia a redirect instead of deletion. I'm not clear if that's a sneaky deletion or utterly appropriate. Hmm. I'm the nominator

The way I understand it, if there is an article titled Article title (some meaning), then the article Article title should either be a proper article about something other called "Article title" or a disambig page between various things called "Article title", and not a redirect to Article title (some meaning). Redirects the other way around are OK. JIP | Talk 16:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like all the rest. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely hoax. --Fire Star 01:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, needs verification. incog 02:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And let me know if there are any Praying-mantis-roleplay women out there, I want to avoid them. Seriously, looks pretty much like either a hoax or non-notable. Herostratus 19:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:IAR and WP:WEB. FCYTravis 04:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phantompyro.com

5 registered members, not even close to noteworthy. Delete Fightindaman 01:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatent advertising spam. Speedy if possible. - Bootstoots 01:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, non-notable, spamvertising. Lotusduck 01:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously spam no redeeming features. Grandwazir 01:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertising. --Walter Görlitz 02:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable group of people. Sycthos ^Talk 03:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - the name of the game gives this away - "Halo In The Kitchen: The Adventures of Master Chef" - har har. FCYTravis 04:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xboy

Hoax page[7], just not true. Grandwazir 01:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's true, please drop the word "allegedly" and submit a link to the November 31, 2005 announcement. Otherwise Delete. --Walter Görlitz 02:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No way would MS get away with naming anything (Blank)-boy, they would be sued to hell and gone by Sony. Ruby 02:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --D e ath phoenix 01:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maynooth.org

Exists to promote the site, provides no useful infomation. The site only been active since mid 2005 and looks to only have 200 registered forum members. Not notable enough I'm afraid. Grandwazir 01:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Site declares it is by locals for locals, not by locals for a global encyclopedia-reading community. Ruby 02:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn website Forbsey 03:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ruby's comments. Note that the article has been blanked by the original author. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 07:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough for an encyclopaedia article. - Latinus 20:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 17:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --D e ath phoenix 01:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I LIEK MILK!!!!!!!!

Note: This AfD page was not created by the person who nominated the Article for deletion. Thus far there is no nomination. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep: I just discovered this "i liek milk" thing tonite when I found the wikipedia page, but it seems like a legitimate (if bizarre) article. Google brings back 19,000 hits for the phrase. 15,500 if you search for "i liek milk" with "hitoshi". Songs have even been written about it [8]. People have blogged about it in more than one language [9]. It seems to have had at least some life as a pop culture/internet phenomenon. I don't think it deserves deletion, but it does need a little more fleshing out. -Bindingtheory 00:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No Alexa rank for the page at all, Alexa rank goes to parent site (Generation.nl), which is near 3,000,000.[10]. Basically, the page is pictures of a guy drinking milk with a few random sentences strewn in. Comments from a couple of random bloggers don't make this anywhere near notable. Karmafist 01:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Non notable websites do not fit the criteria for speedy deletion CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, if "unremarkable people or groups" (A7) is a speedy criterion, then "unremarkable websites" should also be, since websites are inherently much less notable and more fleeting things than people. (Of course if non-notability is contested, then it's a matter for AfD.) 131.111.8.100 02:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, as much as I like extracting meanings to extend applications of principles, in Wikipedia we have to watch out that things aren't deleted on a whim- otherwise who knows how far it can go. And websites are sometimes much more notable than the people who make them. More people will know Snopes than Barbara Mikkelson (who's just a redirect) CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 02:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Grandwazir 01:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Some people may think it's amusing to watch Asians mangle English, but we don't need to have an encyclopedia article equivalent of a circus freak show. Ruby 02:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the rest of the Internet can do that all by themselves. Delete. --Agamemnon2 23:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It is almost an internet legend. "Welcomed to my page!!! I leik milk!!" is blogged and commented upon ad nauseum. Seems to amuse geeks in the same way as All your base are belong to us. --Ezeu 02:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. Agree with ezeu. Page is somewhat legendary, I've known about it for years. Number of google hits lead me to say keep. Phantasmo 02:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Rather sad, but notable. The number of google hits reflects this. Forbsey 03:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. Ifnord 05:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately notable, in the vein of goatse. freshgavin TALK 05:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ruby. Crunch 07:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to something without the caps and exclamation marks that looks more formal like I liek milk (webpage) -- Astrokey44|talk 09:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Ezeu. I'm ashamed to admit I even had one of the t-shirts (even though I despise milk). –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 11:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why do people insist on encyclopedia articles about their favourite Internet fads? JIP | Talk 13:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The page sounds completely stupid, but it got 19,000 hits on Google! It sounds like a legitimate internet phenomenon. (Hamster Dance was stupid too, but it has a Wiki article). Nortonew 14:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks notable to me --84.67.140.231 21:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of minor Internet memes, or delete and recreate in five years if anyone can remember it then. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it's some short-lived fad. At least the hampster dance had a song released... -- 9cds^(talk) 23:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As far as I know, this thing happened something like 3 years ago. I hadn't heard about it since ... until now. freshgavin TALK 02:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, minor and ephemeral Internet meme. MCB 06:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 3 years must be a record for an ephemeral phenomenon. Kappa 08:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as per zis Guy. Absence of verification = unable to be updated. Ziggurat 20:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Internet memes are generally unencyclopedic. Eusebeus 20:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a speedy delete, but I like JzG's idea of recreating in five years if anyone can remember it then, i.e. delete. Stifle 23:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Correction to my above statement, the website is ALREADY 5 years old. (2001) freshgavin TALK 01:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable internet memes. I'm also trying to get some sort of idea together regarding internet memes at the Village Pump, input would be useful --badlydrawnjeff 15:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is this kind of phenomenon that makes Wikipedia fun and different from Brittanica. BabuBhatt 02:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know if we want to be that different from Britanica. As the guy said, doesn't pass the five-year test. Let people who need to know about this Google it, the'll get the info they need just as quick as coming here, because there just isn't that much to say about it. Herostratus 18:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Astrokey44. Page needs a better title, but appears to be a notable enough meme. --King of All the Franks 07:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable phenomenon of considerable longevity.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete as hoax or nonsense --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hobo Staring Game

Hoax entry, I couldn't find anything to back it up, no references given. Grandwazir 02:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. Hobos were too busy staring outside their boxcars looking for railroad authorites to be staring at each other. Ruby 02:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of those that I wish were true, sounds like a riot. But alas, also sounds like a hoax. Phantasmo 02:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Sycthos ^Talk 04:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Patent_nonsense (aeropagitica) 11:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax (not patent nonsense I think, but ICBW). Other edits by this author include Legowars, which is also a bit suspect. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 03:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by nominator. Sycthos ^Talk 03:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Downer

Another hoax there are alot of them tonight. Article about a person who is meant to be a grand master of the Priory Of Sion. Also claims to be involved in a non-existant, Jamaican holiday, Jamaica Day. The article itself says that parts of it are hearsay. Grandwazir 02:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has already been zapped in a speedy fashion. Ruby 02:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by nominator. Sycthos ^Talk 03:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Dembs

This is not an article appropriate for Wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrowww (talk • contribs) .

Comment Article was speedily deleted. Ruby 02:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Vending machine. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispenser

Delete poorly-written dictionary definition, unsuitable for trans-wiki, but has an editing history that suggests it should not be unilaterally redirected to Vending machine without a consensus. Ruby 03:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vending machine. I see no distinction at all. ×Meegs 05:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - merge request should be handled through proper channels. FCYTravis 04:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific racism

Hi! I think this entry should be merged into Racism since this last entry considers racist ("scientific") theories. Leaving it as it is now is, in my opinion of course, a racist POV, as it may let believe that there is such a thing as "scientific racism". I am aware that the entry is not really racist, as it considers it as a pseudoscience. However, the title itself may lead in error - the proof of that is that I was sure, before reading it, that this was some entry written with racist bias. I would also like to add a last point: to my knowledge, "racialism" is the name given to attempts to scientifically justify racism (see Pierre-André Taguieff's works on racism). So, I think we should considers these options:

merge it into Racism (which should at least include a resume of this, as to let readers of the racist entry use the hyperlink to "scientific racism")
merge it into Racialism (which, by the way, is really badly written now, claiming that "racialism" is distinguished from "racism" because it has some "political weight" or whatever - whereas it is a synonym of what you fellows are trying to define as "scientific racism")
if you really don't want to consider those merges, for reasons that I will try my best to understand, you really should change the title. Believe me: maybe for you it is not equivocal, but the simple fact that I read it like this is a probable sign that I won't be the only one. Lapaz 03:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Lapaz doesn't know what he or she is talking about and I imagine did not read the article. The term is a common one used both in historical discourse and academic discourse about race. And if one is not aware of it being a separate term, one could easily consult the books references (one of which features it as a primary part of the title), or any of the over 66,000 Google hits or over 5,800 Google Books hits. Not a neologism, but a specific "type" of racism, one which claims to be based on scientific facts (sometimes contrasted with "base" racism). The article itself is very NPOV: if one actually read the content it would see that it attributes all POVs, and even goes great lengths to discuss the controversies, discredited research, etc. The term is, frankly, pejorative: nobody wants to be called "scientic racism", as it implies the work is not actually "science" but actually just racism. The Google links above show pretty clearly that the term is used, in the same way we use it, by hundreds if not thousands of mainstream sources, the vast majority of which are anti-racist (Stephen J. Gould, PBS, hundreds of academic books). It is completely distinct from racialism (which Lapaz also doesn't seem to understand in a NPOV way), and is obviously a topic rich enough (an entire article's worth of content) to deserve being a separate article from "racism", though it of course should be mentioned in the latter (as it is). --Fastfission 03:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the similar article Eugenics. Ruby 03:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Eugenics and scientific racism are related but not the same thing. Read the two articles and you will see this. Scientific racism pre-dates eugenics and also exists completely separately from eugenics; furthermore, eugenics is not always about race, either, nor is it necessarily "racist" (it is often classist, sexist, and many other -ists). "Scientific racism" refers to research which supposedly validates racist ideas; "eugenics" is a philosophy advocating the changing of a society's gene pool by means of selective breeding. Not the same thing at all, though they have intertwined histories (there was much scientific racism in the history of eugenics). --Fastfission 03:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nominator is asking for a merge. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This looks like a serious, legitimate NPOV article, and the term "scientific racism" gets over 66,000 hits on Google. Dbtfz 04:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and don't merge with anything, this is a completely legitimate subject in its own right. - Haukur 04:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep the edited article. --D e ath phoenix 01:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maharani (album) (formerly "Nikki - Maharani")

Vanity and of all things, talks about a CD and not the singer. ARRRGGGGHHH. I'm losing my mind seeing all these < censored > nonsense. DELETE. DELETE. For the love of everything good and kind and sensible, DELETE. PLEASE DO SPEEDY DELETE! __earth ^(Talk) 03:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per nom. __earth ^(Talk) 03:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since page has been cleaned up. __earth ^(Talk) 08:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article was created by User:Bryanlpm, probably Nikki's agent, who's only other contributions are two images of Nikki, and an .ogg file of Nikki. Ruby 03:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a shame this is such vanity, she's a really good looking girl! Grandmasterka 03:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes she is, but the image is safe as it's also used on her biography article - which you really ought to know. I hope you're not voting to delete an album article without first bothering to read the girl's biography?! --kingboyk 13:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arbustoo 04:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Ning Baizura is the Executive Producer cum mentor for Nikki." Um, I'm not sure I want to know what that means. Delete per nom. Dbtfz 04:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC). Weak keep. I guess it's not that bad. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 03:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Cum" doesn't mean what you think it means. "Cum" is only a slang spelling for the meaning you're thinking of. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-21 07:56Z
  - I know that. Jeez, give me little credit. :) Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 03:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Claims radio airplay & produced by claimed famous singer. Unfortunately I don't know the Malaysian music scene enough to be able to make any judgment on notability. The article itself is an awful press release, though, which does it no favors. Do we have any en: Wikipedians who might have an idea? —Matthew Brown (T:C) 04:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea. I'm a Malaysian and I say a strong delete. The singer Nicolette Palikat already has a page of its own. I'm very sure any of her song can be inserted there, as it already has. And she has only produced one cd. __earth ^(Talk) 04:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, you're a Malaysian, but you say delete because...? This is a non notable album promoted by a dodgy press release? Or because you have 'taste' and don't like lightweight pop music? (I'm being devil's advocate, but we shouldn't take someone's advice just because they come from that country, without some better evidence. I'm no fan of Malaysian pop music, which is all the more reason to err on the side of caution and keep it). --kingboyk 13:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC) formatting --kingboyk 13:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned it earlier. It's up there if you cared to read it. Apart from that, copyright problem? And cmon, there's no need to engage in personal insult. Taste is relative and I haven't said anything of my musical preference. Please don't make any assumption of somebody you don't even know. If you want to repair the page, be my guest. Unless the mess is repaired (I won't repair it), I'll say delete. __earth ^(Talk) 13:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not engaging in personal insult and I must apologise if you misunderstand my British sarcasm trait; a common language divides us all and it's my fault for not putting it more clearly. My use of the word taste was tongue in cheek, because we all like different things. Anyway, I hope you accept my apology if one is needed. That said, I don't think the article as edited is any more gushing than your average Mariah Carey article. --kingboyk 13:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I had already removed a bit of fluff from the article and added a {{cleanup}} tag. I've also done some minor edits to some related articles. --kingboyk 13:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alright then. sorry if I went over the top =) __earth ^(Talk) 16:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but she was, it says, a competitor on Malaysian Idol. If she was a competitor on the UK or US Idol, we'd keep an article on her debut album. So (without voting just yet) let's be careful of systematic bias. --kingboyk 12:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can be careful of systemic (not systematic) bias and still vote to delete -- American Idol is viewed by several times the number of people that view the Malaysian "Idol" program. BostonBay 01:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nicolette Palikat. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-21 07:54Z
Keep and cleanup. plenty of albums have their own articles -- Astrokey44|talk 10:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as edited. She's a Malaysian Idol contestant and if she were British or American I believe the article would be kept. --kingboyk 14:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup - Wiki has tons of albums. This is just another one. Nortonew 15:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletions.
Keep - There is a clear precedent that once a musicians article is created (and qualifies for inclusion, which hers does), then their albums also qualify. Sometimes a temporary merge/redirect can be done, if there's no content yet, but there's pretty much never a deletion, and no purpose in AFD (as a merge/redirect doesn't need an AFD). --Rob 22:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If kept this should be renamed Maharani (Nikki album), no? Right now the title is pretty bad and confusing. --W.marsh 01:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Or rather, Maharani (Nicolette Palikat album), oops. --W.marsh 01:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep album by person with an article, rename to Maharani (album) unless there are other albums called Maharani with articles. Kappa 08:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that it's encyclopedic! :) --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 14:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved. -- Jake 00:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --D e ath phoenix 02:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Ski Resorts

No content ad for nn company. Would have proposed it for speedy but wanted to be safe Savidan 03:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ad for ski wiki/forum. Ruby 03:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 05:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable website. Alexa rank of 2,000,000. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-21 07:31Z
Delete Yet another advert. (aeropagitica) 11:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advert. - Latinus 19:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising. Essexmutant 11:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam. incog 18:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 02:56, Jan. 27, 2006

Tubular Rail concept

Unverifiable and fails WP:CORP. Also an engineering nightmare, but that shouldn't sway us too much. Anyway, delete. Melchoir 03:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concept. Article admits no models are currently being tested. Ruby 03:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising of Tubular Rail, Inc. Sycthos ^Talk 04:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there was even just one press cutting to show that this was a serious contender for a real project then I would change my vote, but until then I'll have to vote delete. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 05:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Muchness 06:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-21 07:30Z
Delete no third party verification outside its site -- Astrokey44|talk 11:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable and speculative. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable transport crankery. I mean, that is frikkin. Insane. I wouldn't ride the thing, and I'm glad I never heard of it up till now. Belongs on crank.net, not here. Haikupoet 20:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Remember, the concept does have a site at Tubular Rail where one can actually find pictures. So, while it's in no way a near-future solution, or even a possible one, the fact that people have written about it may make it deserve its own article. The article, should, however, talk about solely as a concept (in fact, the website doesn't claim anything more). I think we should give it more thought before we delete it. It's insane, but in a cool way :) Ronline ✉ 07:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- All a fair point, but this is pretty far down there on the list of interesting crankiness. Transport crankiness is pretty obscure to begin with, and the only notable example I can come up with is the Boston Bypass, which would have run a highway and rail link across Boston Harbor. Haikupoet 19:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 02:57, Jan. 27, 2006

The linear

Delete advertisement for a condo in Singapore Ruby 03:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dbtfz 03:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanity advertising. Sycthos ^Talk 04:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though a Singaporean, this is advertisment and unencyclopedic. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-21 07:29Z
Delete not notable enough. - Latinus 19:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 02:58, Jan. 27, 2006

Kanosis

Blatant vanity ad Savidan 04:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Melchoir 04:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Sycthos ^Talk 04:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement for quasi-religious positive-thinking mush. Ruby 04:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-21 07:28Z
Delete - advertisement, and a poorly written one. Nortonew 15:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. - Latinus 19:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Yucca Valley, California. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 03:00, Jan. 27, 2006

Grubstakes Day

Delete Every small town has a summertime festival like "Grubstakes Days" or "Wagon Train Days" or "Strawberry Days" but I don't think they should each have their own separate WP articles Ruby 04:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Yucca Valley, California (the town it's from) -- stillnotelf has a talk page 04:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I merged it. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 05:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect; thanks stillnotelf. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-21 07:28Z
Redirect to Yucca Valley, California now that its been merged -- Astrokey44|talk 11:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say as a general rule Merge/redirect all verifiable local festivals at county level or below to the community they belong to. Haikupoet 21:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mushroom 02:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Roy Carey

Unsourced fannish bio of Mariah Carey's father. Are fathers of singing stars inherently encyclopedic? FCYTravis 04:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an obituary. Ruby 04:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge to Mariah Carey. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-21 07:27Z
Speedy delete copyvio from [11] -- Astrokey44|talk 11:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Astrokey - please tag the page with the relevant tag from WP:CSD if you choose a speedy deletion. Stifle 23:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 03:03, Jan. 27, 2006

Darren Reid

Apparent author, whose 'ubiquitous' chronicles of the shadow racks up an impressive 1 google hit, the authors own web page. A vanity hoax MNewnham 04:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a crystal ball, the author says "I am an author whose first novel, Lord of Darkness and Shadow, is due out this March." [12] Ruby 04:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:Bio as non-notable person and non-notable product too. (aeropagitica) 11:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough for an encyclopaedia article. - Latinus 19:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per all previous comments --84.67.140.231 22:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 03:04, Jan. 27, 2006

David Alan Goldberg

Claims notability as artist, less than 20 relevant google hits MNewnham 04:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't even provide the name of one "fine painting" or where it's hanging. Ruby 05:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable biography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-21 07:26Z
Delete No references, citations or critical appraisals of influence on his peers. WP:Bio violation. (aeropagitica) 11:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless referenced Dlyons493 Talk 13:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous comments - --84.67.140.231 22:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 03:05, Jan. 27, 2006

Collective lounge

Not a notable blog, even the article admits that it is writen by people unknown. Grandwazir 04:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the mysterious blog creators step forward and show themselves. Ruby 05:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable website. No (individual) Alexa traffic rank. BTW I don't think pseudonymity of authors should be a criterion for deletion. I agree there is correlation with unverifiability in general, but a website could be verifiable and notable despite pseudonymity, for example: Electoral-vote.com's creator was originally pseudonymous, turned out to be a respected Computer Science professor. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-21 07:22Z
Delete doesnt look very notable. quick look at the blog and theres barely any comments on any of the posts -- Astrokey44|talk 11:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. -- Dragonfiend 18:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Eusebeus 20:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 03:06, Jan. 27, 2006

Hope Cervantes

i doubt this is even notable enough for a redirect... BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 04:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Are you kidding? She "even" appears on a second Barney show? Ruby 05:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable biography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-21 07:19Z
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sidhuism

Transwiki to Wikiquote and delete. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yeah, what Zoe said. Ruby 05:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge (one or two examples) with redirect to Navjot Singh Sidhu; Transwiki. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-21 07:18Z
Slight merge - agree with Quarl. Nortonew 15:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge and Transwiki - as per Quarl. - Ganeshk (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Sidhuism was created at Wikiquote, way back in May 2004 (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Navjot_Singh_Sidhu). The article Navjot Singh Sidhu already has {{wikiquote}} template (see External links). Redirect, because "Sidhuism" is a popular term in India, often used by newspapers, just like Bushism is used by international English newspapers. utcursch | talk 04:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with User:Utcursch, this is something which can only be associated with Siddhu, apart from wikiquote...this can be included in the article Navjot Singh Sidhu --Aravind Parvatikar 12:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 03:07, Jan. 27, 2006

Gautam Dhar

Non-notable author with one "published" title. The publisher's website goes to great length to claim it's not a vanity press, but in the end it's just another "print-on-demand" press. Amazon lists the book rank at just shy of the 3 millionth mark. Ifnord 05:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Amazon says 2,295,550th yesterday, 2,298,072th today, and sinking fast. Ruby 05:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable biography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-21 07:16Z
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All the best to him, but as of now he does not meet WP:BIO. --Bhadani 13:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 03:08, Jan. 27, 2006

David Youngren

Minister, name itself returns only 200 google hits, adding 'Harvest' returns 2 unique hits, claims of massive tournouts unverifiable MNewnham 05:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third party verification that "God spoke to David and his wife Kim to relocate their international headquarters to San Diego, California" Ruby 05:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. God told me so. Ifnord 05:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable biography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-21 07:16Z
Delete not notable enough. - Latinus 19:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --D e ath phoenix 15:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 03:08, Jan. 27, 2006

The Washer

Underground comic that has been around for less than half a year. Does not appear to be known outside the University of Oklahoma (maybe not even there). Delete as unverifiable/nn/vanity. Kusma (討論) 05:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Publisher is some guy with a Xerox machine ("Issues exist in the form of photocopied leaflets...") Ruby 05:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-21 07:13Z
Delete, non-notable. -- Dragonfiend 17:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough for an encyclopaedia article. - Latinus 19:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Harr o5 07:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chit (band)

Fails WP:MUSIC, but I'm not sure if it's a speedy-fail. FCYTravis 05:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - debut CD coming in the spring/summer of 2006 (maybe) Ruby 05:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a speedy delete and should have been db-band instead of the delete method used. --Walter Görlitz 06:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable band. Tagged as {{nn-band}}. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-21 07:10Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 03:10, Jan. 27, 2006

The Third Resource

This book was published by iUniverse and has no ranking on Amazon, and no reviews. All Google hits seem to be just sellers, no reviews or even mentions in the press. It seems like this article is just an excuse to plug the non-notable book. Delete. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete www.iUniverse.com is a vanity press. Ruby 06:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ruby -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ruby. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-21 07:10Z
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 03:11, Jan. 27, 2006

Universal Ideology of Economics

This is a concept that is introduced in The Third Resource which is being proposed for deletion immediately above. Assuming that article is deleted, this one should be deleted, too. If that one is kept, this should be merged into the book's article and redirected. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this isn't published by a major company. Ruby 06:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ruby -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ruby. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-21 07:10Z
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. incog 19:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as nomination was withdrawn. FCYTravis 07:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prisonplanet.com

~~is vanity and advertisment; should be put into ext links in 9/11 conspiracy theories if anything. - Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 06:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

I concede. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 06:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should know better, though the website itself doesn't look, professional, per say, enough; sorry to Striver, this was a somewhat but not really improper action on my part caused by a misunderstanding. On this basis, I vote to keep on an article I nominated for AfD. Again, sorry for my stupidity, and hopefully I have not violated WP:NPA on myself. Thanks. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 06:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok brother, im sure you acted in good faith to ensure WP keeps a high standard. Have a good day! --Striver 07:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not vanity. Its a effort to represent a website with more than 2 million paying subscribers. Alex Jones is a well known Journalist. Not agreeing with its views does not warant a deletion, much less serious web-sites have their own article in WP. The site has a rank of 11 000 making it notable. Please do not remove Alexia stats. --Striver 06:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Information on sources should not be deleted. zen master T 06:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as nomination was withdrawn. FCYTravis 07:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatreallyhappened.com

~~is vanity/advertisment; should be extlink at 9/11 conspiracy theories if anything -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 06:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Making same concession, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prisonplanet.com. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 06:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not vanity. Its a effort to represent a prominent website for a sub-culture. Not agreeing with its views does not warant a deletion, much less serious web-sites have their own article in WP. The site has a rank of 8 000 making it notable. Please do not remove Alexia stats. Also, gives 200 000 google hits--Striver 06:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Information on sources should not be deleted. zen master T 06:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - closed AfD had been mistakenly re-opened. -- RHaworth 06:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John_Weston

Delete ..Found to be biast. John Weston wrote it himself, thus spinning it to make it look like the Conservitives are better than the liberals Forgotten 06:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Weston

Not notable, vanity ad. Ryan Delaney talk 19:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. --Ryan Delaney talk 19:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom.Obina 20:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. If he wins a seat this page isn't even a good start because there's so much posturing there... Musser 06:18, 25 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) 03:15, Jan. 27, 2006

PeopleinMovement

Original research about the Laban method of dance analysis. Near the start of the article it says on this site you can find. So I assumed copyvio, but since I can find no hits, I have an horrible feeling that by this site the author means Wikipedia. -- RHaworth 06:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Someone is using WP to create a directory of contacts. Ruby 06:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, original research. I think "this site" refers to the MSN website. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-21 07:08Z
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.
- Comment Original editor is blanking the article. TheRingess 04:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no one wants to keep it. Nobody's objected to the idea of a redirect either. Deleting and redirecting per Meegs. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 03:17, Jan. 27, 2006

La conquista del pan

Delete because there is already an English language article for this book (which is significantly longer than this one. It does not need to be moved because there is already a comparable article on the Spanish-language wikipedia too. Fightindaman 06:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's like those people who write Spanish are using a completely different language (apologies to Steve Martin). Ruby 06:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-21 07:06Z
Redirect to The Conquest of Bread ("redirects are cheap"). No merge is necessary, because it is just a translation of the English article. ×Meegs 08:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per meegs -- Astrokey44|talk 11:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Meegs Dlyons493 Talk 13:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 utter nonsense and unencyclopedic tripe. FCYTravis 07:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German hose

Extremely sexually graphic & non-notable, very low quality article. Mangojuice 06:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ugh! Ruby 06:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable, non-notable. Ugh. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-21 07:05Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 03:30, Jan. 27, 2006

Halobabies

NN webcomic, makes no claim that would pass WP:WEB, delete. Melchoir 07:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ruby 07:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable webcomic. Traffic Rank for halobabies.net: 441,886 . —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-21 07:48Z
Delete, non-notable webcomic, does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 18:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per Quarl. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blackpoin

This is either a hoax or incredibly non-notable. Blackpoin gets only one hit on Google - this article. I also tried Jeeves and Yahoo. Nothing at all. I can't find any evidence that there was ever a pirate, or even a cocktail, by that name. Completely unverifiable. Delete. Kafziel 07:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: More support that this is a hoax is that the article says his ship was sunk by the HMS Dauntless in 1796; the first HMS Dauntless was launched in 1804. It also makes the insane claim that Dauntless had 120 guns, three or four times more than the most well-armed ships of that time (I'd say probably more than any ship that ever sailed). Kafziel 07:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "First-rate was the designation used by the British Royal Navy for its largest ships of the line, those mounting 100 guns or more, typically on three gundecks," so I don't think you're right about the number of guns. But the article does look very much like a hoax, so I'd also say to delete. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 09:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The HMS Dauntless, according to the Blackpoin article, was a British frigate. 'Fraid not. It was a sloop, and in fact according to what I have read it was not even built until the turn of the 19th century. If this article is legitimate, (I doubt that...) then it should at least be corrected. I cannot find anything on the Blackpoin pirate, though, so I am thinking delete.
Delete as unverifiable, probable hoax. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-21 07:48Z
Delete as hoax. search only brings up this article and wikipedia mirrors. -- Astrokey44|talk 11:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete {{hoax}} as per comments on HMS Dauntless above. References required to disprove this hoax notion. (aeropagitica) 11:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the records, ships of the line did go up to 120 guns, but a 44-gun frigate was considered powerful in the age of sail. In any case, article is not verifiable as it stands, and can be treated as a hoax. Sliggy 13:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax, no evidence of existence outside of Wikipedia. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, aharrr, send 'im to Davy Jones' Locker. Shiver me timbers, aharrr, etc. etc. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Stifle 23:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect as per Uncle G. Johnleemk | Talk 15:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ista

The article has too narrow a focus for a good Wikipedia article. --nihon 07:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one. We do have articles on grammatical constructions e.g. plural and gerund. If this is unique to Portugese, then it could be notable in that regard. Alternatively, the article could explain which kinds of language have such formulations, and which don't. A lot could be written about this. ~~Keep.~~ GeorgeStepanek\^talk 09:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically the same grammatical item as "-ist" in English, its free productivity is also just like in English (cf. ad-hoc creations such as "deletionist" vs. "inclusionist"). Could be used as a minor example under derivation (linguistics), I suppose. Apart from that, delete. The bit about Brazilian fanboy usage is non-notable and OR. Lukas 10:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or maybe merge with suffix -- Astrokey44|talk 11:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge agree with nom that foucus is too narrow. So merge to ~~somewhere, maybe Portuguese language#Nouns.2C_pronouns_and_adjectives would be best?~~ -ista and leave a redirect. Dlyons493 Talk 13:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Call me an INCLUSIONista. Ruby 13:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a dictionary article on a productive suffix, that does little more than give the meaning of the suffix and list words that contain it. -ista welcomes editors who want to write a dictionary article about the suffix. As LukasPietsch points out, an encyclopaedia article would be about productive suffixes, and would link to the individual Wiktionary articles for each suffix, just like numerical prefixes links to Wiktionary articles on for each prefix. Redirect to List of English suffixes which already includes this suffix and links to the Wiktionary article. Uncle G 14:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, List of English suffixes doesn't contain "ista"—but it should. I'm changing my vote to merge. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 08:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It did. I put it there. Another editor keeps removing it. Uncle G 08:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 03:31, Jan. 27, 2006

Forilla

Non-notable show Akamad 07:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, 40 hits for their site "Forillaster" -- Astrokey44|talk 11:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Practically calls for a {{db-band}} tag. (aeropagitica) 12:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The audience participation part is notably unique. Ruby 14:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough for an encyclopaedia article. - Latinus 19:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think a speedy as non-notable group really qualifies, but everything else is just a WP:VSCA. Stifle 23:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 03:32, Jan. 27, 2006

AskJohn.com

Non notable personal website with annoying wav loop. No alexa ranking. Ezeu 08:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No discussion as to why this website is notable. (aeropagitica) 12:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per aeropagitica. Ruby 14:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 18:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. - Latinus 19:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete commonbrick 00:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam. incog 02:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 03:35, Jan. 27, 2006

GAJ

Google has no hits,non notable, the title is very close to the first part of the authors user name so it's most likely a vanity.

Delete as nominator.--Dakota ~ ε 08:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa whoa whoa, It isn't vanity or anything of the sort. This is simply to establish GAJ's history and ecetera as it's believed on some sites to be a symbol of video gamer rights. Try the link. GAJ is very populated. And...The reason you can't find any hits on it is because it's on an invisionfree server. It is also widely talked about on GameFAQS, at least on the boards it originated in. Just give it a chance. --User: GAJ Snake 02:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Right, it's just to show what GAJ is, to those who are curious.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dead Decoy (talk • contribs) 08:57, 21 January 2006

113 Google hits means not notable to me. No-one is talking about it anywhere else, so why should anyone read about it here? Delete. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 09:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all blogs, forums, and messageboard articles, unless they are extraordinarily influential like Groklaw or Slashdot. Ruby 14:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Google won't bring up GameFAQs posts, which is the main reason it gets so low hits. People on the gamefaqs boards talk about it alot (I've found over 40 topics about GAJ on it since last month, but gamefaqs started deleting them for being off topic) Look, it's a symbol of freedom for all peoples, and that not all boards are like gamefaqs and full of corruption and trolls. It stands for something; it has moral value to the people who know what it is. It has a STORY behind it's creation, not like syndicated boards like gamefaqs. But alot of people on GameFaqs still don't know "what a gaj is" so I'm making this page just to educate people on it. It may not be a huge, famous board, but I think alot of people could learn from it. Just give it one chance. What've you got to lose? --User: GAJ Snake 15:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. We do not "give a chance" to anyone. The rules are clear, there can exist no deliberate exceptions. Delete, sayeth the Wikipedia Inquisition, and lo, it was so. --Agamemnon2 00:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agamemnon2, sometimes the AfD process is traumatic to new users, this kind of rhetoric only makes it worse for them. Ruby 02:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what? I'm not a therapist. If they can't cope, they shouldn't have posted an article in the first place. --Agamemnon2 12:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 128 registered members, not on its own domain, created by member or owner (per WP:BAI. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I say keep. The site is a good one, and from what people are saying, it has a good and interesting history. It might even give them some members to help their cause, which they are trying their best to fight for. Its the case of David vs Goliath, and would you side with Goliath?220.236.118.182 01:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Adam Shields[reply]

Delete per above. Eusebeus 20:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stifle 23:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a stickler mod gets many people angry and does no good. It's not as if Wikipedia doesn't have room for this site. These guys seem to have a good, cause, and Snake is right: it has a personal story. I think it should stay here and perhaps be merged with the article "Jack Thompson" so as to educate Wikipedia users. -Saint Shade

Keep. If You take into account popular web forums that don't show their posts on Google and the sort, you would have alot more than the said number of hits. Who said that everybody has to rely on Google? And besides, if this is in violation, I know of a few others that should be long gone, but are still here. Well, thats my two cents at least. ~Tim Kowalenko

Keep. Ok. So if you guys don't like it, give a reason other than google. This article is more or less about fighting against Jack Thompson's ideals of banning video games. It nullifies the first amendment, and if you delete this, then whats the point of the bill of rights? Keep it. BTW, GAJ is barely starting out small, like every other site, so, if you had banned those articles about web-sites and other things of that sort, then you've basically eliminated a source on how to relate to todays' society.-mothman47

keepWhat's wrong with it?

Delete The article is sloppy, we don't need a list of everyone who posted on a message board. This article is just people from that board patting each other on the back!

!!!KEEP! There isn't another group like this. The nit-picking because of the users' names is ridiculous. They offer a collective voice which differs from other forums. They're a great group of gamers aged 13 to 20-something, with the exception of a few older and one who is a gaming grandmother. They beg for more parental control and have always wanted to educate "soccer moms" and others who have misconceptions about violent video games. Great bunch, it would be a pity to delete this. Stop being so damn anal! ~~maluka

M

Keep. Let the page be fixed up a bit, let them make a full attempt. What's it going to hurt if it stays up? -Steph

keep. They aren't hurting anything by having it up here. - IU2002

Ok, now that it's been cleaned up and the "users" section is cleared, is it really biased enough to warrant a Point of View warning? --User: GAJ Snake 15:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- No harm is done haveing it... and it could be of use...

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as copyvio. Mushroom 02:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NBJ

Seems nn. In addition, text is a copyvio of the cited source. Delete Schutz 11:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn band, based on the article's own assertion "Except for the one song on the Not so Quiet compilation, Dead Porker no other studio recordings were ever released" Ruby 14:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - yes, but I would opine that any band on the "Not So Quiet on the Western Front" compilation - a historic marker for California punk rock - merits an article related to the topic Punk Rock, as many influential regional punk bands, in the genre's DIY spirit, never did release any widely distributed records. NBJ was widely recognized within the California Central Valley as central to the new punk scene there, and was an influence on several bands that did break through, such as Capitol Punishment. It was not long after NBJ released "Dead Porker" on the Not So Quiet compilation that the lead singer died. FYI, I am the original poster of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.43.40 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 22 January 2006

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cristal Fernandez

Appears to be a vanity page. --Uthbrian (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to make no claim of notability. Sliggy 12:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - makes several MVP notability claims, but only at the high school level. Ruby 14:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopaedic. - Latinus 19:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stifle 23:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 03:38, Jan. 27, 2006

Ski Yoda

This article is about a college fraternity's annual trip to go skiing. Totally insignificant and unencyclopedic (it just states this trip's existence, it's that unbelievably trivial). Sliggy 12:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fratcruft. Staecker 13:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too trivial for an encyclopedia. Thue | talk 13:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the frat isn't notable, the frat's ski trip isn't notable too. Ruby 14:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Dragonfiend 18:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert/fratcruft. Stifle 23:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial. Essexmutant 11:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joytopia

The concept appears to have no currency outside of it's inventor. Like a minor blog or micronation, this proposed economic system has no adherents and shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article. Google hits are principally Wikie mirrors and pods/blogs. The Land 13:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google has 450 hits for "Bernd Hückstädt" + joytopia but this article does not indicate any third-party recognition of the concept. Ruby 14:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOR for a start. Stifle 23:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --D e ath phoenix 15:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Dimitrov Dimitrov

None too notable biography of a Professor. Staecker 13:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a short biography of the leading Bulgarian sociologist. Joro Iliev, 13:27, Jan 21, 2006

Weak keep 6-month Fulbright Fellowship, Senior Researcher in American Sociology of Sociology at Chicago. Help counter systemic bias - emerging sociologist, many publications for his age. Dlyons493 Talk 13:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A theoretical sociologist of Bulgarian society.

Weak keep and wikify (article is too terse). Ruby 14:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "Professor at the European Studies chair of Sofia University" Kappa 07:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn professor. Kappa's citation is besides the point: academic titles of apparently great portent are a dime a dozen (as are Fulbright scholarships, or else where's my article??). Real notability needs to be demonstrated. Eusebeus 21:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Stifle 23:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa, expansion by someone who understands Bulgarian would be nice. -- Jake 00:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was closed with a speedy delete conclusion. - Mailer Diablo 06:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion Fleet

This page, as seen below, was nominated for deletion in December, partly because the group is unnotable and partly because it read like an advertisment. The article has been recreated and speedy-deleted twice since then I believe, and yet still it's here again. I don't see how it's become more notable in a month, and it still reads like an ad to me. It does not cite good sources justifying its place here and I consider it to be vanity. I could be considered an inclusionist, but it appears to me that the majority of editors are not and so there is no justification for EF having a page of Wikipedia. - Hayter 13:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again. I don't know what's going on with this page, but it's clearly not notable. And what's up with this message at the top of the article: 'Nomination for deletion of this article as stated in the template below is invalid, and should be ignored. Matter has been closed and any further discrediting/deletion attempts will not be tolerated.'? - squibix 16:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They will not tolerate us? Ooh, I'm shaking in my little space boots. Delete for the Nth time, protect against re-creation and block the users responsible. --Agamemnon2 00:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and protect against re-creation. Blocking only required if future problems occur with user.

The re-posting of this deletion nomination here was an error on my part. I was unaware there was a seperate template for articles that have been nominated before. The current afd vote for this article is located here. - Hayter 23:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 18:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion Fleet

This seems to be nothing more than self-promotion by the group's creator. If EF is as successful as he seems to indicate then perhaps an article on it would be a worthwhile addition to Wikipedia, but I don't see it coming from this and as such, would recommend a deletion. It's very badly written and inconsistant in its presentation. Perhaps one day someone can make a better article on the subject but at the moment, it's just trash on the server. Hayter 12:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of this, and neither have my Trekkie friends. As a former purveyor of online RPGs, I'm impressed by something that's lasted since 2001, but hey, Maverick Hunter: The Technology Wars has been going since '96, and we still don't have an article--because we don't deserve one. Neither does this. Delete. Marblespire 01:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agnte 16:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

* Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. howch e ng {chat} 22:52, 22 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) 03:39, Jan. 27, 2006

Axsellit

Delete as advertising and lack of notability. Eddie.willers 13:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is clearly an ad, not an encyclopedia article. Ruby 14:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert. Stifle 23:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertisement. --Thunk 22:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --D e ath phoenix 15:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death Valley Driver Video Review

The article in question is an online fanzine, with nothing in the text to suggest that the fanzine has enough influence or renown to render it notable. Much of the text is dedicated to describing the forums of the fanzine, or to regailing the reader with somewhat puerile tales of the antics of the writers. The article is certainly long and in-depth, but this alone should not preclude it from being deleted. I think the authors of the article have failed to satisfactorily demonstrate why the fanzine is notable enough that it deserves an encyclopedia article (e.g. what is the circulation / readership of the fanzine?). McPhail 13:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article about a messageboard and the residents thereunto. Ruby 18:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep*-Obviously biased (I was the one who wrote a lot of it), but it's about a wellknown area of the wrestling fandom area.. (David Yellope, 11:16 AM, 1/21/06
Delete per Ruby. Stifle 23:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the site has no really value and does not need a wiki entry. If DVDVR has one every Wrestling site should have one and therefore wiki would have way too many entries
Weak keep - one of the more well-known professional wrestling sites on the net. Essexmutant 11:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because a few people find it irrelevant, doesn't mean it should go. It has signifigance for other people, and provides easy access information for people curious about the site and reviews.
Delete - Vanity article regarding an irrelevant smarkboard. - Chadbryant 20:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I need my ALREADY INFLATED EGO~! BOOSTED~!. Love u all lol xxx DeanRasmussen 16:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Guess "Dean" is tired of pretending to be the board's founder and is trying to torpedo the DVDVR article by pretending to be from the board.. does Wiki delete accounts used for harassment? Probably not, but still.... DMY

(note: This was not a vote, I already commented above (the 11:16 am David Yellope Vote (you know, DMY?) my vote is Keep.. just commenting that "Dean Rasmussen" is obviously someone who dislikes the board, and is attempting to torpedo the whole thing. and if you'll forgive editing twice in a row, that several of the votes to delete on this thread are among those who have been vandalizing the main article)

Keep* Its one of the largest fan sites on the Internet. No matter what one may think of some fo the members there, it DOES have relevance. TruthCrusader

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

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

The result of the debate was delete and BJAODN. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 03:41, Jan. 27, 2006

Nicholas III of Russia

Non encyclopedic Delete abakharev 13:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Someone who never existed - don't think popular belief is strong enough to need a debunking article. Dlyons493 Talk 13:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is an article about there not being a Pope Joan too. Ruby 18:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pope Joan is a well known story, this is just someone allegedly getting their numerals in a twist. Osomec 18:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN and delete. Stifle 23:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How do you verify the popular belief that there was one? --Thunk 22:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let me guess the title and the content of the next article. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wedge (Santa Cruz), The King's Terrace, Crazytown Gayville and Studio Marv

plus image:The Wedge.JPG

Garagecruft. Really- it is. Staecker 13:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original nomination and first three votes relate just to Studio Marv. -- RHaworth 08:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Gosh I never seen an article about a garage before. Ruby 18:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It really is garagecruft! Ifnord 19:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added three more by the same author. -- RHaworth 08:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - it's roofcruft as well! -- RHaworth 08:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have got to be kidding. Delete 'em all and let God sort 'em out. --Calton | Talk 04:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the original response to want to delete this posting, I must claim that the the subject of this entry is quite worthy of an entry. This house plays a significant part in the daily mythology and society of stuents of Porter College at UCSC and, therefore is deserving of a place on Wikipedia as community refenence. There is a significant difference between a housing cooperative and a frat house. More than this, what more reason to validate the existence of this entry than the fact that residents of the house are highly active in the Wikipedia community? While I was not the person who branched out the rest of the pages I propose that, if the entry is allowed to exist, it may be consolodated into one large entry instead of a handful of small nodes. -- Revelude 06:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, as copyvio if not as unencyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armand versace

Delete for failure to meet WP:MUSIC Eddie.willers 13:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Over 500 hits on Google. Seems to be a real musician. The article definitely needs to Wikified, however. Nortonew 16:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Let's see an Armand article when he actually hits the big time, but in the meantime WP is not a crystal ball, for as the article says, "...with Armand entering the world of stardom at a rapid rate, you can be sure to expect glamour and fabulousness all the way." Ruby 18:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable with crystal ballism. Ifnord 19:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio of http://www.myspace.com/armanddeluxe. Kappa 07:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's probably from the guy's own myspace page so a copyvio is unlikely to hold up. For my delete rationale, see Ruby. Stifle 00:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Actually, the thing was speedy deletable as recreation of previously deleted content, but when it wasn't I will let the seconds AFD debate overrule the first one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lovari

Vanity. Second deletion- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovari. Staecker 13:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - If the annoying bold text can be turned into links or regular text. Ruby 18:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country[1]. "These Tears" - Billboard Latin Freestyle Airplay #4 (8/16/02) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovari (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom. TheRingess 05:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, charting singles passes WP:MUSIC, series of minor acting roles passes WP:BIO. Kappa 07:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, remember- this page was deleted less than two weeks ago for being vanity. And it still is, questionable notability aside. Staecker 13:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page is of a biographical nature and states facts about a performer. I don't see where Vanity fits in. Naomi/NaomiJanuary 2006 (UTC) —The preceding improperly signed comment was added by Lovari (talk • contribs) .

Speedy delete as db-repost. Stifle 23:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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' per WP:IAR. FCYTravis 17:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bronte International University

"It is widely considered to be a diploma mill, a scam operation offering meritless degrees for a fee." Then why the hell do we have an article about it? Nothing about it seems to make it a notable degree mill (which is something of a contradiction in terms anyhow). Marskell 13:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many comparable articles found in Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning. -- JJay 14:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "why the hell do we have an article about it"- because part of our mission is to tell the truth about these institutions. -- JJay 15:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If someone has a need to look up the name, they deserve to get the information. --Alvestrand 14:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per JJay Jcuk 15:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that it's unaccredited, and a likely scam is covered in the article. It's a factual article and does not endorse the institution as being anything that it's not. Crunch 16:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 CSD G4. Mushroom 02:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion Fleet

Non-notable web forum/game. Fails WP:WEB (see also the Talk page). Keeps being recreated, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expansion Fleet. Delete. Kusma (討論) 13:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep The discussion page of the article on Expansion Fleet clearly lists various arguments why this nomination for deletion is not only invalid, but also why it is notable enough. Attempts of Deletionists discourage various contributors to Wikipedia, and therefore are not complying to user regulations of Wikipedia whereby their votes should weigh in this vote to a minority only. Aneirin 14:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion there shows actually that this is a speedy by CSD G4. Kusma (討論) 14:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Alexa finds this gaming forum page but has no information about its level of traffic, which is not good. Aneirin, caution, there are no legally-binding user regulations for AfD, only an emergent consensus. Ruby 14:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "not notable" argument is not valid here. It is only valid in case of bio's, which this article is certainly not. The grounds for deletion of this article are therefore invalid (even more than before so). Aneirin 15:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please show how the article meets WP:V and WP:WEB by citing sources independent from [13], see WP:RS. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 15:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, Aneirin, the "not-notable" argument covers blogs, newsgroups, webforums, chatrooms, bands, genres, clubs, you name it. Ruby 15:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Why is wikepedia all articles about the NOD? it seems like a personal attack. During the last few days i've seen 4 articles up for deletion. All members of the NOD... There is no real reason to delete them. You're website is supposed to be a encyclopaedia about different subjects. If you do not aknowledge an aspect of something i don't think you are entitled the name "encyclopaedia" Ravenlady 15:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's only contributions are to deletion discussions related to David Dom and his friends. Kusma (討論) 15:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Attempts for further discrediting votes is unacceptable and should not weigh upon this vote. Aneirin 16:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Expansion Fleet has been linked to, credited, suggested and talked about by people other than the owner, at

http://www.gamewyrd.com/others/cyber517

http://startrek.pagina.nl/

http://gamiespelen.eigenstart.nl/

http://www.mountsutro.org/index.php/linkage/

http://elindelwolf.iblogs.com/

http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-17955.html

Awards that Expansion Fleet received:

http://www.trekconnection.com/awards/tcaward.asp

http://www.jupiter-station.com/JuPAwardBanners05.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/me4/jaddziadax/page11.html

More awards Expansion Fleet received can be seen on the website itself:

http://www.expansionfleet.com/cgi-bin/fleet/ikonboard.cgi?act=Page;p=ewards

Additionally, there is the Expansion Fleet online store:

http://shop.expansionfleet.com/shop.php

www.cafepress.com/expansion

And also additionally, Expansion Fleet is linked to the IRC server mystical.net (through expansion.mystical.net):

http://www.expansionfleet.com/cgi-bin/fleet/ikonboard.cgi?act=Page;p=irc

http://www.mystical.net/

Those who voted delete for non notable hereby are proven that they only voted on the basis of "I'm too lazy to investigate myself so I'll vote delete because I never heard of it". Notability is a POV argument and therefore invalid. Aneirin 16:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is all? Thank you for proving my point that it is indeed speedily deletable as A7 in addition to the G4. Kusma (討論) 16:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reaction was as expected, proving my point that no matter which (clear!) evidence would be available, it would be turned down. Therefore, this proves your incompetence and your votes will not weigh upon the decision. Aneirin 17:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aneirin, AfD is only about the content of the article, no one is making a personal attack on the author and no one expects to receive personal attacks when the article is being reviewed. Ruby 17:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep Why are you guys against spreading of free information? I mean, it´s not like it is racist or something. I would really like some answeres on why you delete this article. Is it becouse it is not a christian site? Or is it just becouse you have decided you do not like belgians?

How "free" is this encyclopedia anyway?81.233.40.57 17:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I smell dirty sockpuppets. Ruby 18:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comment I received on my notable references is clearly offending, which is not allowed due to the "dont bite the newcomers" policy. It seems I'm getting more and more reasons to declare the nomination invalid. Also, the deletion policy does not mention notability, therefore my references were not even necessary and expansionfleet.com is sufficient as a reference. Aneirin 17:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP To delve into it being questioned as notable or not, if it has not been added or known, this site has 2 books published about it, one 360 pages, the most recent 546 pages. Other than that, what is such the problem with keeping Expansion up? One would think there are better things to do with time. Users submit the knowledge to share existing things with the world. I look now and see The Free Encyclopedia. Let Expansion Fleet be free information to the world. - Tom Hobson
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.34.232.27 (talk • contribs) .

Which books? Please provide sources. Kusma (討論) 17:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Keep this Article. Expansion Fleet is a good and very famous role playing community and it deserves to be here. Keep this Please. Expansion Fleet is amazing.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.92.95 (talk • contribs) .

Books [www.cafepress.com/expansion Expansion Yearbook 2] [www.cafepress.com/expansion2 Expansion Yearbook 1]-Tom Hobson
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.34.232.27 (talk • contribs) .

Delete, non-notable per WP:WEB. Clearly the site is well-loved by a few, but this is a general-use encyclopedia. -- Dragonfiend 18:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep84.65.63.156 18:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Does not provide any evidence of notability. Alexa has no data on the site and shows only three other sites linked to it. But somebody sure wants to keep this page up; sock-puppets galore. I smell self-promotion. — RJH 18:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable game. Following Wikipedia procedures is NOT deletionist. Sycthos ^Talk 18:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: By the way, Expansion Fleet is trying to usher votes into this AfD page from their home page. See the message below:

The article of Expansion Fleet on Wikipedia.org is currently under a hot debate to be deleted. Some "Deletionist" Admins of Wikipedia claim it is "non notable" because they personally don't know it, and attempt to delete it repeatingly at what obviously appears to be a personal attack on anything that doesn't float their boat.
Please help ups keep the article on Wikipedia, by voting "keep" at this URL:
[14]
You can do so by going to the URL above, clicking "Edit this page" and then adding (at the bottom of the already posted text) the following line:
'''keep''' any comments here ~~~~
And click "save page" on the bottom.
This needs to be done ASAP if we are to crush the corrupt abuse of the Wikipedia policies by its admins.
Please also consider signing our petition against Wikipedia corruption:
[www.petitiononline.com/wikiped/petition.html]
Thank you for your support!

Keep in mind that the AfD page is not vote-based, and comments from new or unregistered users are most likely discredited entirely. Sycthos ^Talk 18:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I can only see the above inflammatory commentary incensing some AfD'ers, and making a delete vote more likely. Why the site owners place such importance in their small wikipedia article I fail to understand, unless it is a certain lack of maturity. An unfortunate circumstance. :) — RJH 19:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Another power tripped attempt to falsely discredit the article and the votes to keep. No such announcement is visible on the website. Aneirin 19:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was there. I saw the announcement too and was about to report it as meatpuppetry but Sycthos beat me to it. Ruby 19:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the fact that the unprofessional behavior of Deletionist admins has proven Wikipedia to be unworthy for an article of Expansion Fleet, this article has been deleted by me. Do with my comments as you wish. False accusations and discrediting is highly unprofessional. Goodbye. Vorak 19:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please do not blank an article being discussed for deletion. Ruby 19:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As author of this article and copyright owner, I withdraw this article from Wikipedia and deny Wikipedia the use/publication of this article in any form. Please remove immediately. Vorak 19:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Once you submit information to Wikipedia, others have the ability to edit to their heart's content. You do not own the article, Wikipedia does. The information cannot be revoked. Sycthos ^Talk 19:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Expansion Fleet has changed its message to attempt to disprove all arguments against the article and to directly launch a futile attack against Wikipedia:

After various deletion attempts, Wikipedia deletionist admins have attempted to discredit this website in various ways.
Expansion Fleet has hereby withdrawn its article, no longer wishing to be connected with the website wikipedia.org and deeming the censored encyclopedia to be unworthy of an Expansion Fleet article.
On the other hand, we encourage everyone to help us bring a halt to the corruption of the Wikipedia Deletionist Admins who intend to delete any article that they personally never heard about (proves they didn't hear about much in the world). We discourage anyone to contribute any information, images or other things to the Wikipedia.org encyclopedia.
Therefore, we ask everyone to sign our petition to bring this corruption to the attention of Wikipedia:
[www.petitiononline.com/wikiped/petition.html]
Thank you for your support!

Sycthos ^Talk 19:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. According to WP:CSD, if the author of the article requests deletion, the article is classified as a speedy delete. Also, according to the policy, "If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." Sycthos ^Talk 19:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vorak is not the sole author of the page and did not create it by mistake. Might be a hassle there. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page was edited only by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." Ruby 19:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Vorak and Aneirin are the authors of the page. Logically, they hold high positions in the management of Expansion Fleet. Vorak wishes to withdraw the article and the homepage of the website is blatantly unwilling to keep Expansion Fleet on Wikipedia. Sycthos ^Talk 19:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if speedy is not possible. I understand what you mean. Sycthos ^Talk 19:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-noteworthy. I would also lean towards Speedy delete per Sycthos. I understand Ruby's point but think we'll all fare better if this leave us quickly. Ifnord 19:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are worried about following process, it is in any case a valid speedy G4 (recreation of deleted material). Kusma (討論) 19:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possibly G4 (recreation of delete materials). In addition, notability is not evidenced. No alexa rankings. Claim of google hits is not valid because it contains a lot of noise (ie: many web site contains the word "expansion fleet" without refering to the online forum/RPG in question. A notable online game should have more than 1136 registered members (which includes active and not-active/visit once members) - after all, Wikipedia:Notability (people) dictates that an author is notable only if circulation is > 5000 ... --Hurricane111 20:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The case for Delete is absolutely crystal clear, and any claims to the contrary are ludicrous. Ergo, allow me to quote a little Mikado: "Behold the Lord High Executioner". The consensus is clear, the protocol is adamant. There can be no exceptions. --Agamemnon2 00:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agamemnon2, please can we keep this as a purely business transaction and avoid treating it like a blowout in the Superbowl? Ruby 02:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still asserts no evidence of meeting WP:WEB. --W.marsh 01:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vorak is the only owner of the site I think. So him saying for it to be deleted probally means it should be deleted. He said he withdrew any allowing of Expansion to be on this place. Realizing that at the time probally would save picking it with the rules to take it off, that its no longer wanted to be on this place.

keep 67.68.222.46 01:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TestPilot 01:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"'Keep"' This is a General use online encyclopedia, this is true, so are you going to try and delete everything from it that hasn`t been widely heard of? This article, simply by being here and through this discussion is, albeit slowly, giving the site exposure to outsiders. So all of those who are in favor of deletion and give this link to thier friends are doing nothing but promoting the site, the oppinion of the poster notwithstanding, they are still viewing the link and taking in the name, there is no reason to delete the site. Perhaps rather than simply try to abolish it you should look at it and then form an oppinion.71.97.190.106 02:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can we accept an excyclopedia article about something which has changed several times just today? Ruby 02:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For those who are members of "Expansion Fleet"/owners of the site, please do not take the "Articles for deletion" personally. The votes here do not reflect whether we believe the site/article is inferior or not-worthy, we are merely pointing out that the article does not meet Wikipedia's agreed-upon guidelines (WP:WEB). If you do not agree with this guideline, please discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Notability (websites). If the community has consensus on changing the notability criteria, then how editors votes in articles for deletion will reflect that. --Hurricane111 03:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keepwhy should this be deleted its a cool fourm nthing wrong with it, If it's deleted thats a hate crime!66.58.187.131 06:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is why you shouldn't follow instructions from the Expansion Fleet site. Everybody there is unaware of the Wikipedia WP:VAIN procedures. If they hate Wikipedia, so be it. They are the "haters" for attacking Wikipedia. We are merely following Wikipedia's policies. Think about it this way. If we had an article for every forum, regardless of size, the expenses to run this site will shoot upwards. Therefore, it is not a hate crime. This policy may be changed if you are willing to donate mass amounts to Wikipedia. Sycthos ^Talk 06:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'll call it the Expansion Fleet Expansion. Ruby 06:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just not notable enough. - Hayter 11:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and because almost every Keep vote has been a meatpuppet. - Cuivienen 21:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as CSD:G4 repost. Stifle 23:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Stifle, plus it seems we are not worthy to carry the article anyway. Let's not disappoint them. (Their website makes Konqueror very unhappy as well, crashes without warning) Grandwazir 01:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon-Dove Studios

According to the article they're "small" and "up and coming", with no claims of actual notability. No hits for "Dragon-Dove Studios" on google. - Bobet 13:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to Delete this "small business" article after the "realization that there was a christian recording studio by the same name" Ruby 14:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This 'studio' is so non-notable that it doesn't even have its own webpage apparently.Nortonew 15:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as severely non-notable. Stifle 00:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was strong KEEP. Ben Aveling 04:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Morgan Research

nn corporate vanity page. Advertising! AnAn 13:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is factual and contains no contact information or language that would be biased toward or in favour of this company. This is a large company that has played a significant role in reporting public opinion for many years in Australia. Further research is required for this article for it to be more substantial, deletion is not necessary. Roy Morgan Research was in no way involved in the creation of this article. See: ACNielsen User:PeterPartyOn 20:56, 22 January 2006 (AEST)

Survey says...Delete Ruby 15:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You what? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't get it. What's the rationale for Delete? it's a big company that has a daily presence in Australians' lives (e.g. electoral polling). the article isn't biased. why delete? --Sumple 23:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep exactly as Sumple. --Bduke 23:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets requirements for WP:CORP, most Australian adults would know that Morgan is a polling orgainsation, is ISO cretified, operates in several countries etc.--nixie 23:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nixie, sumple... vanity? advertising?? non notable??? pfctdayelise 00:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- very notable organisation. - Longhair 00:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - regular (fortnightly) presence in all notable AUS newspapers on the poltical opinion polls. Often notable for disagreeing with NEwspoll resultsBlnguyen 00:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very notable company. The article I just looked at is not advertising. --Canley 02:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable Australian company. Cnwb 05:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this company is not only notable but also very significant to the political affairs of the country. As nixie says, most adults (and almost certainly all political science students) would know of the company and what it does. 'Roy Morgan' polls are regularly used as a reference source and for this reason it is important to have an article about the company that conducts the polls. -- Adz|talk 06:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Regular mentions in the news, opinion polling is a notable part of politics. While disagreeing with the nomination for deletion, I think the original comment was signed, but the nomination seemed to be divided up by another comment, see [15]. Andjam 08:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Do your research, for gods sake. The most cursory Google search could have told you that this is very notable. Ambi 09:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the profile of the original nominator, and you'll understand why. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumple (talk • contribs)

The nominator is an Australian, so the person would have known what Roy Morgan was. Using a single exclamation mark, while not a sign of insanity (that'd be two exclamation marks), isn't often done in a good faith VFD. Andjam 09:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberate waste of everyone's time. evil. --Sumple 22:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand and I agree with Ambi, do some research before blantley claiming that something is not notable. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 04:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--cj | talk 08:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blatantly unnecessary keep, just for the sake of it. Let's nominate BHP next, or Arnott's ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Super unnecesary keep, with extra cheese - this is one of the biggest polling agencies in Australia, regular appearances in the press, long history. --bainer (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and expand per Σ above. WP:IAR I'm closing this one. Ben Aveling 13:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - non-notable/un-encyclopedic > obvious promotional -max rspct leave a message 14:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC) MMM But is it notable enough yea? -max rspct leave a message [reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blister pack

A candidate, perhaps, for WP:Complete Bollocks? No doubt, an article concerning blister packaging may be of merit but, sadly, this is not it. Eddie.willers 14:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Now that the article has been rewritten it has become worthier of inclusion. Were I able, I would withdraw this nomination. Eddie.willers 21:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EH?!? Blister packs are a common form of packaging. This page doesn't need all this 'ooh I can't open it' BS. I learnt some about it during my Product Design A-Level; if I can find my own notes I'll gladly edit it. I'll admit some can be hard to open, but that's where the beauty of Swiss Army Knives come in (got one for Xmas, never looked back) and they certainly don't weigh more than the contents. Lady BlahDeBlah 14:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to Packaging and labelling. Ruby 15:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me again, methinks I'm making this a talk page...Blister packs are notable, as the guy who just edited it into something worth keeping just reminded me there are TWO types of blister packaging: foil backed for pills and card backed for productls like toys and electronic devices.

Keep per Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's complete rewrite. Thanks, Jonathan.--Pharos 16:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pharos. I second the "Thanks, Jonathan." –Sommers ^(Talk) 17:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rewrite. Punkmorten 18:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep this rewrite. I love to see articles rescued from AfD, good job! Ifnord 19:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, quite all right. Necessary to mention that it's also used to describe a toy package, see Heroclix. Stifle 00:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ascension Films

Utterly, hopelessly, irredeemably non-notable studentcruft. Eddie.willers 14:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless one of their three unnamed films has won recognition at the Academy Awards or something. Ruby 15:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. From Google hits, it looks like there are other organizations called Ascension Films that would be much more notable than some student project.Nortonew 15:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly non-notable. WP:NFT. Stifle 00:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Fowlkes III

Mildly interesting but otherwise utterly non-notable. Eddie.willers 14:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The part about how this educator "has been a long-time fan of the Wikipedia web site, and to this day is still his main source of information" is more frightening than the Slashdot story earlier this month about Chinese college students who complained they could not complete their thesis after the government of China blocked Wikipedia. Ruby 15:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete If Claude uses WP as his "main source of information", perhaps this page can be used to point out that no 'educator' - teacher?, lecturer? - should rely on any one source of information, especially this one, as it can be edited by anyone & even those editing in good faith make mistakes. WP:Bio violation and vanity pages refers. (aeropagitica) 15:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ruby. Stifle 00:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usari Delacrioux

I can find no evidence that the article is anything but a hoax. Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article states "Delacrioux is largely unknown and according to Whitaker his desire is to remain anonymous". Let's not disappoint Delacrioux. Ruby 15:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: unverifiable, probable hoax. --Muchness 18:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fine delete it. Im sick of working on it and I no longer care. --Comix2000 22:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, unverifiable. Stifle 00:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable. incog 19:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M. Benjamin Levi, Benjamin Levi, Benji & Jessy & Freedom in Christ & Benjamin Levi Moses

Non-notable person, as per WP:Bio. Article created by subject, guidelines on vanity refers. Text also poorly-written and confuses the individual with the organisation that he claims to represent. (aeropagitica) 14:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is named for the pastor of a religious group that has no outstanding achievements, other than faithful service to God's children. Jesus doesn't want his servants tooting their own horn. Ruby 15:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Freedom in Christ Foundation gets zero Google hits. No indication exists that this is a real organization, much less a notable one.Nortonew 15:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Nortonew. (I just added Benjamin Levi Moses to the list). Kusma (討論) 15:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And I redirected the rest of the author's identical creations to Benjamin Levi Moses. To the closing admin: please delete these redirects as well. Kusma (討論) 15:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ygre

Non-notable and originally a subtle vanity page. See oldest version. Rmhermen 14:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per article ("Currently, only a few persons in Norway and elsewhere around the world have this last name") Ruby 15:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Several other surnames have Wiki-articles. There is also a town named Ygre in Norway. Ygre gets 13,000 hits on Google, so there may even be some notable people with that last name. It may actually be a legitimate stub - needs a lot of work, however. The neutrality tag should be removed - currently, the article makes no statements that could be construed as biased. Nortonew 15:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it started as a vanity entry for Martin Ygre. Moreover, Ygre is not a town, but a tiny village. In Voss. Punkmorten 18:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Punkmorten. Stifle 00:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it essentially asserts its own non-notability, per Endomion. "It is regarded as one of the most prominent families" does assert significance, but is vague and unsourced. --Thunk 22:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. incog 18:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the artical even says that it's unimportant --T-rex 23:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armour Oversoul

Delete- It's just cruft, shouldn't be merged, just deleted.--Zxcvbnm 14:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Mangacruft. Ruby 15:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - maybe merge if anyone cares enough to do it. Giant Over Soul from the Category:Shaman King should probably be deleted or merged too. In fact, everything in that category should be looked at for a possible merge.--Nortonew 15:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Latinus 19:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Airlines

delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball mtz206 15:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concur with nominator. Ruby 15:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete especially in the airline industry, this may never happen --rogerd 15:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 16:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- While not a notable airline (actually not an airline at all yet) we should wait out and see what happens to it. It could be turned into a self explanatory article about why some paper airlines never make it to their first flight -Antonio Senior Pilot for Fake Airlines (hwehe, appropiate nickname!!) Martin 1:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 00:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom incog 19:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mushroom 02:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jane & barton

Incoherent article about indie band, containing some original research. Delete. Kusma (討論) 15:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The information about "Opus I" is incorrect, the band was "Opus III" and does not have a wikipedia article yet. The song "It's a Fine Day" was a notable 1993 Hi-NRG song, with many remixes and cover versions being produced even today, but it could get its own article later, and we can delete this one. Ruby 15:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as incoherent. In fact, make that an A7 speedy. Stifle 00:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda's table

Delete. I found this working on wikify tags. It just doesn't seem distinctive enough to merit an Encyclopaedia article since the description of its history just sounds like the fate of any other chat room site. Can anyone convince me otherwise? JGF Wilks 07:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, nn. Avalon 14:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per article's own claim of non-notability: "Amanda's Table once had a fair share of paying members and a regular clientele, but that crowd has all but disappeared, with only a few stalwarts remaining." Ruby 15:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ruby. Stifle 00:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Wright-Buckingham

This person is not notable. looks like vanity page--Light current 04:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no major contributions in her field, article only waves a hand and says her stuff is in a variety of collections. Ruby 15:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Citations, references, critical appraisal & notable works - all are missing, making this photographer non-notable. (aeropagitica) 16:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability asserted. Stifle 00:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omar R. Valdimarsson

I don't think being an honorary consul of El Salvador in Iceland is notable enough for an encyclopedia. Delete. Schutz 09:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination was removed and this page was blanked by User:Alesato (warned for vandalism). Schutz 15:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - honorary anything is not notable. King for a day. Ruby 15:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Osomec 18:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as basically non-notable. Stifle 00:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PCRevs

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A grand total of 23 hits on google, and not even on the Alexa radar. Ruby 15:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity and spam. SchmuckyTheCat 21:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity, spam, and etc. — TheKMan^talk 21:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Moved to Psychology/rewrite. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology (rewrite)

Page was created to allow Psychology article to be revised, this has now been done -- Paul foord 08:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Somebody's sandbox. Ruby 15:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect. If any of the article's content was merged with the main Psychology article, then the page's edit history needs to be retained in compliance with the GFDL. Extraordinary Machine 00:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a sandbox but we do need the redirect as it's likely some or all of its content was merged. Stifle 00:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheWorld2

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Here's a sample of the content of this website: "I started collecting DVD’s about 10 months ago, I’m quite proud of my collection (I spent a fortune) so I hope you enjoy my collection as much I do!" Ruby 15:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ruby -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 18:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ruby. Stifle 00:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mushroom 02:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Proletariats

nn band. Delete Schutz 16:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A candidate for {{db-band}}, perhaps? (aeropagitica) 16:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A local band with no recordings under their belt. Ruby 16:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as CSD:A7. Folks, if you vote for a speedy, please tag the page. Stifle 00:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

falls asleep

Not encyclopediac. We have wikt:fall asleep. Dangherous 16:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - inaccurate, your limbs "fall asleep" when a nerve is pinched. Ruby 16:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. But it's not inaccurate, pinching of nerves causes pain. The lack of sensation is caused by inadequate oxegenation to the nerve due to circulation interuption. Ifnord 19:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, wikipedia needs an article on the phenomenon of "temporary circulatory restriction causing numbness". Not sure what the right name is though. Kappa 07:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It already existed at paresthesia. I have expanded the transient paresthesia section to describe the phonomenon better. I note pins and needles redirects there, maybe this article should be a redirect as well. Ifnord 18:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thanks Ifnord, I think that takes care of it. No it shouldn't even be a redirect IMO, but a redirect is OK if wanted. Herostratus 19:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 deerstalker. Punkmorten 18:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deer stalker

Merge this page with Deerstalker. The author didn't check before creating the new article. (aeropagitica) 16:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you put it on AfD if its such a blatant merge? Obviously I agree, but it only needed a merge tag really.. Jdcooper 16:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: I am the original author and will do the merge and redirect. Sorry! - Rorybowman 16:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get this speedy merged/taken off AfD or something?Jdcooper 16:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as the nominator's intention was a redirect. Redirect created. Stifle 00:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passed pawns (chess)

More complete article containg all the information exists at Passed pawn. Delete and redirect to Passed pawn —ERcheck @ 16:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per nomination. —ERcheck @ 16:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: just to clarify, the redirect should be to Passed pawn, not Passed pawns as suggested above, since Passed pawns is itself a redirect. I don't think there was any real need to bring this to AfD. The text of Passed pawns (chess) could simply have been replaced by the redirect. AndyJones 16:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank ... corrected the second mention in the nomination. —ERcheck @ 21:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per nom.-- 9cds^(talk) 23:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as appropriate, no need for an AFD. Kappa 07:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly redirected. Stifle 00:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boxcar Betty

Unsourced, created by vandal and only edited by vandal and sock puppet (except for the editor who added the {{unreferenced}} tag. If verifiably hoax, speedy delete (as nonsense), otherwise delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Boxcar Betty was a real person and marginally notable, but there is very little source material to be found to actually make an article. She is the subject of a song by David Rovics, but a Google search for her excluding his album ("Boxcar Betty" -rovics IWW) turns up one or two hits. Mike Dillon 16:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - article needs cleanup and some attempt at organizing the sources that do exist, but it should probably be kept. I'm not sure whether the article should be about the "amalgamated character" or the IWW organizer, but it should probably mention that there was not just one person named that. Mike Dillon 15:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Needs better sourcing. The hobo seems to exist [16] but is this the same person as the IWW organiser? One wouldn't expect much material on a hobo but there's a picture of her at hobos.com and the story of the cat suggests she lives in folklore. Dlyons493 Talk 16:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There were actually several people, homeless, hobos, etc. during the depression who got the name Boxcar Betty. The best known was the one referenced in this article. It will be hard to find anything to verify it. Crunch 16:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete in accord with Crunch's argument. Ruby 17:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep She does indeed live in folklore. Apart from already mentioned stuff, especially http://www.film.queensu.ca/CBC/L.html, I've managed to find references on her in "Joe Hill" by Wallace Stegner, "Silent Dreams" by Dandi Daley MacKall and "Part of Our Time: Some Ruins and Monuments of the Thirties" by Murray Kempton (see Amazon). In order to make it more appropriate, I’ve put "legendary organizer" (rather than mythical, for she probably existed). Also, I added the part from http://www.thevalkyrie.com/stories/misc2/boxcar.txt "her name itself has become synonomous with rollicking, rough and tumble adventure". I've also mentioned Reitman's "Sister of the Road" on Boxcar Bertha, who, apart from being a fictionalized amalgam, was a Wobbly (see http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/nudge/joe_murphy.html for instance), which points out to the interchangeability of the two names (at least in popular accounts such as Rovics's song).

It's hard to find many references for an uneducated hobo (probably illiterate), she's primarily a part of oral storytelling.

As David Rovics mentions at http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Backstage/1472/rovics.html: I feel like there is a hidden history in most of my songs; a history that probably less than 1% of American society is really familiar with (that is, those that read the alternative press). Very few people know about David Chain, or Judi Bari, or Boxcar Betty, or the many examples from labor history represented in "Glory and fame," or the fact that Ford built tanks for the nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.70.213 (talk • contribs)

Keep, real part of folklore immortalized in song. Kappa 07:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree keep, but try to determine if the person is based on folklore or reality.216.174.52.253 16:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was the one who originally reported the author on WP:AIV because he had linked to Boxcar Betty and Industrial Workers of the World from dozens of slightly relevant and some totally irrelevant articles. I don't actually think he is a vandal, just an overzealous editor who wasn't thinking enough about whether those links were appropriate in context. (the author is a guy named Dan at 82.35.70.213, also registered as User:Njeznirevolucionar) Mike Dillon 16:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as unverifiable. Stifle 00:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think existence in folklore, literature and music have already been verified, the question whether it was a real figure or a mix of various experiences (although it is highly probable that this person indeed existed) is secondary to its symbolic value, and is so characterised in the article itself (the prefix "legendary" and so on). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.70.213 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mail Order Brides

Advertising non-notable company. (aeropagitica) 16:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - there is an entry for Mail-order bride already

Redirect to Mail-order bride Crunch 16:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Add the website in this article to the list in Mail-order bride and we're done. Ruby 17:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Crunch -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 18:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Crunch Calicore 08:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Crunch. Ø tVaughn05 ^talk_contribs 12:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus keep Marskell 13:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four Seasons Of Love

Article is about a Donna Summer song; the entire text is copied from an Amazon.com review which can be found here. I considered cleaning the article up rather than recommending it for deletion, but personally feel that most albums—this being a prime example—are non-notable on their own. - squibix 16:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - And clean up. I myself have transfered a review I wrote on Amazon to a Wikipedia article. Ruby 17:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also WP:NOR and WP:V. Melchoir 18:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Donna Summer EP. Kappa 07:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 00:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't like it, but there are tons of articles about individual albums on WP, and Donna Summer is well known. I'll clean it up just a bit, since I'm voting to keep. --Thunk 22:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 after several people verified it was a hoax. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hummingbird (TV)

More nonsense from Paulo Fontaine (talk · contribs) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A polaroid of some guy is the best publicity photo for this alleged TV show? Ruby 16:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 17:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. --Muchness 17:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you suspect something is a hoax, please tag it as such - very important I think! Otherwise we ~~are knowingly~~ risk giving out false information without disclaimer. --kingboyk 18:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC) edit --kingboyk 19:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can we be "knowingly" doing something if we only "suspect" something? Ruby 18:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you 'know' what I mean, or at least 'suspect' my meaning! --kingboyk 19:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it's very important, and thanks for bringing the hoax template to my attention. I'll be sure to use it in future. --Muchness 19:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, thank you. --kingboyk 19:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing at IMDb. Nothing at The Great Canadian Guide to the Movies & TV. Plus, as a Canadian who was in my late teens and early 20s during the suggested time frame, I'd remember it if it existed. I suppose it's remotely possible that it did exist somewhere else in the world and the Wikipedia editor wrongly characterized it as Canadian...but with no IMDb entry and no Google hits, that's extremely unlikely. Delete as hoax unless somebody can prove otherwise. Bearcat 22:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. Stifle 00:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely hoax. An inconsistency: the image of Lee Farrant (?) suggests he was Hummingbird, whereas the text states that the character was portrayed by Simon Woodroffe. Mind matrix 16:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above James084 16:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 21 in baseball

Delete all articles in Category:Dates in baseball while I seriously admire the hard work that's going into these pages, I don't see baseball history by date as notable or useful. Merge whatever info can be merged into the Years in baseball articles. --Revolución (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lest we be inundated with articles like "Famous Tuesdays In Hockey" Ruby 17:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A harmless set of articles. Osomec 18:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a toughie, but I'll say keep. Baseball dates are very notable and useful, although "Dates in baseball" is much less useful than "years in baseball." Grandmasterka 20:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grandmasterka, Useful list --Jaranda wat's sup 20:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep While baseball history may not be very popular outside the U.S. and Latin-America, it still has a following of thousands. This cat. with its' articles serves as an excellent source for both the baseball historian and common fan. Tony the Marine 22:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we can afford 365 such entries. They seem well maintained. Punkmorten 22:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE quickly as per nomination! Jcuk 22:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if only because Baseball is followed almost as closely as religion in the States. Antonio Boxing knocks baseball out Martin
Keep per Punkmorten. Crunch 23:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The baseball season runs March to October? VERY little of note has ever happened on Janurary 21. Perhaps a random trade? Page has no use. I can support most of these during the cours eof the season, but not a random day in January. Phantasmo 01:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Punkmorten. Nothing wrong with this page. --W.marsh 03:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good article, no point destroying it. Kappa 07:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Serves a purpose, for all of them to be here, as baseball history, no matter the date, is interesting to manyXalfor 10:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, interesting factoids that I'm sure others find interesting. --CFIF 22:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please read Phantasmo's comment, everyone. --Revolución (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not WikiBaseball. Stifle 00:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important things happen in the off season as well. No Guru 00:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting and informative. -Colin Kimbrell 16:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Punkmorten. jareha 17:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. On the one hand, it'd be a shame to just throw away all this good work. And it's harmless, and well maintained. On the other hand, its not really encyclopedic to maintain this info in this way. It's not trivial information, but it's trivial when organized by date. How is this going to help a researcher? It's just factoids of stuff that happened in random years, that happened to be on the same date. Fine for reading with your breakfast cereal but is that what an encyclopedia is for? Should be reorganized by year. Herostratus 19:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, harmless, 365 pages won't kill you. -- Jake 00:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not very important, but it is harmless, isn't it?FlamesRule
Keep, while I don't often contribute to these articles, I certainly appreciate those that do. This is definitely encyclopedic information. TrafficBenBoy 03:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glucometers

Full article already exists - Glucose meter, which as a redirect from Glucometer. —ERcheck @ 17:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect - Per nomination - all information is already contained in existing article. —ERcheck @ 17:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Added "redirect" to my vote. —ERcheck @ 14:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect - You have my permission. Ruby 17:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Not sure what Endomion menas, article author is Midgley (talk · contribs). - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I left a message on Midgley's talk page. —ERcheck @ 14:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate a redirect. Stifle 00:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that's fine, I really just moved the material _out_ of Diabetes article. (so I'm not really the author of it, whoever in the history of Diabetes page added it is ) redirect away.Midgley 15:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. THIS DEFAULTS TO KEEP; DO NOT CITE THIS ALONE AS A REASON TO SUPPORT/OPPOSE A MERGE/REDIRECT/WHATEVER. Johnleemk | Talk 15:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Huttleston Rogers Coe

Delete - One of the "Coe Family" series of articles on Wikipedia, this is a biography/obituary for a Navy veteran, his most significant claim to notability is when he turned Buffalo Bill's tepee into a resort Ruby 17:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stifle 00:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh keep. The Pahaska Teepee thing verifies and the Buffalo Bill connection is part of the folklore of the West. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mushroom 22:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonomus Gangsta

Google turns up nothing. He doesn't have any records/songs/raps out. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Unless he is some amazing hidden underground phenomenon then this can go. Broken S 17:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - barely qualifies as a stub. No means to verify the article's claims. Ruby 18:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non-notable. --Quintin3265 18:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete NN Obli (Talk) 20:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Roever

NN minister, associated non-profits combine for less than 400 relevant Ghits MNewnham 18:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No books specified, no television shows specified, no radio ministry, only a few appearances on TBN. Claims to reach public school students, which would generate a big Church-State stink and have Google hits. As Hal would say, "Sorry Dave, I can't do that." Ruby 18:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although I'm not personally impressed with this guy, the Roever Evangelistic Association seems to be a real organization that has existed for over 20 years and has real assets, (Net Assets: $647,019 according to http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.summary/orgid/5870.htm). The article needs to be edited to be NPOV. Statements like "His survival and life are miraculous" have to go. Also, although his organization sends out speakers, it is debatable if they are "quality speakers". I have to hold my nose and vote for keep. - Nortonew 19:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete full of redlinks, advert, unreferenced. Stifle 00:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Endomion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cailolas

Doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP or any other standards of verifiability that I know of. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's just an ad for a restaurant that doesn't even mention winning awards. Ruby 18:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Totally non-notable. Nortonew 19:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Yellowikis and suggest the author submit to Wikitravel. Stifle 00:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: THIS DEFAULTS TO KEEP; DO NOT CITE THIS ALONE AS A REASON TO SUPPORT/OPPOSE A MERGE/REDIRECT/WHATEVER. On another note, will those who suggested a cleanup please do this themselves? Johnleemk | Talk 15:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astrological transit

Essay treating astrology as a fact, ending "Please write here your experiences with transits". WP:NOR as well as WP:NOT a web forum. Delete Kusma (討論) 18:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Irredeemably non-encyclopedic. Ruby 18:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might have some value if cleaned up and placed in context of astrology. (aeropagitica) 18:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Definitely has some value. Needs to be cleaned up a lot to make it more objective. The "Please write here your experiences with transits" part is totally insipid and has to go. This subject is totally valid as an occult related subject. - Nortonew 19:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A totally unencyclopedic and POV chunk of original research. Alternatively, redirect to Astrology. MCB 03:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rephrase for neutrality and put in context. "In astrology, it is believed that..." We document all sorts of less-common religious beliefs, why should this sort of thing be any different? -- Jake 00:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nashtar Suri

Mr. Suri does not seem to meet WP:BIO. He does seem to be active on his college campus, and may well show up in Wikipedia in the future, but I don't see anything in this article, or in my research, that justifies the entry at present. Joyous | Talk 18:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Students are not notable, even the research of undergraduate students is attributed to their professors. Ruby 18:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I too agree with Joyous. --Bhadani 12:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect as per Mbsp. Johnleemk | Talk 15:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oracle class

Fancruft. NN and poorly written as well. Rmhermen 18:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the appropriate game. I don't know anything about games. Ruby 18:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge with Final Fantasy Nortonew 18:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete w/out merge: content is covered adequately at Final Fantasy Tactics. Marblespire 22:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then create a redirect to Final Fantasy, to discourage recreation. Stifle 00:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If redir happens, recommend targeting FFT instead; "Oracle" job class has not appeared in any other game (by that name, at least). ~Mbsp.

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Grimwade

Delete. Apparently a vanity page, created by a user name "Grimwade". JGF Wilks 18:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Keep - many accomplishments, most notable in my mind is giving the ocean-front land to the state to create Coorong National Park. Ruby 18:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VAIN, tagged article {{PotentialVanity}} -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 18:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Many accomplishments, including being an author. Apparently he was also involved in a case that went before the Supreme Court of Australia, (although that isn't mentioned in the article). He got 141 hits on Google. Seems to be a notable person. Article needs to be cleaned up a bit. - Nortonew 18:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Desperately in need of cleanup and verification, but the bits I've been able to casually confirm are enough to establish notability. -Colin Kimbrell 17:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oooooh. This one's mine. Keep keep keep. Sir Andrew, it appears, was convicted on nineteen counts of fraud and conspiracy in something involving an entity called Jetcorp in, I think, 1995. He got off on appeal, on a technicality. But he did it. But I think that definitely makes him notable Now, I'm quite certain that (a) The article can be rewritten to highlight and emphasize the most notable aspects of his career, and (b) the article creator, esteemed editor User:Grimwade, will -- being of course dedicated, like all Wikipedia editors, to the unvarnished truth -- doubtless be both surprised and delighted to find this case the centerpiece of the article -- this giving him exactly what he was asking for. Everybody's happy! Herostratus 20:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Danny per CSD:A8 copyvio. Stifle 00:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deep intense

Author contested a db-bio, so I'm bringing it here. The article is an ad for a website with an Alexa rank of 3,910,750. Better yet, the author claims copyright over the description and "all rights reserved". Delete. Melchoir 18:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Vanispamcruftisement, and I'm sure the more legally minded editors will say that the copyright business means that the text can't go on Wikipedia under the GFDL. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 18:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since the article claims that Deep Intense "is many things", maybe this should just be turned into a disambiguation page, hehe. Actually, it just sounds like an advertisement for their website more than anything of substance. - Nortonew 19:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyright violation. Ruby 19:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Brotherhood of Magicians

Page is an advertisement for the organization. Dave 18:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - large, international, professional organization. 92,000 hits on Google!! Definitely notable. Needs to be edited to remove the advertisement-like parts. - Nortonew 18:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's not notable. I'm just saying that there's only a promo in the article space, and it should be deleted until somebody's written an article about it. Dave 19:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable organization. Ruby 19:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has some notability. - Latinus 19:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a notable organization. I did some minor cleanup on the article to help alleviate the POV issues. Crunch 21:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - if an article's a mess, but verifiable you clean it up for pity's sake, not bring it to AfD! Jcuk 22:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep TestPilot 01:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for all of the above reasons. If it comes off sounding like an ad, then be bold and revise the article. 23skidoo 02:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, please take them seriously --maclean25 05:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a well-known and prestigious organization. magic.about.com[17] confirms that they're one of the oldest and largest groups in the US. Elonka 19:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unaccompanied minors

WP is not a crystal ball. (aeropagitica) 18:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a movie is definitely not notable before it even exists. - Nortonew 19:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No info about the studio, director, screenplay writer, actors, etc. Possible hoax. Ruby 19:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kusma (討論) 19:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitography

Self-referential protologism. Not worth moving to Wikipedia: -- RHaworth 19:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sure people take pictures for WP but this isn't yet a full-blown movement requiring a portmanteau like Wikistress. Ruby 19:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ASR. Stifle 00:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Google does not turn up the term except in reference to the [Wikitography] web site, a Wiki about photography which I operate, and which at least at this point does not warrant a Wikipedia article yet either. --Clubjuggle 18:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as worthless protologism. incog 18:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article was intended to encourage anyone with a digital camera to help build an aspect of Wikipedia that is lacking. The origional author as well as myself feel that if more people copyleft photography, or realease it directly to public domain, that Wikipedia articles will be improved by the addition of pictures. Linuxdan 01:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it should be reclassified as 'slang.' The google argument is sound, but I've heard the term used as slang, hence my position. Narphlan 05:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writers beware

Non encyclopædic authorcruft, original thought (aeropagitica) 19:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. –Sommers ^(Talk) 19:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Its not even a real subject, its just a statement. - Nortonew 19:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisement, opinion, non-encyclopedic? Captain Jackson 19:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This belongs in Wikibooks somewhere. Ruby 19:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Latinus 19:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crap. incog 18:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why other peace theories are wrong

This page was originally located under the title Democratic peace theory (Correlation is not causation). This was done largely by User:Ultramarine. User:Pmanderson inisits that this was a POV fork of Ultramarines and has edited the original DPT page to make such a sub-article uncessary. He has then mvoed the article to this title to prove a point. Basicially, it as the bastard child of an ongoing battle between two editors who refuse to compromise with each other, and who the arbitration committee failed to deal with. Delete it and let them have their petty arguments elsewhere. Robdurbar 19:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to User space I believe the page contains Ultramarine's original arguments to advocate his PoV, which is that one particular class of peace theory is cpmpletely correct, and others are simply wrong. I have so tagged it. But the article Democratic peace theory does not contain those arguments, and they may be useful as raw material for other articles on the thoeries concerned. Septentrionalis 22:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not refuse to compromise; I would if offered one. Septentrionalis 22:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork. It's actually a nice piece of writing, but it's irredeemably POV, and unencyclopedic.
Delete, POV fork. R adiant_>|< 23:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV fork and original research. Stifle 00:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV. incog 18:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to user subpage Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis I Brown

Article claims to be about a 25-year-old billionaire up and coming Republican economic-historian/political commentator. Sounds highly implausible and google gives 39 hits[18], none of which support the claims in the article. Delete as a hoax. AJR | Talk 19:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably a hoax. If it turns out he really is up and coming, we can make an article about him when he becomes famous. Edrigu 21:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they got his age wrong.

Delete as probable hoax and unreferenced anyway. Stifle 00:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramakrishna Puram

Delete Clearly Irrelavant Article Noting that this is only a small sector of a huge city. Allowing this article would set a precedent that provoke articles talking about gated communities etc. Also let us note the fact that this "area" is a sub-divison of the city of Delhi, noting that Delhi Public School is infact a Private institution and has no affiliation with the city of Delhi. It is noted that the school is only in the City of Delhi. Also note that this University is in the city of delhi. The map confirms that R.K. Puram is only a residential complex in the city. Abhishekpradhan 00:09, 23 January 2006. (UTC)
Strong keep Verifiable and apparently large district which contains a university [19]. Nominator am I missing something here? Dlyons493 Talk 20:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Unclear what this area is. Is it just a neighborhood? Google does not reveal much and the main web site for the linked universities don't mention this place. Crunch 00:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's difficult to work out from Google just how big an area is involved here. It does include a notable school Delhi_Public_School, several other schools and Shastri Market slum so appears to be big. Also is marked on Delhi maps e.g.Road Distance Guide from Nehru Place To International Airport OTOH I now suspect there's only a test centre of the University here. There's a map of sorts at [20]. Googling for the abbreviation "R. K. Puram" gives more hits than for the full name. I'd really like some input from someone who knows Delhi. The nominator has few edits and I wonder if he will expand on his reasoning? Dlyons493 Talk 03:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, area big enough to contain more than one school. Kappa
Strong Keep: It is bigger than many big villages and small towns, and is also called R. K. Puram, which gets at least 65,000 google hits [21]. --Bhadani 12:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and move to R. K. Puram, the more common name. --Gurubrahma 05:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It just needs some more stuff! and to Gurubrahma, I have redirected the R. K. Puram to the Ramakrishna Puram page. I hope that solves your problem!
per Bhadani.-- Rohit 18:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mushroom 23:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mugglecast Fan

Non-encyclopædic list of people who listen to a podcast. (aeropagitica) 19:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as complete crap -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity hoax. Tagged as nn-group. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. 03:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Adult Swim F

Asserts that it's a 'huge fansite', but does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web site directory. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable, see WP:WEB also. Stifle 00:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn fancruft incog 01:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Rummel is always right

Another result of an ongoing edit war between User:Pmanderson and User:Ultramarine. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why other peace theories are wrong for more. Delete Robdurbar 19:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does not belong in article space, but Move to user space. See comments at other AfD; this contains claims, which I believe false, but which do not appear elsewhere in article space. It will be useful for future editors of R. J. Rummel Septentrionalis 22:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and with reference to the other article. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN this inherent POV. R adiant_>|< 23:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:POINT among other things. Blatant POV. Stifle 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please note article was originally titled Democratic peace theory (Specific historic examples) and renamed by Pmanderson|Septentrionalis to give it a POV name and lead to its deletion. --Salix alba (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I oppose its deletion, as above. But I do believe the present name descriptive of its contents. Septentrionalis 00:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV. incog 18:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Do not bother to salvage its contents; the present name is indeed descriptive of the contents. 172 11:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blonde English Girl - U.K. News Links

Appears to be a non-notable website. Alexa ranks it not in the top 100,000. David | Talk 19:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. does, indeed, fail WP:WEB.
Delete nn --kingboyk 20:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stifle 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Workitis

The article is comprised of original research and is about a neologism. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unverified neologism. --Hurricane111 20:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I thought it'd mean the opposite, myself. -- 9cds^(talk) 23:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made up nonsense. incog 18:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VarsityWorld.com

Fails to establish notability, and seems to fail WP:WEB. Has been {{notability}} tagged since the start of January. Alexa ranking of 112,359 [22]. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No media coverage, though Parent site VarsityTV has a "Hanover Herald" article and better Alexa rating. YASNS. --Perfecto 16:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn incog 19:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, VanityWorld. Ashibaka tock 00:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ub3rcon

The website this article is about fails WP:WEB, has an Alexa rank of 1,660,295, and the title has only 149 google hits[23]. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable website. Edrigu 21:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. Stifle 00:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mushroom 22:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durandal (Gundam Seed)

Patent nonsense, no more and no less. Hydriotaphia 19:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as patent nonsense, article tagged as such -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: THIS DEFAULTS TO KEEP. DO NOT CITE THIS ALONE AS A REASON TO SUPPORT/OPPOSE A MERGE/REDIRECT/WHATEVER. Johnleemk | Talk 15:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator 4

This was deleted in a previous AFD. After recreation somebody put an AFD tag, but it pointed to a closed discussion. So I'm just fixing this. It will require an admin to tell if this is a repost of the original content, but for now I'll assume that it's original, based on the fact the old content was described as an attack page, but this does not look like an attack page. No vote. Rob 23:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete: until I see a probably release date, or an article in a newspaper about the movie, it is all just speculation. Calwatch 05:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have read the screenplay for Terminator 4 is complete and Jonathan Mostow will be directing it. I think this page should stay. RO 13:09 23 January 2006

Note that there was a previous second nomination which seems to have ended in no consensus - but the article seems to have been deleted later anyway? See also Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Terminator 4. — sjorford (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. If someone will quit adding speculative or dubious information to the page. The Wookieepedian 23:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless actual confirmation is made. Announcement by the studio means nothing until the film enters pre-production. -Sean Curtin 02:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep. I think that Terminator 4 would get people talking about what they expect, and why link to it in the Terminator section if it isn't going to happen? I say either keep this or delete all references to Terminator 4. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ID4EVER (talk • contribs) .

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep - nomination was based on a misunderstanding. Kusma (討論) 00:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Czech (disambiguation)

This is simply a redirect page to "Czech", which is itself a disambiguation page SkerHawx 20:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, this should (a) be at RfD and (b) it is a useful redirect. The purpose is that it allows you to intentionally link to the disambiguation page Czech. This is used by the people at WP:DPL to distinguish accidental from intentional linking. Kusma (討論) 20:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't someone just link directly to the "Czech" page instead of purposely linking to "Czech (disambiguation)" to get to "Czech"? Forgive my ignorance if I'm not understanding the process... SkerHawx 20:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually we don't want people to link to "Czech". However, a page talking about the ambiguity of Czech (for example a list of disambiguation pages) should possibly point to this page. Linking through the redirect makes that intent explicit. See also Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Generic_topic. Kusma (討論) 21:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that helps. Thanks for the link. SkerHawx 22:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims 3

Unsourced speculation. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Delete. Kusma (討論) 19:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - speculation. --Hurricane111 20:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete love the article It will be more advanced.. Well duh. Tokakeke 21:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or ...expand? As it is, though, delete it.. 64.30.14.50 04:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to user... --MaoJin 16:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because I have updated it to be a real article, including some sourced information. -- Melissa Della 16:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't see how this is more than speculation of some website, based on two words on other company websites. All that can be verified now is that rumors exist (and they don't seem to be notable, important rumors yet). Kusma (討論) 19:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - As an industry watcher, the listing publicly that they are working on TS3 means that the game is definitely in early production even if EA has not released a press statement yet. If the consensus is to delete, I'm fine with that, because I know the article will be back the moment further information is released. I just don't see what the need is to delete in the meantime. Simple as that. -- Melissa Della 07:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was userfy. Johnleemk | Talk 15:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niraj Bhawnani

Vanity. Only claim to notability is being the first and only person in Thailand to pass the Zend Certified Engineer exam. Hurricane111 20:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, or userfy. MCB 04:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All the best to him, but as of now he does not meet WP:BIO. Userfy shall be Ok. --Bhadani 13:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy vanity page. Stifle 00:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Shanel 00:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 Kids & A Goat line

Delete: Non-notable--Zxcvbnm 20:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Patent nonsense Tokakeke 21:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G1 patent nonsense or A1 no context. Stifle 00:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - disambiguation pages are obviously not deleted simply because nothing links to them at present. — sjorford (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Czech

all main articles linked to this page have been disambiguated SkerHawx 20:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, people will link to the page again. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance for the amount of incoming links this page has had at different times. Kusma (討論) 20:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, frivolous nomination.Hektor 20:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It doesn't matter if the links ahve been disambiguated, people will search for, and and link to this term, so it's a useful page. Crunch 21:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is see the word used very often and usually in wrong sense and this disambig will help. Pavel Vozenilek 21:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Punkmorten 21:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Street

A normal road with no claim to notabily, WP:NOT a road atlas Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 20:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Edrigu 21:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Jane and Finch. MCB 04:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedents. Individual streets aren't notable. Stifle 00:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, is this the Toronto's version of Wilshire Boulevard or Michigan Avenue? The author needs to justify its status in Torontoans minds. No vote. Calwatch 05:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per MCB. --King of All the Franks 05:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; looks like a "notable" enough road. Another non-sequitur nomination from Aranda56. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 11:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No objection to a redirect. --maclean25 15:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How now brown cow

One sentence article could be expanded but it's not really notable. Google turns up under 100 000 hits - and not all are actually related to the article's context. Oh, looks like the one sentence is from this site. Note, it did come up in the movie, Anchorman. Mrtea (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence teaching methods aren't encyclopedic. Delete. Tokakeke 21:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and try to expand a little. It is something of a catchphrase in English and as such deserves a bit of explanation as other catchphrases have articles. I personally didn't realize it was intended to teach vowel sounds until I read the article just now. 23skidoo 02:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, hopefully someone will add the IPA symbols for the desired enunciation. Kappa 07:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but with Kappa's suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calicore (talk • contribs)
Delete, Look at the Google search. Barely any of the hits are actually about elocution teaching. And I'm not sure how the IPA symbols will make the phrase any more significant. Mrtea (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 23skidoo. Essexmutant 11:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Elocution, doesnt merit its own article :: Supergolden 16:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per 23skidoo Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was move to the singular phosphorene. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phosphorenes

Delete Non-verifiable, only one mention in a med journal and that page is copied word for word from here. RBlowes 20:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep You can check notability using Google. TestPilot 02:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Phosphorene as per general naming principles, and keep but tag as needy of expert attention. "Phospherene" seems to be a valid term for a substance in chemistry if Google isn't deceiving me. What the link between that substance and the optical effect is, I have no idea. Lukas 19:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per TestPilot. Englishrose 20:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mamasayssing

Essay about the username of an "artist and writer" named "Alida Cornelius." Google gets a few hits, all to petitions and message boards as far as I can tell. If she is a published author, she has nothing listed on Amazon.com. Appears to be, thus, vanity article on non-notable Fuhghettaboutit 20:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; nn-bio/vanity. MCB 04:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity page. Stifle 00:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it should be under Alida Cornelius anyway :: Supergolden 16:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: See WP:NOT. --HeteroZellous 08:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus) but I think some of the info in this AFD debate needs to be merged with the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoots mon

Hoots Mon is a song by Bad Manners; on the other hand it is also a popular Scottish expression (so a redirect to Bad Manners is inappropriate). It is a minor song, so does not justify a separate article, and the claim that it is associated with a Wine Gums advert is, as far as I can tell, complete bollocks - as you would expect, given that the article's creator is Paulo Fontaine (talk · contribs). Because the song is genuine, I did not simply delete it; over to you. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was used in the Wine Gums advert about 15 years ago ("Hoots mon, there's a moose loose aboot this hoose"). The song is, however, not notable. Take any information and put in Bad Manners, then delete. David | Talk 20:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The song was featured in the commercial, but not the Bad Manners version. Lord Rockingham's XI sang the version that featured in the advert. And even then, I think the words were changed to "there's joose loose aboot this hoose" due to the juicy nature of the confecionary in question. Barbara Osgood
Keep, song featured in notable advertising campaign reaching millions of listeners. Kappa 07:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find a reliable source for that, and the person who inserted the claim is a prolific hoaxer. I don't doubt David's word above, but some kind of corroborative evidence would be good (I am one of the millions who supposedly heard this ad, and I'm stuffed if I can remember it). Also, even if it were, this is still a stub; merge and redirect and include in Bad Manners would make more sense, I think. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence here and here (if I've linked it correctly...) And with luck you can even see the actual ad here... Barbara Osgood 19:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'hoots mon' is only a 'popular Scottish expression' in the same way that 'Cor, strewth' is a popular Australian saying, or 'Ja Vol Mein Fuhrer!' is a popular German saying :: Supergolden 16:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well known expression, and the Lord Rockingham's XI piece is part of rock history. That's before we take into account the Bad Manners version and the advertising campaign. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 21:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy

Hoax, created by vandal Sunfazer (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Previously (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy) speedily deleted. Kusma (討論) 20:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, previously deleted / CSD G4 --Muchness 21:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of albums whose name is not a song on the album

Will be huge if complete, and useless. If the information is interesting to anybody, a category would work better. Delete. Kusma (討論) 20:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Muchness 21:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless. Punkmorten 21:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hopeless listcruft. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless lists like this give 23skidoo a headache. 23skidoo 02:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as preposterous listcruft. There was a huge run of these a few months ago, and then it died down, but I guess it's back. MCB 04:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh my word. By a quick survey of my own collection, that would be well over half of all albums ever issued. Yikes. --kingboyk 13:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I remember voting to delete the complement of this list last month. As it stands, it is a list created just for the sake of having a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 00:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as impossible to complete and no apparent purpose. Essexmutant 11:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. Would cover 50%+ of all albums. Herostratus 17:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy loozerz

Non-notable website, spam. --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 21:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree J.J.Sagnella
Agree Wtwilson3 22:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete non-notable group. --Hansnesse 06:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WEB. Stifle 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Regarding the "don't delete" vote, see WP:WEB for guidelines, gaming websites, like others, usually need to be large or significant in some other way to be considered a valid topic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda's Secret Ocarina

No evidence of meeting WP:WEB website verifiability/inclusion guidelines. --W.marsh 21:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Alexa rank 440,561. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I added some vertification? What else do you need? --HarroSIN 21:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Some proof that the site approaches the numbers set forth in WP:WEB, or at least some notable "accomplishments" or "controversies" that are not more suitably covered in some other articles. Take the arwing hack, for example - it's already covered in Arwing article in much better form. Do we really need a "these people did it" article? That's not right form, in my opinion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 02:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Section/footnote/externallink-worthy in some larger articles, but certainly not worthy of an article of its own - few game websites generally are. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 02:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as barely notable website. Stifle 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. incog 18:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete, meaning if you delete this page due to it being a "gaming website", you'll have to take other entries (GameFAQs, GameSpot, GameSPY, ect...) with it (if they are also "gaming websites", like it says in their descriptions. I think you people should get your facts straight first).--HarroSIN 03:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete as a POV fork. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Testimony_of_the_witnesses_to_the_assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy

Delete This page is little more than a copy of a consiracy webpage that slants the Dealy Plaza eyewitness testimony towards the grassy knoll shot origin POV. It's basically propaganda Mytwocents 21:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But what website is it? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV essay, original research. MCB 04:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's been a dumping ground for conspiracy nonsense; better to start from scratch. Gamaliel 05:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The article should be kept. - RPJ 22:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a POV fork. Stifle 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RPJ

There appear to be a large number of man hours spent developing the start of a comprehensive list of eyewitnesses. Some contributors seem to disagree with the summaries provided of the witnesses’ testimony. There certainly isn’t anything unusual about that.

What the contributor should do if he or she does not agree with the summary, is merely prepare a corrected one. Doing witness summaries are done every day. Its time consuming –but not technically beyond the ability of the average reader without paralegal training in summarizing testimony.

The answer is not to remove the work that has already been done, even if it is imperfect. Is someone suggesting that a comprehensive list of the JFK witnesses is not a good idea. With the constant stream of information coming out of the documents found under the JFK Records Act, this would be a great resource for researchers and students alike.

The references for the testimony needs supplied. This is an absolute requirement. Otherwise how can one check the summary.

__________________________________

No good reasons are given for deleting

The neutrality of this article is disputed because:

1. After the first paragraph, this article is all grassy knoll POV.

This isn’t a very specific criticism. May be some one summarized the witnesses that testified about the shots from the grassy knoll. If there are other missing witnesses put them in. If the summaries are not accurate; improve the accuracy.

2. This article contains many errors of grammar and vocabulary mistakes, e.g., using "burrow" when "furrow" was meant.P0M 21:49, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Noted. Find the rest of the errors.. You can spell check by cut and paste through your computer’s spell checker. The same advice should be followed for grammatical errors.

3. Delete. It's been a dumping ground for conspiracy nonsense; better to start from scratch. Gamaliel 05:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This isn’t a very specific criticism. May be these are the witnesses that testified about the shots from the grassy knoll. If there are other missing witnesses put them in. If the summaries are not accurate; improve the accuracy.

"Delete" This page is little more than a copy of a consiracy webpage that slants the Dealy Plaza eyewitness testimony towards the grassy knoll shot origin POV. It's basically propaganda Mytwocents 21:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This isn’t a very specific criticism. May be these are the witnesses that testified about the shots from the grassy knoll. If there are other missing witnesses put them in. If the summaries are not accurate; improve the accuracy.

Delete appears to be a POV fork. Stifle 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to be a point of view fork. The number of witnesses is huge and cannot reasonably be included in the main article. This is is perfectly acceptable:

"Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article . . . "

This rule applies even if the subject is controversial:

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork."

No signs of POV forking have been established, such as repeated attempts to place information in the main article and having it repeatedly rejected by consensus. all that this article has at its core is a long list of witnesses with summaries of their statements. The rule is, just because one doen't agree with the content one shouldn't delete it but debate it and do some work on the article. Put some work at least in the explanation on why it should be deleted if not the article itself. RPJ 22:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Bold text[reply]

The entire article is grassy knoll based on the webpage that is linked on the main page Witnesses to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

The unknown website author breaks it down this way using their own criteria:

216 Witnesses 
--------------------
52 Knoll  

48 Depository  

5 Knoll & Depository 

4 Elsewhere 

37 Could Not Tell 

70 Not Asked

Well OK... Here's an example from a Dallas Deputy that pretty much sums up the value of the sound of the gunshots as a means to tell where the shots came from.

Roger Craig
OCCUPATION :Dallas Deputy Sheriff
LOCATION : Main & Houston
SOURCE OF SHOTS : Could Not Tell
NUMBER OF SHOTS : 3

DEPOSITION: April 1, 1964. 6H263

It was hard to tell because-uh-they had an echo you know. There was actually two explosions with each one. There was the-uh-the shot and then the echo from it. So, it was hard to tell."

So...... Here is eye-witness testimony, given under oath, before the Warren Commision. I will point out in particular the statements of Howard L. Brennan and the young Amos Lee Euins. They saw Oswald shoot his rifle at the presidents limosine from the TSBD.

I'll conclude with this quote from the WCR:

The cumulative evidence of eyewitnesses, firearms and ballistic experts and medical authorities demonstrated that the shots were fired from above and behind President Kennedy and Governor Connally, more particularly, from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. Mytwocents 04:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Mytwocents

The web site that is being criticized by "Mytwocents' has about the same percentage split between the witnesses as do the two researchers cited in the main JFK Assassination article (roughly 50-50).

The Warren Report was heavily criticized by the HSCA for not reviewing the medical records, did not try to make reasoned analysis of why the witnesses heard gunshots from different directions, nor even inquire into a conspiracy by two shooters. The Commission started off with the FBI conclusion there was one shooter, and the objective of the Commission was to convince the public that there was only one shooter and no conspiracy.

It is no wonder that so very few people believe the Warren Commission's conclusions.

The polls show only from 17% to 35% of the people believe the one shooter theory espoused by the Warren Commission.[24]

[25] [26]

In 1998, the Assassination Records Review Board issued this statement in footnote 17:

Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not restricted to ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and four of the seven members of the Warren Commission all articulated, if sometimes off the record, some level of skepticism about the Commission's basic findings.

[27]

Mytwocents should also realize that the fact that one shooter exists (even if known positively to be true) does not in any way preclude a second shooter.

The official statements of well over 40 witnesses that shots came from some where else besides the Book Depository should be looked at rather than dismissing them because someone else states that he doesn't seem to know where the shots came from. Using that logic, many prosecutors would likely lose perfectly good cases. He has plenty of witnesses, but defense counsel trots out a couple of witnesses that testify "I couldn't really tell you what I saw and heard", and on that basis the defendant goes free. Does tha make any sense?

This is the reason for assembling all of the witness statement, researcher can make up their own minds. For many years the Warren Commission kept much of its proceedings secret, and took its testimony in secret.

RPJ 01:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another good example of why witness testimony is important

The testimony of Deputy Craig cited by "Mytwocents" provides another good example why actual witness testimony is important; and the first step towards getting testimony all sorted out and analyzed is getting it summarized. This is an invaluable help. One should never stop at summary but it is a great place to start.

Deputy Roger Craig gave these statements:

On Nov 22, 1963 Roger Craig. was a Deputy Sheriff near the scene of the assassination . He was up looking for evidence near the railroad tracks right after the shooting. He talked to witnesses that saw two men together up on the sixth floor of the Book depository before the shooting and one had a rifle with a scope on it.

Then he was across the street from the grassy knoll about 15 minutes after the shooting and said “ I saw a light-colored station wagon, driving real slow, coming west on Elm Street from Houston. . . . And the driver was leaning to his right looking up the hill at [a] man running down.”

He said in a written statement the man was running “from the direction of the book depository, and jump into [the] station wagon driven by another man that drove away quickly.”

Deputy Craig testified: “I kept thinking about this subject that had run and got in the car. So, I called Captain Fritz' office and talked to one of his officers and--uh--told him what I had saw and give him a description of the man, asked him how it fit the man they had picked up as a suspect [Oswald]. And--uh--it was then they asked me to come up and look at him at Captain Fritz' office.”

Then Deputy Craig said in a written statement, that “later that afternoon I went to the City Hall and identified the suspect they had in custody as being the same person I saw running down this hill and get into the station wagon and leave the scene.” Then, while Deputy Craig was there identifying the man, Captain Fritz then asked "What about this station wagon?" and the suspect interrupted him and said, "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine"---I believe is what he said. "Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."

Captain Fritz then said “All we're trying to do is find out what happened, and this man saw you leave from the scene."

And the suspect again interrupted Captain Fritz and said, "I told you people I did.. Everybody will know who I am now."

Now for those who have read about Oswald know that Mrs. Paine is the very woman that Oswald’s wife was living with, and in whose garage Oswald allegedly stored his rifle.

This information seems to have collided with a favorite theory of the Warren Commission that Oswald made his get-away after assassinating the president by taking a bus and have some evidence they claim to have rounded up to thatt effect. The Warren Commission did not want to find an accomplice. So they tried to shake the deputy’s story which seems to be a useful tactic “Have you discussed with Sheriff Decker the fact that when Oswald was picked up they found a bus transfer in his pocket? Mr. CRAIG - No; I knew--uh nothing about a bus transfer.”

Then he is asked again if he was sure of his identification and tried to shake him again but again the deputy stuck to his story.

Mr. BELIN - Do you feel, in your own mind, that the man you saw at Captain Fritz's office was the same man that you saw running towards the station wagon? Mr. CRAIG - Yes, I feel like it was. Mr. BELIN - Do you feel that you might have been influenced by the fact that you knew he was the suspect---subconsciously, or do you---- Mr. CRAIG - Well, it's---it's possible, but I still feel strongly that it was the same person.

Now, at this point the reader must remember that the Warren Commission didn’t want any accomplice picking up Oswald when he was making a run for it. J. Edgar Hoover is on record wanting to convince the public that Oswald did this alone, and the Warren Commission’s objective was convince the public that there was no conspiracy. Hoover and a deputy attorney general drafted amemo to form the commission and said "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large." It is still a mystery why this should have been an objective.

Conclusion

This is why the testimony of all the witnesses should be available, indexed, summarized and otherwise made available to the public to historians, and importantly to criminal prosecutors. There may be murderers still running around that need to be arrested, tried and convicted of killing the president. There is no statute of limitations on murder.

RPJ 05:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allochthonous

dicdef that has already been copied to wiktionary-- Babajobu 21:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE as per my nom. Babajobu 21:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. MCB 04:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as already transwikied; this is also a copyvio. Stifle 01:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GirlChat

This can get ugly fast, so realize my nominating this is based only on the fact that I don't think it meets WP:WEB's guidelines for inclusion of an article about a website. The article does not assert that this website has been given non-trivial media coverage, and I can't find any evidence that it has been mentioned except in passing (e.g. [28]) --W.marsh 21:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems like every site Google brings up on this is a kiddie-porn site, and I don't need the FBI or the NSA kicking in my door, I'm voting delete on the basis that it is not verifiable. If it was more notable, I should be able to find more info on it some other way. Kafziel 21:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable? // paroxysm (n) 22:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Say the website goes down... we might have the Google cache or archive.org, but other than that... there's really nothing left, and those are far from 100% reliable. WP:V is more about the idea that an article's claims and facts have "already been published by a reputable publisher", the simple "I can see it now so it's verifiable" argument could apply to any website... or to the fire hydrant outside my house. There need to be good sources for something to be verifiable... that doesn't seem to be the case here (but that's open to debate, hence this AfD). --W.marsh 23:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Apparent advertisement, no claim to notability in the article. Really seems to only exist to link to the page. If I use my imagination really hard I can imagine some notable page on one subject or another mentioning this or a similar message board, but an article on GirlChat really offers nothing. Perhaps a google test wouldn't do so well as girlchat could refer to more than one thing related to pedophiliaLotusduck 21:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious advertisement to pornagraphic site. An encyclopedia should not be a list of third party web sites. Watercolour 22:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GirlChat is not a "pornographic site." // paroxysm (n) 22:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough for inclusion; article was probably made just to antecedent AFD. // paroxysm (n) 22:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. - NONCENSORED Popeye 23:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(FWIW NONCENSORED Popeye has been blocked indefinately as an egregious troll.) Herostratus 12:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Is seems notable and the article is well written I guess. No spelling errors and goes straight to the point. -- Femmina 23:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Concise and factual; other articles regarding websites are abundant; expansion on this article is a plus but surely not necessary. Anagram 23:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of the abundant websites listed less notable than this one and have those survived AFD? Lotusduck 00:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Anagram 01:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty amazing how User:Anagram found this page, having never made a single other edit on Wikipedia before. Very impressive. Kafziel 04:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not a notable site. Phantasmo 01:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The GNAA formally supports this wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.103.85 (talk • contribs)
Delete fails to meet WP:WEB criteria. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB guidelines. — TheKMan^talk 03:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and WP:V. Stifle 01:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability is asserted, hardly more than an external link... this could be a speedy. All keep votes so far seem to be GNAA members. -- Curps 02:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. -Sean Curtin 02:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability, has an Alexa rank of 734,205. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not-notable pedocruft isnt needed or wanted here. incog 00:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WEB Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Keep votes fail to realize that a website needs to be significant before it goes to Wikipedia, it does not use Wikipedia to get famous. Delete votes more well reasoned than the keep votes, so deleting in spite of less than two thirds majority. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmopedia

MediaWiki site with only 4 articles. Doesn't sound too notable to me. Staecker 22:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Every site has to start somewhere including Wikipedia. If it's still fairly empty in a month, then discuss deleting it. --Walter Görlitz 22:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Walter. --Galaxy001 23:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That's not how this works. The prerequisites for Wikipedia articles are eminently clear. --Agamemnon2 00:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cosmopedia's administrators should have a chance to tell the world about it.--Robotics Fan 02:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When it is notable, then we can write an article. Rmhermen 03:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Walter. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a method of promoting this site and that site. --W.marsh 05:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the site has barely over 500 google hits, and is so insignificant that it has no Alexa ranking at all. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 01:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creation in Dec 2005 is a good indicator this does not have the notability to merit an article. Moreover, the site itself is singularly underwhelming. As a "physical sciences" wiki, it leaves an enormous amount to be desired at this time. D e nni ☯ 02:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice, suspecting meat/sock puppets. Ifnord 02:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So if we delete it, can we add it again when it is more notable (e.g. when it exceeds 100 articles)? --Galaxy001 01:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Although I'd say if it becomes more notable. Notability always changes over time. Today's vanity article could be tomorrow's featured article, if the notability of the subject changes. Staecker 13:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Walter Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolved English murders

Nothing useful links to it; bad taste lmno 22:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this is interesting, it's an encyclopedic subject, and the fact that an article is an orphan is a daft reason to delete. -- Francs2000 23:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as daft list. Stifle 01:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per stifle -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is this more a problem with the entries or the article itself? There must be major cases of murders (besides Jack the Ripper) which remain unresolved and are notable to be listed here?--Huaiwei 14:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Huaiwei. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a national approach to this is especially useful. In any case, merely missing people shouldn't be presumed to be murdered. Morwen - Talk 15:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While I am ok with listings by country, I agree that the lists of missing children isnt exactly appiopriate for this list. That said, it shouldnt become a reason for its deletion, but a motivation to revamp and improve on it.--Huaiwei 15:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At first I thought of voting to rename to List of unsolved... but this article actually has merit for the future. That's call for a cleanup tag not AfD. Ifnord 02:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Francis Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Roseview Group

Advertisement that makes no claim to notability. Delete. Note also the duplicate page The Roseview Group LLC. –Sommers ^(Talk) 22:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's an advertisement. Crunch 22:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete. The Roseview Group is a rising company that people will try to get information about. Please do not remove — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcostantini (talk • contribs)

Delete per Crunch. --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 23:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the author also created Roseview, Roseview Technologies LLC, Roseview Technologies, and Roseview Tech, which are the same article and should be considered for deletion also. --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 23:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also Vince Costantini -- JLaTondre 23:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:CORP. -- JLaTondre 23:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me how to make this not a advertisment. what to change to keep it up?

Comment. In order for your company to fit the criteria for inclusion, it should fit these Guidelines. Most companies do fit these guidelines and therefore most companies are not included in the Wikipedia encyclopedia. Crunch 00:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This is speediable, as it's both an adevrtisemnent and a blatant copyvio (from the company's Web page. I've just deleted nearly over a dozen similar articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ad, as per WP:CORP. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; nn/advert. MCB 04:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert. I don't think it's a speedy. Stifle 01:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spamvert. Ifnord 02:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Mel Etitis Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Roseview Group LLC

Advertisement that makes no claim to notability. Delete. Note also the duplicate page The Roseview Group. –Sommers ^(Talk) 22:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's an advertisement. Crunch 22:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not the phone book :: Supergolden 16:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spamvert. Ifnord 02:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional constructivism

not -understandable,suspect copyvio Melaen 22:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; trivial and incoherent short personal POV essay. MCB 05:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MCB. Stifle 01:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Curps per request by author. Stifle 00:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Union

Delete. I doubt this thing really exists. The guy writing it (by the way, the user wrote in his page that he caught a "friend" using his account to write this) was probably attempting sneaky vandalism. Perhaps should be even speedied though I'm not sure it strictly qualifies for such.Aris Katsaris 22:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry. Not letting the guy near my computer anymore. Delete this by all means. Pure inuyasha 22:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per author's request. --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 22:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Crunch 22:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana-esque

Non-Notable. Possibly a vanity page. Delete. AKeen 22:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 01:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dicdef+original research about a neologism that's not in wide use (10 hits on google). - Bobet 18:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maki Kirioka

notability, he composed two songs for a videogame. see also List of Bemani musicians. Melaen 22:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, produced songs for a notable series of music games. Kappa 07:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable/unverifiable. Stifle 01:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sceptre

Weak delete. I do think it's verifiable; bits and pieces can be found reasonably easily using google, however that's exactly what it is: bits and pieces, very brief mentions, and generally on websites which hoard cruft. Not notable. --Qirex 23:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A composer with a grand total of 2(!) songs from video games. That's a bit little, as is the amount of information on the page. - Andre Engels 10:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Macki Kirioka is a bemani composer, having only two songs produced as of yet" - self-admittedly fails WP:MUSIC. --Malthusian (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable" Kappa 10:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delele--nixie 10:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tatti

Delete - WP:ISNOT a collection of Punjabi slang. the iBook of the Revolution 22:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stifle 01:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edgar181 16:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 04:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but BJAODN-fy. --Gurubrahma 05:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sector Software

non notable software house. Melaen 22:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems nn, bad form, very hard for a reader to extract useful information. Pavel Vozenilek 02:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plug: Please come develop a guideline for this such: see Wikipedia:Notability (software) --Perfecto 06:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert. Stifle 01:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite If cleaned up i would Keep but if left as is delete Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Predicting war

original reseach , see talk page. Melaen 22:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; unencyclopedic OR/POV essay. MCB 05:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I concure with opinions above (original research & unencyclopediac) --ElKevbo 05:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle 01:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blindecibel

Non-notable music ensemble, 94 google hits outside of wikipedia [29]. Delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 22:47, Jan. 21, 2006

Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 03:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle 01:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Prince of Aeniton

No reference to this found on Google, no assertion that the book is published or meets notability guidelines. I am also nominating the following article for deletion as it relates to this:

Jay Zenker - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd have to agree. Deb 11:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 01:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Music of Von Schlieffen

Non-notable band. Rmhermen 22:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete non-notable band, probaly vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible speedy, WP:MUSIC. Stifle 01:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo roberts

non notable writer Melaen 22:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn writer. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really wanted to vote keep, so I searched high and low, but Hugo Roberts, is not notable. There is a list of published or ready to be published poems and prose, but the only publications I found were on publish-you-own-work-online websites.--Ezeu 08:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Geogre's law. Stifle 01:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Allen

Probable hoax - "Deborah Dare" does not Google, and you don't need me to tell you how likely that is for an "adult film actress". Much of th text including picture upload by Deborahdare (talk · contribs) - looks a lot like the serial Paulo Fontaine (talk · contribs) hoaxes I'm cleaning up right now. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax to promote a porn site. Searching Lauren Allen's alias (two by two), results in a handful of websites, of which all except a defunct geocities page are mirrors of wikipedia. This article claims she has a IMDb page. The Lauren Allen on IMDb is a different person judging by the films she has participated in, and there is no date of birth noted there, as this article claims. If this is not a hoax, and there is a porn actress callled Lauren Allen, then she is not notable. --Ezeu 03:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. I suspect the subject exists (or existed) as mentioned in the article, but the article has something to do with promoting material that is alleged to have been sealed by a court but later made available. A web page purporting to explain all this can be found here. MCB 05:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, hoax. Ifnord 02:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brogo

Delete this non-notable vanity webcomic article which does not meet WP:WEB. According to the article, "Brogo is a Webcomic Created by Malcolm Wilson and the website is webmastered by Wikipedia editor Iain Wilson (Klingoncowboy4)." Klingoncowboy4 is also the creator and almost sole editor of the article. There is no claim to notability in the article and my attempts to find any verifiable reliable sources (through google, nexis, etc.) for this article have all failed. I have, however, learned that the Brogo reservoir in Australia is apparently a decent place for bass fishing. --Dragonfiend 22:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I have just found a copy of this article in Comicpedia that has only recently been modified by the author of this version.
Delete. Typical free-hosted junk. Nifboy 01:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What does the location of the website have to do with anything? 204.101.233.86 22:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN vanity.--Ezeu 03:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not sure how this article differs from some of the Articles that kick ass in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 00:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Interesting that the website still proclaims "Comming Soon, Brogo's Wikipedia Page" sic. Atrian 20:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I beleive the website say "Brogo Downloads - Comming Soon", "Brogo's Wikipedia Page.
Delete per WP:WEB --W.marsh 16:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Cryonics Society

No claim of notability. Nearly no content. May be notable, but no claim is made. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup. Org has a good # of google hits, and has apparently been around since 1969, claims to be the oldest society devoted to cryonics. Phantasmo 01:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Needs longer article. -- Pak aran 05:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable outside its own website. Stifle 01:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Stifle, doesn't seem to be much about this org outside of their own website. As the cryonics community is pretty much limited to a small body of nuts and the scammers who feed off of them, being the oldest or largest society in that community (assuming it's true) doesn't necessarily mean a lot. Add a link to the organization in the Cryonics article, maybe. Herostratus 20:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phantasmo Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to String cheese. - Mailer Diablo 05:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enredos

spanish dicdef Melaen 23:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to String cheese and mention it there. --Ezeu 03:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ezeu Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 15:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kicking the habit

not encyclopedic dicdef Melaen 23:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and Delete. --Ezeu 02:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying Keep it's a useful phrase. Calicore 07:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dicdef. Transwiki to wiktionary if not already there. Stifle 01:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per nom Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: THIS DEFAULTS TO KEEP; DO NOT CITE THIS ALONE AS A REASON TO OPPOSE OR SUPPORT A MERGE/REDIRECT/WHATEVER. Johnleemk | Talk 15:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of BSA Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges in Illinois

Hardly seems notable, no context is given, and nothing in the list links anywhere. Not sure if lists can be speedied, so I sent it here. - Bootstoots 23:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, a whole lot of them are going to be added (See here). The lists look like the work of an enthusiastic newbie. ~~Keep, wikify and contextualize~~. Delete and categorize. See also ongoing AfD here--Ezeu 02:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ezeu. (At least give it a couple weeks to see what happens with them. It could be useful. If the project is abandoned, delete away.-Jaysus Chris) - Jaysus Chris 23:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Severe delete as a list that is unlikely to be of interest to anybody other than a very small group of dedicated supporters, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 01:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once the list is generated, the corresponding entries could be of great use to the rest of the Wikipedia for the significance of a lodge name as to a particular geographical area. For example, the name of my OA lodge in Indiana is Jaccos Towne, given to us by the Wea people, and the totem would be the river otter. Prior to that, though, there were two other lodges that merged into Jaccos Towne with even more history attached to the area. Perhaps an explanation of a lodge at the main list entry would help matters. KC9CQJ 17:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable listcruft. Ifnord 02:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody thinks this info is notable or of use to anyone, then by all means it should not waste space. However, I am sure there are more than a handful of people from Illinois who have some sort of tie to the OA lodges and wish to expand this list. The end goal should be to have someone with knowledge of each lodge create sepearate articles, such that this list is a springboard to a vast amount of information. Of course, this will take collaborating and help, but I am all for keep it. ahill7 15:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Can't think of a good reason to delete this. May ultimately be merged. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, and as redirects to sections don't work, not redirecting. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Greek entrepreneurs

not a list, it has only one name Melaen 23:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom TestPilot 02:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Abandoned by its anonymous creator and sole editor a year ago.--Ezeu 02:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. MCB 05:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because there is a more complete version at List of Greeks#Entrepreneurs already.--T. Anthony 08:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per T. Anthony Ashibaka tock 21:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ifnord 02:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Quinta High School

Not Encyclopedic and it seems to have turned into a contest of who's "hotter" Damicatz 23:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, insufficient reason for deletion. Partial blocking or banning vandals is a better solution. --Ezeu 02:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real high school. Kappa 07:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
pet peeve. I think its great you voted keep for the school. Of course I normally vote keep also. But, I, and I assume you, also check the school is real first. That typically involves a google, and finding at a bare minimum, the school's web site. When you do, could you please add it to the article. That way, the next person who comes to the AFD, doesn't have to repeat the same steps you already performed. Of course, ideally, the creator of the article would have taken 10 seconds to add the web site, and save others a bunch of wasted time. --Rob 09:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, but, regardless, the standard is to keep high schools and merge most primary schools. -Rebelguys2 09:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you've said this a few times, I suggest you take a look at Category:Elementary schools in the United States, and subcats like Category:Elementary schools in California. Also, take a browse through Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive/2005. You'll find that there is quite a few stand alone elementary school articles that survived an AFD (only a small fraction were merged). Merging may be appropriate for substubs, but it makes little sense for substantial articles regardless of grade level. But, you're still entitled to want to merge primaries and wish it was the standard. But, I don't know why you claim it is a standard. --Rob 09:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm actually referring to WP:SCH, which, though it is by no means a "policy," suggests the possibility of being bold and merging "Short, uninformative school articles." That's my rationale for merging primary schools, though I may have worded it wrong. -Rebelguys2 02:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - In case we're talking about different things I'm talking only about Wikipedia:Schools#Current proposal for schools, which is the results of the most recent discussions, which had majority, but non-consensus support. It says nothing about whether a school is primary or secondary, which seems to be your primary criteria. Instead it focusses mainly on whether there is sufficient content in the article. Where does it say primaries *specifically* should be merged in most cases? Also, please note that Wikipedia:Schools#Current proposal for schools is the most recent result of discussions of mergers, and other text on the page is somewhat older. But even the text you quoted doesn't specify primaries. What's the deal with primaries? --Rob 02:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - We are talking about different things. I'm just referring the fact that I support the merging of primary schools, per the merging suggestion in WP:SCH. I know it doesn't differentiate between primary and secondary schools. Hence, you'll note that I said it was "my rationale for merging primary schools."
      - I suppose if you want a explanation of my error, I began using this inaccurate wording of ("standard") from similarly inaccurate votes in previous school AfDs. Voters, in the past, have suggested that the primary/secondary division may have been a "standard." In addition, for example, CalJW's keep vote below specifies that there's something unique in that this article is about a high school ("as with any high school"), as opposed to a school on another level. The discussion of schools is, obviously, far from my primary focus on Wikipedia, and I suppose I was simply inaccurate in the way I worded my own argument. -Rebelguys2 04:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, school is not notable. Cedars 12:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Cedars, see Wikipedia:Schools#Notability --Ezeu 13:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as with any high school. CalJW 13:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like any high school. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 03:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High Plains Drifter 21:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 23:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirected and merged --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Movement

unintelligible nonsense KHM03 23:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Grace Movement are Mid-Acts Dispensationalists, which is covered in Hyperdispensationalism. Since Grace movement is not sufficiently notable on its own, it can be mentioned there. --Ezeu 01:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with that. KHM03 11:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I will add mergto and mergefrom tags to both articles so that people knowlegable on this (rather obscure) subject matter may help with a merge. I am well aware that the AFD still proceeds, but this may make it easier if the result is redirect.--Ezeu 12:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now merged. Some kindly people have merged Grace movement into Hyperdispensationalism, so redirect and close this AfD. --Ezeu 09:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to do that precisely, or else I'd do it. KHM03 11:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only admins can do it. --Ezeu 11:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can do it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Growing bananas

original research, maybe for wikibooks Melaen 23:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is someone giving freindly advice based on personal experiences. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Ezeu 01:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for clearly nonencyclopedic text. Pavel Vozenilek 02:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Pavel Vozenilek. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – ABCD ^e✉ 06:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Alienz

non notable Melaen 23:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN vanity. --Ezeu 00:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity band page.--BUF4Life 03:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as NN band. It is a band page right? The writing is so bad I can't tell. --Lightdarkness 06:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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