Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 29: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Zerofoks (talk | contribs)
484 edits
No edit summary
AFD Bot (talk | contribs)
7,549 edits
m AFD Bot (talk) (contributions): Closing AFD day - automatic AFD bot work
Line 3: Line 3:
|-
|-
! width="50%" align="left" | <font color="gray">&lt;</font> [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 28|December 28]]
! width="50%" align="left" | <font color="gray">&lt;</font> [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 28|December 28]]
! width="50%" align="right" | <!-- [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 30|December 30]] --> <font color="gray">&gt;</font>
! width="50%" align="right" | [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 30|December 30]] <font color="gray">&gt;</font>
|}
|}
</div>
</div>


<div align = "center">'''[[Wikipedia:Guide to deletion|Guide to deletion]]'''</div>
{{Cent}}
<small>{{purge|Purge server cache}}</small>
<small>{{purge|Purge server cache}}</small>
== [[December 29]] ==
== [[December 29]] ==
<!-- This AFD day has concluded. Please do not add new AFD transinclude pages here. Put any new AFD transinclude pages on the appropriate day's page instead. Thank you for your cooperation. -->
<!-- New votes to the bottom, please. -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inspector owl}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inspector owl}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Hendrickson}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Hendrickson}}
Line 206: Line 204:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold weapon}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold weapon}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Solomon Key}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Solomon Key}}
<!-- This AFD day has concluded. Please do not add new AFD transinclude pages here. Put any new AFD transinclude pages on the appropriate day's page instead. Thank you for your cooperation. -->

Revision as of 00:01, 30 December 2005

< December 28 December 30 >

Purge server cache

December 29

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 09:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inspector owl

NN per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 00:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Hendrickson

The article is unverifiable. It is either a hoax, or the person is extremely non-notable (no relevant Google hits). The sentence "He is survived by his plant Edgar" makes me lean towards the former. ~MDD4696 00:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Cobra 02:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elwood Buchanan

This page should be deleted because it has had no additional information added to it since its creation in June 2005. If there is sufficient need for the article in future, I suggest that it be created anew by a user with more time and resources to devote to Mr Buchanan than the originator of the page. As it stands, the page is not a useful entry for an enclyclopædia (aeropagitica) 00:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added some more information from books about Davis, and think Buchanan is of sufficient interest to keep. Failing that, merge with Miles Davis, as his contribution to Davis's style was considerable. Perodicticus 18:26, 29 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 (it is now a redirect, that page also to be deleted) --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If monkeys were masons

Delete. Non-notable, article created by the person who runs the company that produced the film. Tufflaw 00:59, 29 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 --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Monkeys Were Masons

Delete. See previous entry Tufflaw 01:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is in its early stages and is one of my first contributions to wikipedia. As regards the film, this might not be a hollywood blockbuster release but it is very much an available, well received film and distribution is continuing to grow. This film is important as a true reflection of the experiences had by the hundreds of thousands of young people who travel to this area every year.
I agree that Come the Monkeys should be merged in here and will perform the operation shortly.
Why so keen to delete?? Not what I had expected given the inclusiveness of the project I have witnessed thus far.
User:Deiz 01:05, 29 Decemeber (GMT)
I took the liberty of moving your comment around so it appears on the AFD page correctly. All of these pages you created were nominated because they are either about you personally, your company, or your films, in violation of the Wikipedia vanity guidelines. Tufflaw 01:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i see what you mean. Ah well, was fun learning how to create articles... Deiz 01:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, nothing wrong with an honest mistake. Check out some of the links I posted at your talk page, there's a lot of info there on how to be a happy and successful Wikipedian. Welcome! Tufflaw 01:29, 29 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 --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Come The Monkeys

Delete. See previous entry Tufflaw 01:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep with a possibility of a merge with Durham University. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durham University Chamber Choir

Essentially a vanity page for a choral group in Durham Uni - created and edited solely by someone whose username matches the initials of a present officer of the group Philip lawton 01:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Author Comment It's a shame you feel this qualifies as vanity. Although presently an officer of the choir, it was there before, and I also assume it will be after my tenure, and the article is not associated specifically with the present time or activities. The article is there because I genuinely believe the bredth of university information is enhanced by it's presence. The Chamber Choir has been in existence within the university for over seventy years (although not always as a student society) and as thus probably can be deemed more important than the neighbours soc. Thank you for your attention to the matter Phillip, I hope you've found some time to do some organ practise. --nde575 01:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. International tours makes it notable per WP:MUSIC. As an ongoing institution, more notable than many short-lived rock bands we have. Herostratus 03:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rob redding

NN, possible vanity. - FrancisTyers 01:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aldor the Old

Appears to be a minor fictional person. --Hansnesse 01:27, 29 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 --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Octavio

Vanity nonsense MNewnham 01:42, 29 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asbex

NN Canadian Asbestos removal contractor MNewnham 01:54, 29 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baggenstos

Geneology, surname-cruft MNewnham 01:59, 29 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 merged and redirected by Thivierr. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CILV

Delete. non-notable, station is apparently only two days old. Tufflaw 02:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 13:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Darroudi

From speedy. I suspect most admins (like me) saw the long list of exhibitions and weren't certain about whether this person is notable. No vote. r3m0t talk 02:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, spellings are actually Darrudi/Darroudi. (See what I mean?) Perodicticus 10:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided subject is an Iranian painter, but scores about 1/10 the number of Google hits that I do, so is not widely discussed. On the toher hand, that could just be systemic bias at work. Needs an expert to quantify the subject's importance; I do know many non-notable artists who have had hundreds of exhibitions in minor galleries and at least one who has exhibited at Liberty's in London and the Medici Gallery; he is still an essentially unknown jobbing artist. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied r3m0t talk 02:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Rex Hedgepeth Jr.

Living person, not notable. JackyR 02:12, 29 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.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo Magick Box

This a) doesn't seem notable, or b) might be a hoax. Either way, don't see why we should have an article about it. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: "Voodoo Magick Box" is a specific product name and the article should probably be moved to a generic title (although I have no clue what that might be) but there's no reason to delete the article, as this seems to be a real and somewhat popular pseudoscientific product. Snurks T C 20:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Cobra 02:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WANR (AM)

Radio station. No vote. r3m0t talk 02:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 19:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brandy Alexandre (porn star)

The inclusion of real names of porn stars violates privacy and subjects to many dangers. See email sent to helpdesk. SavvyCat 02:26, 29 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's Entertainment

Non-notable website; vanity/advertising. —Cleared as filed. 02:29, 29 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 transwikied. Johnleemk | Talk 14:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billet barge

Slang/fancruft from the chopper world. Could possibly be transwikied to Wiktionary, but I'd say not. VT hawkeyetalk to me 02:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedied. r3m0t talk 14:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Satanic Nursery Rhymes

This doesn't look accurate, and probably not noteworthy - Bootstoots 02:36, 29 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SMBI

Author admits it is spam: "This page is to make activity in the smbi tutorial page. PLease try smbi and make an smbi tutorial artical and put a link at the botom of this page. Thank you". All of 1 hit on Google. Ashibaka tock 03:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Another administrator already deleted the article. Mindmatrix 15:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom_Hiley

Vanity Endomion 03:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claridge Homes

Overly commercial, not encyclopediac Triona 03:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7). howcheng {chat} 07:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Dillman

Non-Notable God_of War 03:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nullaby

I believe this page to be a hoax. I've had the verify tag on it for some time and my own attempts to verify it have failed. It was created by an anon user who tied it to the also dubious orange flavor chicken (as apposed to orange chicken) article created by the same user. Jasongetsdown 03:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The_Cosmopolitan

This is an article about a dirt field with surveyor's ribbons on it. Maybe when the casino opens in 2008 it will be notable Endomion 03:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, we could put it in the List of big construction projects Endomion 06:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree, major construction project in Las Vegas. Think it's reasonable to keep. -- Samir Grover 07:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, unless sources are cited to show that the present preparations are considered important (to a much wider audience than the readership of the Las Vegas Review-Journal). Every city has dozens of large construction projects in progress. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this a "crystal ball" article? The project is going on right now, and can be easily seen by anyone. As for notability, Las Vegas is visited by millions of people around the world, and many are interested in the ever-changing face of the strip...which this is a part. Furthermore, there are already several links to the article, which will go red, causing the article to be recreated sooner or later. Do we just keep deleting and recreating the article until this opens? Finally, what about motion pictures in production. Spider-Man 3 has an article, and it's not released yet...should that deleted too as a "crystal ball" article?
Actually, now that you bring it up, yes, articles about future movies, future Mars missions and future gadgets should be deleted too. The future doesn't exist. Books and movies about the future exist, so those articles should be retained. In summary, delete articles about the future but retain articles about movies about the future. Endomion 18:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then, I expect we will be putting articles like Spider-Man 3 and Freedom Tower up for AFD vote? And I expect everybody voting Delete here will vote to delete those articles as well? -- MisterHand 00:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The preparations for the Freedom Tower have received national press coverage. Those for The Cosmopolitan have not—or, if they have, you have not cited any of that coverage. I personally do not think Freedom Tower comes under the "crystal ball" rubric. Spider-Man 3 is borderline. If someone were to nominate it I personally would vote to delete it. But I won't bother proposing it myself because my experience is that once a movie has a listing in imdb there will not be consensus to delete. If you honestly believe these articles come under the "crystal ball" policy you or anyone else can nominate them for deletion. However, I would advise against doing so merely out of retaliation or pique; see WP:POINT. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I nominate those articles? I've already stated that I don't think existing, verifiable projects should be covered under the "crystal ball" clause. I was just curious how consistant some of our voters would be -- MisterHand 03:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major and verifiable construction project. Kappa 15:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the whole thing could go down the toilet tomorrow. This is an encyclopaedia, encyclopaedias are backward-looking. We have no need to cover future events, we do not need to scoop anyone, there is no race to be the first to cover a subject. As yet there is practically nothing to say about this project. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Reyk 23:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Noting that "Spider-Man 3" has an imdb listing prompted me to see whether The Cosmopolitan has an Archinform listing. It does not. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Online search of The New York Times from 2000 through yesterday for articles containing both exact phrases "The Cosmopolitan" and "Las Vegas" turns up no relevant hits. (There were four hits, but in each of them "the cosmopolitan" was simply a phrase, not a reference to the new resort; e.g. "Geoff Hampson of Los Angeles snatched a victory that seemed destined for one of the cosmopolitan teams in contention.") Dpbsmith (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I should note as a matter of record that I was the creator of the article. However, it was created only because the property was already included in the Las_Vegas_Strip template, and I thought it looked bad to have a broken link in an otherwise informative template. I have no subjective attachment to either The Cosmopolitan or the article itself.

Having said that, I don't think that the crystal ball argument for deletion holds water. This is a major project that is already funded and has already broken ground. It is not "going down the toilet". I don't believe Wikipedia needs an article about every proposed condo project in the Las Vegas Valley, but this is a major undertaking on prime property on the World Famous Las Vegas Strip. It has an appeal that reaches far beyond the local. It will surely merit an article once it is completed, so why delete it now? I can see a use for the article as it exists now, say if a visitor to Las Vegas witnesses the construction and is curious as to what lies in the future of the ever-changing Las Vegas Strip. What better place to sate her curiosity than Wikipedia? Buck O'Nollege 07:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I can understand that if this was a rumored project or a minor construction, then maybe it would be CFD. But this is a MAJOR construction project that has already BROKEN GROUND. Las Vegas casinos are considered landmarks, they are more than simply hotels. Therefore, when a new casino is currently being built, it is very big news. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] BreakFastClubb 10:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a $1.8 billion project. How many cities have a private construction project that large? The Boardwalk will be closing next week to be replaced by Project City Center to be completed in 2010, likely the most expensive private construction project in history. I suspect that project will get an article also. Projects in Vegas do fail! They also can change a lot before they are actually completed. Many interesting facts about these projects are only easly available during construction, so that is a great time to write the article when many of the technical details are readly available. Much of this data would be encylopedic. Construction projects like Shuttle Ptichka that never were completed are considered encylopedic after they failed, should we delete these? Maybe the question is under what conditions do construction projects become encylopedic? Vegaswikian 07:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MisterHand. Ridiculously hasty nom. - Liontamer 09:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Which states 'Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.' This opening sentance clearly allows article about major projects. One could even argue that the Ivan Condo, which looks like it has failed, could still get an article. Even if press coverage is minimal, how many people can say they saw it under construction? Vegaswikian 18:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as a copyvio. — JIP | Talk 09:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Topsportgroup

Obvious advertisement - Bootstoots 03:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it turns out it is a copyvio. Tagged for speedy deletion and listed on the copyvio page. - Bootstoots 04:37, 29 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SWCity

Virtual community with 20 members, no more significant than a small MUD or web forum

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kame Gamez

nn game developer website. Brighterorange 03:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please put more effort into your nominations. A nomination is supposed to make the case for deletion, not simply say "nn" as if that solves everything. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; AfD is overloaded and obvious deletes like this don't need people to waste effort on them. Actually, I wish I could have speedied it (found it on NP patrol) but no CSD covers it. I am not the kind of guy who makes spurious nominations. Brighterorange 20:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Total Agreement, Delete it, i am the author, just do it

DONT DELETE I quote "Every bit of information is important, they are al like sand, only together can they hold the ocean"

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. And what a relief it is to come across an article with "speedy" "votes" that really is speediable! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pwny Express

Non-notable and non-verifiable game group. Hurricane111 03:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. This article had already been deleted by another administrator. Mindmatrix 16:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of Doctor Who

Non-notable fan club with a few amateur video productions. khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:09, 29 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Soil Freedom Act

Hypothetical legislation written by this guy. Does not appear to have been introduced by any legislator.

  • No it doesn't. Just because you wrote it makes it in no way encyclopedic. After all, does anyone besides you (and now the readers of this AfD) even know of its existence? --Agamemnon2 07:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • actually yes. i've forwarded it to members of congress and have received responses, including from senator edward kennedy, although, yes it is correct that i have not found a sponsor for the bill. Zen Destiny 11:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)11:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is not whether Wikipedia should have an article about abuses of rights which the Foreign Soil Freedom Act is intended to prevent. Wikipedia already covers that issue in articles such as USA PATRIOT Act controversy and possibly others. However, the Foreign Soil Freedom Act is just one private citizen's proposal to prevent abuses, and it would not itself become notable at least until it is introduced into Congress, and more likely not until it actually passes Congress (lots of bills are introduced into Congress which never get anywhere). My recommendation is to Delete. --Metropolitan90 09:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. The vote by User:Paul the Archivist has been ignored as it is his only contribution ever. — JIP | Talk 13:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield pubs

This could be a good subject for an article, but as it is it is original research and the point of view of the author. Delete under WP:NOT criteria 1.3: "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" JeremyA 04:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC) I have reformatted the article and removed all of the review-like elements. With some clean-up and expansion it might make a good article, so I am changing my vote to no vote. If kept, I suggest renaming to either Pubs in Sheffield or List of pubs in Sheffield. JeremyA 03:12, 30 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. — JIP | Talk 13:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Flynt

Non notable, does not appear in All Music Guide, all references in other Wiki articles created by article's primary author, only Google hit is article. Cigarette 04:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to get more consensus New votes below this line, please--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. JeremyA 05:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley_Green

Vanity Garfield226 04:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no concensus --Ichiro 19:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas bashing

This entire entry is absolute nonsense. The use of a pop-cultural "phenemonon" invented purely from the author's imagination on a publicly accessed encyclopedia is an outrage. The perpetrator of such character defilement, through the lens of creating an actual issue when none exists, is, in and of itself, a key reason that Wikipedia can never be what it seeks to be: a fact-based collective of information on a subject. As one might expect I am a filmmaker and fervent supporter of George Lucas' works and his contributions to the cinematic arts. If I were to write a section on the praise of George Lucas, as a seperate, "counter-article" I could fill over 100 pages of stardard Microsoft Word documents and post them on Wikipedia. It is disgusting that the author of such trash would post it on a public site which they do not own nor have personal claim to. No one has the right to criticize another in public ENCYCLOPEDIA. The author already mentions briefly that some do not agree with George Lucas' filmmaking techniques, and this is documented. But his or her creation of this so called "movement" against the filmmaker is not only ridiculous, it is libel. If the author of the document feels that there is actually a large enough group of people who "bash" George Lucas, I suggest he pay actual money for his or her own site, where they can freely write and distribute whatever information they please. But to corrupt the information of other people who seek out this entry for educational and/or academic purposes, the presence of this section is an affront to the very purpose of Wikipedia. It is an Encyclopedia, not a forum for one's agenda or opinion. I demand, if this encyclopedia is to be of any value to anyone, that this entry be deleted with all haste, and the entire article be evaluated, or even better, rewritten, to properly reflect a factual, untarnished, and uncircumspect article, which this entry has failed to become. I also suggest close monitoring of this entry, for any further attempts at the injection of libel into the biographies of the world's notable people. I was accused of "defacing" Wikipedia when I first deleted this section after having read it in anger. I have since become acquainted with the policies of Wikipedia regarding such actions, and have learned to my dismay that it is in fact easier for someone to publish untrue and bogus information on Wikipedia than it is for those who seek the truth in entries, to delete it. This is most disconcerting, and unfortunately, the most unique aspect of the encyclopedia is its most flawed. I will no longer delete anything in this entry, but in protest pending its removal, I have written a brief commentary contra to the perspective in the article. Please understand I expect this to be deleted along with the nonsensical opinionative information which it opposes.

Comment Please sign your comments and comment below other comments. Also try to keep page edits within Wikipedia style (the article was already marked as possible POV -- this is why someone removed your disclaimer). I realise it's hard to neutrally document vehement arguments but try to recognise that the article is just a record of the existence of gushers and bashers (at least this article isn't as bad a nightmare as NPOV in pro-life and pro-choice articles). The article is fully sourced and is as close to a reflection of the analyses made by the sources as possible and it tries where possible to discuss both sides (read the discussion: the article has actually been edited to keep as close to the consensus of sources as possible). My bias on this article is listed below. Mattisgoo 04:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inherently POV. Not a notable enough "phenomenon" to deserve a seperate article. There's already an article on Fan criticism of George Lucas. (Note: 592 Google results for "lucas bashing", 19 results for "lucas gushing") Coffee 04:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush bashing (512,000 Google results for "bush bashing") Coffee 05:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments put forward for deletion are:
  • POV
  • Not notable enough to deserve a separate article
Neither of these two points qualify under Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. POV is explicitly something which does not qualify for deletion, merely an "article needing attention".
The test which is closest to "notablity" is "original research". Do the references and other sources support the content article. The article has journal, media, reviewer and colloquial support of definition and all major subject headings and topic points. In this respect, the article cannot be considered for deletion under this test.
The test for justifying the merging of an article is less clear. Let's look at the Google numbers anyway:
  • As stated in the article, most references are contextual. i.e. Bashing or Gushing are normally used in context without a qualifier. This is why "Lucas bashing" returns so few hits. Without the quotes, it returns 181,000 and Lucas gushing returns 81,000. 32,000 and 17,000 using Lucas basher and Lucas gusher respectively. 469,000 for '"Star Wars" bashing'. It goes on. It is an informal term used in subculture venues -- testing it too rigidly is faulty research.
  • Should the Khazakstani opposition party the Democratic_Party_of_Kazakhstan_Bright_Path be deleted or merged because only 65 Google hits exist? No, because the sources support this entity as a separate subject. This is why the number Google hits should not be used for justifying Wikipedia articles. The sources should.
Further looking at arguments for merging:
  • As Zukeeper said, the "Fan Criticism" article was spun off from the bashing/gushing article. This is because it is unsupported, unreferenced, one-sided and rambling. To merge the two articles would diminish the identification of Lucas bashing and gushing as a real phenomenon.
  • The article is about "bashing and gushing" not about criticism. i.e. It is about the behaviours of the people involved, not about any criticism itself. In this way, the "Fan criticism" article is not properly related.
  • The combination of the two articles would be bigger than the maximum recommended article size.
  • Lucas bashing contains more points than allegory, catachresis and parable combined and yet no one would suggest merging them all into metaphor. I have to suggest that people here are biased because the article is on fan subculture rather than linguistics -- a bias which is improper and not supported by Wikipedia.
On whether or not the article is "inherently POV":
  • This article has been listed as having POV issues for some time. Since major revisions were made roughly a fortnight ago, no one has identified an aspect of the article that is POV. The article clearly and carefully details boths sides of a vehement debate. It does not support bashers or gushers. It avoids giving one or the other more attention. It does not support or decry George Lucas or Star Wars. There is no identified aspect of the article which forwards a point of view. Arguably the name of the article itself is imbalanced and I agree that it should be Lucas Bashers and Gushers.
  • It does not help Wikipedia or it's content to declare "inherently POV" without support. If you cannot say what is negatively affected by the article, if you cannot list the biased slant of the article, then nothing will change.
To summarise my points: no argument has been made in favor of deletion. Only the claim of "not notable" has been made in favor of merging, but the request is that a large, fully referenced, balanced article on a specific topic be merged into an already ungainly, largely unrelated, unsupported, one-sided, rambling article.
Please read both the articles and the talk pages where some of these points have already been discussed.Mattisgoo 03:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whoops, I didn't pay attention to Coffee's point that Bush Bashing was deleted. Valid point to consider. I don't know how to view that deleted article, but from the deletion votes: that article said little more than the title inferred and was really just a generic discussion of bashing. My opinion is that this is not the case for this article -- it gives an investigation into reactionary ideology that is specific to Lucas bashers/gushers -- plus, there isn't an article on bashing in a generic sense (gay bashing does exist and is cross linked from this article). Fancruft is another inferred but not explicitly stated criticism of this article that is not without merit -- again this is not immediate cause for deletion but relevant to notability concerns. Mattisgoo 03:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: As I said in my main comment, I agree with a name change to "Lucas Bashing and Lucas Gushing" or "Lucas Bashing and Gushing" to reflect a less POV stance.Mattisgoo 04:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Bias - original writer of article

Hi there. I'm PacifistPrime, the orginal writer of this article (although it has now been split and so heavily rewritten by others that it no longer strictly represents my original). I don't want to get into a protracted argument about this; you guys seem to be doing pretty well on your own. Just a few points:

-I agree with Mattisgoo and others that there are no real grounds for deleting this article. Much of the discussion here is the province of a NPOV dispute, for which this article already has a specific talk page in which these arguments have already been exhaustively discussed ad nauseum, and not been added to in some time. Furthermore, I think it should be quite obvious to everyone that the only reason this article is being discussed for deletion is because of the outrageously biased reaction of the first commentator at the top of this page. His long, vitriolic rant clearly demonstrates that he is utterly biased on this matter, is not familiar with the workings or purpose of Wikipedia, and most significantly, has entirely missed the point of the article. Which brings me to another thing...

-With all due respect to everyone, why do so many of you seem to fail to understand this simple point: DESCRIBING criticism of Lucas DOES NOT constitute IMPLICIT CRITICISM ITSELF?! This article (nor Fan Criticism of George Lucas which was split from it) is not, nor ever has been condoning, supporting, promoting or enacting Lucas bashing. It is DESCRIPTIVE, pure and simple. An article descirbing the KKK is not automatically a racist tract. Writing an article about America does not make the author pro or anti-American by defult. So, if you don't agree that this phenomenon exists (despite the considerable evidence to the contrary), that's fine, but PLEASE! Stop accusing the article, the title etc etc of having an anti-Lucas bias. In actual fact, this article isn't even ABOUT George Lucas, it's about other people's reactions to him.

I really hope this bickering will conclude soon. Don't we all have better things to do?

-PacifistPrime, 5 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. Mindmatrix 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meat coma

Neologism describing a phenomenon that is, to the best of my knowledge, an urban legend. Discussion of tryptophan's sleep-inducing properties (or not) belongs in the tryptophan page, but the neologism needs to go. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the fact that it isn't true doesn't mean the page should be deleted. We have plenty of pages discussing topics which are urban legends. It's more the attempt to enshrine the term "meat coma" that makes this an article to be deleted, in my view.—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tipperball

It almost sounds plausible until you realize it's a game of throwing wadded-up paper balls at each other's crotches. 10 hits on google, 2 unique. Nominator votes delete. bikeable (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, this "nominator votes" thing is like a plague. It gets worse every day! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are we so concerned about the nominator's "vote" being heard? If he does his job properly, he'll have written a good argument for deletion, which is worth countless votes. Nominators voting encourages sloppy nominations — since their vote is safe, there's no need to actually make the case for deletion. Now, while User:bikeable didn't fall into that trap, he's a rare specimen indeed; not voting as the nominator is a good habit. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it would be awesome if it were clear what one word designation should be used instead of vote. It's not a vote but what (succinctly) is it? "my sharing of opinion in an attempt to build consensus" just doesn't flow off the tongue (off the fingers?) as well as "my vote", does it? ++Lar 22:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argument, perhaps? Or better yet, don't worry about what it's called — your opinion on AfD is only important insofar as you make an argument or support someone else's. Concentrating on the letters in bold leads to the presumption that admins will be doing nothing but vote-counting, which would be a very Bad Thing indeed. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of IBM PC games

This article has been through deletion before, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of IBM PC games. This list is ambiguous, unlike a console, whether the game works on the PC depends purely on the operating system. We have lists like List of Linux games because of this. Another reason why I don't like this article, is that we have categories for this reason, see Category:Windows games and Category:DOS games. I wouldn't mind creating a List of Windows games showing major breakthroughs in gaming, and then leaving all the sequels and derivative titles to be found in the category, but List of IBM PC games is just not a suitable article. - Hahnchen 04:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Action Police CFTC

seems to be a non notable French police union that only recieve 0.32% of the vote. Do we really need an article for a group this small? Pboyd04 05:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. Looks like editors who know what they are doing are working on this and may be related to recent French rioting. -- JJay 05:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A tiny union that is more noisy than notable. Moreover the article is chockfull of POV and I'm not sure there's anyone knowledgeable enough to clean it up. Madman 06:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The union is notable. Check google and you'll see French press articles referring to it. To assume that there would be no-one on wiki with a basic understanding on French politics is quite strange. --Soman 09:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- clearly has significance in the light of recent French politico-social history. Possibly to be reviewed in 12 months' time, but deletion at this stage would, I suggest, be premature. --SockpuppetSamuelson 09:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : "non notable French police union that only recieve 0.32% of the vote" is correct, but unfortunately not complete; this union, due to the strident discourse of its president, has recieved an attention by the media way off proportions with its importance in terms of representativity. Because of this, I think that it is important to have this article to put some insights and perspective to it (though the article does need work and attention). Rama 11:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable in France. Choalbaton 13:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thurston & Hawstead

Unneccessary combining of two villages. Thurston already has a page. Hawstead doesn't, but this article doesn't really contain enough information to create one. - N (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MOAP

A "small" part of "the Bugnie world": evidently a Halo 2 clan and a group of IRC buddies. Not notable. Nominator votes delete. bikeable (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Boone

A character in Parade of Death (AfD discussion), an unsold screenplay. —Cryptic (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relentless Family

Online game clan vanity page Hirudo 05:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PodoShpere

Neologism. Only 9 results on Google. It should be deleted. King of Hearts | (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gisa (software)

Obscure software package Hirudo 05:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NN means non-notable. VegaDark 03:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect (a merge was already completed). Mindmatrix 16:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pizookie

Non-notable menu item. Or is a menu item from a restaurant with 36 locations in the US notable enough? I say no. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BradBlog

nn blog doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB Alexa rank of 46,140 Pboyd04 05:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gahnah

Electronica musician, apparently nn. Article mentions album released in 2005, but didn't see mention of it on the 12 google hits, which are mostly mp3 sharing sites. No claims of critical acclaim or chart popularity. Saint Midge 05:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion Does one have to release a physical album on CD to be worthy of being called an artist? It's a good question and I'm not entirely sure the answer has anything to do with this article but it is a point to be considered. Personally I know nothing about this article, I just gave it a slight tidy and personally I don't mind either way though I would fall towards inclusionist. Ben W Bell 08:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No one doesn't, and there is a specific WP:MUSIC section for performers outside of mass media traditions:
   * Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre.
   * Has been a significant musical influence on a musician or composer that qualifies for the above list.
   * Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre.
   * Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre.
   * Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.
However, this artist doesn't seem to be covered in that area either, so delete MNewnham 16:15, 29 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 already speedied by User:MONGO. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Blackburn

Although the term "Scott Blackburn" has a couple hundred of results on Google, most of them are about a different person with no reference to filmmaking/writing. His work "Running With Deja Vu" has no results at all, making this biography unverifiable. Nominator votes delete. King of Hearts | (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator does what? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 09:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US Department Global of Anti-semitism

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Department of Global Anti-semitism, a similar article with a POV title was moved and the resulting redirect deleted. The nominator pointed out the existence of this article as well, but no one else voted on what to do with this. It's not a reposting of a deleted article because this version is actually older than the one moved and kept under the NPOV and accurate name, but it does need to be deleted: Nothing to merge, and it would make a POV and original research-like redirect. Delete. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given that the author requested deletion on the talk page, it can probably be speedied. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 00:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folkspraak language

Non-notable IAL. — Home Row Keysplurge 05:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree (Weak Keep or Merge). I think Folkspraak is a significant conlang (as far as conlangs go) and the article should be preserved. The project is quite old and has many adherents, and is successful as an inter-German auxlang. The Jade Knight 10:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please define "successful". Where are the dictionaries of, grammars of, self-study guides for, and published works written in this language? Where are this language's equivalents of ISBN 067174559X and ISBN 0939785013? Indeed, where are the primary source materials in this language? Where is this language's equivalent of this ? Uncle G 20:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • When it comes to conlangs, "success" is rarely determined by speakership or publications. Folkspraak is well-known among conlangers, and fairly well appreciated. I can not argue against claims of "original research", as very little has been published (outside of vanity publication) on most conlangs, even well-known ones (such as Dr. Dirk Elzinga's "Tepa", which was considered one of the best 10 conlangs ever made at www.langmaker.com). If you must delete most of the article for original research, that may be unavoidable, but I think Folkspraak is a significant enough conlang to warrant an entry in Wikipedia. The Jade Knight 00:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If that definition of "success" is unrelated to the existence of any secondary source or even primary source materials, then it isn't an appropriate benchmark to use in determining inclusion in an encyclopaedia which requires sources. If this language is "well appreciated", then some evidence of this appreciation needs to be provided. If, for example, someone had written and published a formal paper documenting the failure of the inventors of this language to even agree on its grammar, then that would be evidence that could be provided. Indeed, that would be a secondary source from which an encyclopaedia article could be constructed. ☺ Uncle G 01:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think that's one of the real snags, and why I'm not more vocal about keeping the article—the project isn't yet completely unified, and is far from finished (thus the several "dialects"). It's just one of the bigger "projects". However, I expect that if it were deleted it would resurface as a new article within several months. I understand the reasoning behind the VfD. I still think it'd be an article worth having around, but I do understand that I have little beyond my own experience and knowledge to support its notability. The Jade Knight 08:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Limited google hits, when one excludes Wikipedia, it hasn't occured in dead tree format, it doesn't even have a standard form, and The Folkspraak Institute website only has ~6000 hits. --Ptcamn 11:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the article says it's in development, we have no idea whether it will ever become significant. Until then, it's substantially unverifiable. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is about a language that is being invented by the participants in a Yahoo! Groups discussion forum. It has a web site that is empty (and that Google offers to translate from German). One of the external links in the article is to another discussion forum thread that discusses the Wikipedia article. Another is to another article on another wiki. The GeoCities page contains a chrestomathy that contains 5 texts and a plea for more. I apply the same rationale as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interslurf. The paucity of the chrestomathy indicates that no-one speaks or writes this made up language to any significant degree. Indeed, the article and the externally linked web sites tell us that no two people have yet fully agreed on what this language is, even. There are no printed dictionaries, grammars, Teach Yourself books, or other resources for it, and no printed works written in it. There appear to be no secondary source materials for this language at all. The article is unverifiable and original research. Delete. Uncle G 20:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you looked at the Yahoo! Group, and its contents? I fail to see how this is unverifiable or original research. The alleged indication "that no-one speaks or writes this made up language to any significant degree" surprises me, considering that variants of the language are used regularly for communication in the discussion group. The paucity of the chrestomathy merely indicates that the GeoCities page in particular is dead. Again, cf. the Yahoo! Group. EldKatt (Talk) 11:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Verifiability does not involve readers repeating primary research. If the only way for readers to verify the content of the article is for them to trawl through all of the messages in a discussion forum (which are not considered to be reliable sources, by the way) and piece together the history/grammar/vocabulary of the language from their contents, then the article is not verifiable. An encyclopaedia article synthesized from such messages is original research. Uncle G 11:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • On a sidenote, I think applying the recommendation against bulletin boards on WP:RS to this case is a bit rash, considering that we're discussing a project developed entirely in such a medium. If we were to apply the cited guideline blindly, we would prevent ourselves from having articles on any notable Usenet personalities or newsgroups, to make another example. Anyhow, nobody needs to rummage through messages to verify anything here. Proposed grammars and dictionaries are in the "Files" section, and no original research is necessary. I hope that we can dismiss the verifiability issue, and discuss notability instead, since that, I suspect, is really the important issue. EldKatt (Talk) 17:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep seems sufficiently notable. Though I don't understand why there are three separate versions for Folkspraak in the Lord's Prayer section. If that issue isn't explained, I might change my vote to delete because conlangs in construction aren't notable. --Revolución (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]
    • Ahem! From the article itself: "The members of the Yahoo! group are working steadily toward a consensus, [...] There are currently disagreements about many rather basic areas of the language including orthography, grammar, and vocabulary." What is your basis for considering this subject notable? It doesn't even get as far as notability. It isn't even verifiable. Uncle G 01:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I would not call Folkspraak a unified language, it's a very interesting language group, and it has a very active community. True, there is little consencus and chances are low that a final language will emerge soon. But the discussions, the common interest for some form of inter-Germanic, is very much alive. The article needs to be edited to reflect this. I would go as far as to not call Folkspraak a language but a community which is interested in IAL's and Germanic languages. FYI: I'm the admin of the www.tidingkonien.com website, but I have no stake in the development of the Folkspraak language itself. -- Evert Mouw 10:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do not consider lack of notability among a general audience a satisfactory criterion for deletion on its own. Among conlangs, I consider this notable enough. EldKatt (Talk) 11:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As pointed out above, this article isn't verifiable. Notability isn't even an issue. Uncle G 11:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although it's past closing time, I am, after some deliberation, changing my vote to a weak delete. Removing unverifiable material (the existence of which can't be denied, although I still don't think everything is) would leave a very small article on a subject of little notability. EldKatt (Talk) 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep qwm 20:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Uncle G --Khoikhoi 19:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep(changed to Keep or Merge, below) - There are IALs focused on families of languages (Slovio on Slavic family, Lingua Franca Nova on Romance family) so why not Folkspraak as example of IAL focussing on the Germanic family. It is a big family: related to English and German language having milions of speakers. Yes, it is not finished. It is still in development, just like Esperanto, Interlingua, and all other IALs. -- ActiveSelective 11:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion sets an example. Therefore, I would like to know if, and why or why not, Uncle G would like to judge and delete other IALs such as Slovio and Lingua Franca Nova on the same criteria (born/developed through the internet, mainly communities, not many speakers) -- ActiveSelective 12:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those are your criteria. My criteria are verifiability and no original research, as plainly stated above. Yes, articles that don't satisfy those criteria should be deleted. See our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Do those languages have dictionaries of, grammars of, self-study guides for, and published works written in them? Are there secondary source materials available for them from which an encyclopaedia article can be written? Lingua Franca Nova states, and Slovio implies, that there are dictionaries available for the language. (Neither article has references, however, I note.) Folkspraak language states that there are no dictionaries available, because people haven't even agreed on a vocabulary. ("There are currently disagreements about many rather basic areas of the language including orthography, grammar, and vocabulary.") Uncle G 12:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The existence of dictionaries, grammars, self-study guides and published works seems like a notability issue rather than a verifiability issue to me, as I've already implied above. I still don't quite get your point. EldKatt (Talk) 15:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's a verifiability issue when it comes to writing an article on a language. I pointed this out above. An encyclopaedia article cannot be written if there are no sources to verify it against. (An encyclopaedia is a tertiary source, remember.) If there are no grammars for the language that have yet been agreed upon by people and published, an encyclopaedia article on the language cannot be written that gives a grammar for the language. The same goes for vocabulary and so forth. Uncle G 20:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As was mooted on the FS Yahoo! group, perhaps an article on Germanic-based IALs in general would be more appropriate? It could explain the issues people have had when designing such languages and compare them to each other. With regards FS dictionaries etc. there ARE dictionaries for individual 'dialects', which are thus just as valid as any created for one-man-band auxlangs IMHO, but there is no unified dictionary as there is indeed no unfied FS language as yet.Xipirho
    • Hey, Xipirho. this is Wakuran_Wakaran. I wondered if you'd like to delete the section about Middelsprake. I don't think it's particularly interesting, and Ingmar has moved on to Folkspraak now anyway. I haven't registered yet, so I don't want to delete the section myself. About the discussion, I agree that there is no standard form yet, but I fail to see how that counts as "unverifiable", mostly the info in the article is generally true, albeit slightly outdated. I agree in Eldkatt's comment that the information is verifiable, and that if something, it's the notability that matters.81.232.72.53 17:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi. With regards that section I certainly think it should be shortened a bit or the rest made longer so that there's not more about MS than FS, which there's getting close to being at the moment! :-) I'd like to ask Ingmar first though. With regards verifiability versus notability I agree, as you can see. - Xipirho 17:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright... Another thought, since the language is more of an idea than a real language at the meantime, maybe the page could be moved to "Folkspraak Language Project" or something, since it is far from being a complete uniform language at the meantime... 81.232.72.53 20:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our No original research and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought official policies exclude "one-man-band" things, be they one-man-band religions, one-man-band philosophies, one-man-band scientific theories, one-man-band historical interpretations, or, indeed, one-man-band languages. Uncle G 14:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quenya is a one-man-band language. It should be instantly clear that this criterion alone isn't very good. EldKatt (Talk) 15:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • False. Quenya is not a one-man-band language. Quenya has been acknowledged by people other than that one man, and they have published grammars, dictionaries, teaching courses, and other works of their own. See our article. That is very different to Folkspraak. Uncle G 19:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I assumed "one-man-band" referred to the fact that it was produced entirely by one man--a real one-man-band, in the sense of a guy with a guitar in his hands and a drum on his back, is still a one-man-band even if an audience is present. Your comments per se are of course valid. EldKatt (Talk) 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree to EldKatt -- Folkspraak is an umbrella term and as such not a one-man-thing. Also, I do see the general problem: that it is a running project in development, and as such does not have definite outcomes yet, nor independently published articles on it. It is a 'problem' that other conlangs also have. But the community itself, the plan behind it, the commonalities of intergermanic conlangs, and the relation to other family IALs, are interesting and hard enough to consider the Folkspraak project and the dialects existent, potential, notable, and for us to write about it. There is enough visible of it to see that it is not just a myth, nor that it will die a quick death. -- ActiveSelective 16:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC) (On the side, I do hope those Folspraakers will hurry the hell up with the finishing of their project)[reply]
      • LOL ActiveSelective. I do too, especially as I'm one of them! I was just reading through the deletion policy and I just think that the article probably best fits the "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" catagory, thus leading to the action "Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect.". I don't really care if it's deleted though I must say - I mean we really do need something a bit more definite for it to be considered anything like a real IAL. -Xipirho 17:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither elvish nor klingon are one-man-band languages. That's like saying Casino Royale is a one man band book because one person wrote it. They aren't self published and self promoted, they are both notable and verifiable. Despite this being well overdue for being closed, in accordance with policy I have to say delete Lotusduck 19:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into general Germanic conlang article. At a glance it seems just as notable as Lingua Franca Nova, just not fully developed yet. — Laura Scudder ☎ 19:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You really have to be a guideline fetishist if you want to delete this article. Caesarion 21:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge (was: keep) -- I move to keep and patch up, or merge into a more general Germanic conlang article. Uncle G does have some good arguments. No fetishism, or worse. There just is not much to go on. However, I do think there is enough not to delete this item completely -- ActiveSelective 04:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Having participated on and off in the Folkspraak project, I can assure you that it will never come to completion. What has happened once or twice is that interested individuals have creamed off research from the Yahoo archive and created their own versions. I'd vote for giving it a mention on a Germanic conlang page, alongside historical, verifiable projects like Teutonish.--Chris 11:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, most definitely! Folkspraak is very well-known, it has its own (rather large) Yahoo! group, numerous people speak it, and it is interesting for several reasons (its design principles, the fact that it is a collaborative project with quite some people involved, the fact that it has several "dialects" instead of one standardised form, just to mention a few). Sure, it is never going to be the IAL to end all IALs, but then, neither is Ido, or Interlingua, or Novial... No, Folkspraak is definitely a significant language; just imagine, it even survived an AfD in the German wikipedia [6], which in general is not exactly tolerant towards constructed languages! Besides, it's easy to say "merge it into an article about Germanic conlangs", but the truth is that there is no such article yet, and I don't see it coming too soon. And even then, there's more than enough that can be said about Folkspraak to warrant an article on its own. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 13:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect to Folkspraak project or similar, or Merge into a currently non-existent article about Germanic conlangs or IALs. It's been around enough to be an influence on conlanging in general as seen in a search of the incomplete CONLANG list archives. DenisMoskowitz 16:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki (Programming Language)

non-noteable, unverifiable Tedernst | talk 05:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Mize

WP:VANITY (see hotmail address here, compare to username). Only 82 google hits [7], not all of them relevant. Interiot 05:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Though this is a 50/50 split, merely having other articles with the same material is grounds for a redirect debate, rather than deletion. -Splashtalk 01:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Azhar Shia Fatwa

It is a fatwa issued by Al-Azhar university in Egypt declaring Shi'as as equals to Sunnis within Islam. The topic is covered in Historical Shi'a-Sunni relations and in Sunni fatwas on Shi'as. Pepsidrinka 06:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • While this has nothing to do with systematic bias, but one could make the argument that every fatwa issued by Al-Azhar is important by virute of it being "an important Islamic university". If anything, this should be used as a redirect if its not deleted. Pepsidrinka 17:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I wouldn't want to see an article for every fatwa, but this one, in which Shia Islam is recognised as a valid form of Islam by Sunni scholars is important. It shows that extremist Sunni/Salafi hostility to the Shia is not supported by one of the more imporatant Sunni institutions. --Squiddy 21:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Council of Europe. -Splashtalk 01:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was moved ws 7/05. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Kurdistan Workers Party. I don't see the need to precede that with deletion as Gazpacho suggests. -Splashtalk 01:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of Democratic Confederalism in Kurdistan

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was movd ws 7/05. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Christadelphians. -Splashtalk 01:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was movd ws 7/05. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 13:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Schonfeld

Listing this on AfD on behalf of User:FrancisTyers, who added it to CSD as not asserting importance. I don't think it fits the CSD criteria quite, so I brought it here. Hedley 16:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wave plan of Kopenhagen

Rather poorly written article, which I take to be a case of first impression. Are "wave plans" (radio transmission regulations, apparently) of individual Danish cities notable? Xoloz 16:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somethinglocal.com

Was listed on WP:CSD but doesn't fit the criteria, so listing on the user's behalf. Seems like a legal music downloads service for unsigned bands. Hedley 16:22, 24 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. -Splashtalk 01:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myron Wolf Child

This is a close case on notability. A Google search reveals some information on this individual, and limited local press coverage. However, I cannot distinguish him from any other young activist who might make a local paper. Certainly, his article needs review here. Xoloz 16:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Hetherington case

Case seems unnotable, written to push an agenda, doesn't seem to have any meaningful material to add to it. -- Jbamb 13:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of number one singles on the MiTracks Countdown

Too far out of date. Might be useful if it was kept up-to-date but it hasn't been and I can't find any history of the chart (even on the official site). Two different songs listed as number ones on an essentially meaningless chart just during the month of September would not be a huge loss. violet/riga (t) 12:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tapioca Days

Along with Jimmy Blackmon. Ehh, this article about a TV show yet to air gives no claim to notability. Neither does the article about its creator. They probably merit a delete. Are public access TV shows inherently notable? Matt Yeager 09:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Law of One

1) The page seems to be a a thinly veiled promotion for a psychic named David Wilcox. 2) The article adds nothing of interest to Edgar Cayce article it is linked from. 3) The article is so poorly written and thinly sketched out that it fails to illuminate the topic or even make the case that "Law of One" even is a topic worthy of a separate entry.

At best, the opening of the article might be included as a subtopic in the Edgar Cayce article. The rest of the article seems worthless to this reader, and quite possibly nothing more than a poor attempt at self-promotion. StrangeAttractor 06:26, 29 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. — JIP | Talk 13:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charter School of Wilmington/Clubs

Subpages for articles meant to be apart of WP are a violation of WP:SP. Charter School of Wilmington/Faculty also fits this criteria. Pepsidrinka 06:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Faculty subpage now has an AfD tag, which points to this discussion. This is now a combined nomination for the two sub-pages Saberwyn
  • Delete both as violations of WP:SP, and for lacking in content relevant to an encyclopedia article on the school. I will support a merge of some or all of the material on the Clubs sub-page, if it can be demonstrated that this information is 'notable' enough to be a productive inclusion in the main article. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 09:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Both. Per Pepsidrinka and Saberwyn - blatant violation of WP:SP. Perhaps some of the clubs can be merged into the main article, but faculty is non-notable unless there are individuals that prove otherwise. As a side note, the main article stays, per Wikipedia precedent to keep high schools and merge non-notable primary schools into the article about their district. -Rebelguys2 12:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a wikipedian who is working on these articles, I should tell you all that the lists are being held in those locations temporarily while summaries can be written about the few clubs of importance (those with national awards) and award-winning faculty. Perhaps we could move the sub-page articles to the talk page while the summaries are written and then include the final summaries in the main encyclopedia entry. Under Allowed Uses in WP:SP, it says "Drafts of major article revisions, i.e. Example Article/Temp (These can also be subpages of the article's talk page.) Do not use subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia.". If you would prefer it to be clearer that the articles are temporary or would prefer that they be moved to the Talk Space, that is fine. But I do not support the deletion of them. --R6MaY89 14:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vilates WP:SP and clubs and faculty all seem nn. At most put them back into the main article. --Pboyd04 15:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Air Avatar

In the series "Avatar: The Last Airbender", the terminology "Air Avatar" has never been used. The information within the The Air Avatar page is written with little understanding of the animated television series. Were the information better written, it would be better included within one of the main "Avatar: The Last Airbender" pages.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, more so because nominator has withdrawn.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Kelly

{{{text}}} No Guru 07:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

pfctdayelise 05:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sarah Ewart, since you asked, there are but two things I am unsure of the accuracy of - although I did not as such make either of them up. Firstly I am unsure as to the veracity of Hugo's mother's claim that restrictive Australian quarantine regulations made it impossible to import Hammy the Hampster - she may just have been breaking it gently to young Hugo that she was not paying for a cabin berth for Hammy. If someone cares to research what the quarantine regulations actually were, we can verify that. Secondly, I am not sure of the strict accuracy of calling farting a hobby. Hugo does fart an awful lot, but whether or not that consitutes a hobby may be, now that you mention it, debateable. Anyway, someone already removed that from the hobbies section, so it doesn't really matter.User:SunKing1 11.56, 1 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moggles, the

Not sure if I should be giving this the time of day at AFD, but it doesn't google [8] [9] and no references are provided. Unverifiable. Kappa 07:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thin games

Seems to be original research, no Google results for it and I've certainly never heard of it before. Delete Kevin 07:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, whichever way I read it. -Splashtalk 01:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism (United States)

Primarily original research and POV. The only verifiable claims are material lifted from the Neo-fascism page. This page has had cleanup tags galore for weeks and has made little progress, due to apparent lack of interest. The one author working on it can do so in his sandbox. It should be deleted and the title redirected to Neo-Fascism. keith 08:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a fact that there have been movements, but no editor has stepped upto the plate to balance this article, ATM it doesn't have anything that makes it stand on it's own. Neo-Fascism already presents most of the facts in a much more balanced context, until there is way too much content about the US in Neo-Fascism, it should stay there. PPGMD 18:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you would argue to delete Islamofascism on the same grounds? BYT 12:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some effort to approach NPOV, but have not had much help. This is not the only article I am working on, and it would be great to have some help, rather than a load of critics. --Dschor 12:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is that if the content of the article were improved, and if it focused on, say, the claims that there have been fascist or neo-fascist movements in the US, or the use of "fascism" as an epithet in American political discourse, or the recurrent claims that political leaders like Huey Long were fascist, you would vote to keep? Just want to be clear here. BYT 14:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think a clean up and expansion of the United States section of the Neo-Fascism article would be a better start, once that section gets too long them you fork it out leaving a main article link on the Neo-Fascism page. By doing that, you would get more editors involved since there seens to be a group that actively works on the fascism articles on that page. PPGMD 15:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Cobra 02:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melchers

It's just an obvious example of someone who should have instead been playing around in the sandbox. It details three non-notable names in an unwikified format, and the article title is not one that appears readily salvageable into anything Wikipedia-worthy. Frag 08:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Lally

Musician, seemingly non-notable. A Google search for his name turned up mostly references to other people. DavidLally.net does not have an Alexa ranking. — TheKMantalk 08:53, 29 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.

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Bellhaven (2nd nomination) for the nomination in June 2006.

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

The result of the debate was Delete.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Bellhaven

It's an article for a name that is sometimes referenced by a minor character on a syndicated radio show. Clearly... relaxathon 08:59, 29 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 wasmoved to WP:MFD. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 10:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Assume bad faith

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, defaulting to keep --Ichiro 23:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Grip

advertising a mod for Half Life 2; non-notable and possibly a copyvio (ESkog)(Talk) 10:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus after a rewrite. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Shreshth91
           * Thanks, JJay. - Kizza
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Native Guns

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

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

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

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

Native Guns featured in Canada's Vancouver Georgia Straight Weekly-[[10]] Named one of L.A.'s "Top Ten Most Intriguing Bands"-[[11]] Featured in asianweek.com- [[12]] Fil-Arts Fest- [[13]] sfweekly.com- [[14]]

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

This AFD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hey this is Kiwi of the Native Guns. i just found out about all this recently, so bear with me. anyway, as far as the article, yes there's some cut-n-paste, but whatever's written about us looks satisfactory. not sure how else to go about this. we're also mentioned in an article on wikipedia regarding filipino hip hop [[15]]. i can clean it up if need be, but for the most part, it's accurate. if you need me to add or clarify anything let me know groundworkmusic@yahoo.com. as far as whether or not we're 'worthy' of being on here well that's not my decision but i think the track record speaks for itself. sorry if i didn't follow the format, i never even heard of wikipedia until now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.4.166 (talk • contribs)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- Rob 01:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city
  2. Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.
Information is verifiable under multiple sources (specifically within the APIA music and activism scene), including:
  • Locus Arts- [[16]] Vancouver's Under the Volcano- [[17]]
  • APAture- [[18]]
  • UCLA's Ethnomusic archives (call #200305_0005)- [[19]]
  • Festival of Phillipines ART & Culture- [[20]]
  • East Bay Express- [[21]]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bankuei (talk • contribs)
  • comment - Some people make bad-faith copyright violation nominations, in order to do an end run around the {afd} procedure. An article I started was on the receiving end of someone willing to take advantage of the three week long backlog in addressing copy-vios. So I checked this assertion. The copy-vio assertion is solid. I went back to the beginning of the article, to see whether rhe article could be saved by reeling back to an earlier version that was not a copy-vio. The very first contributor's version incorporated material from its external links.
    • This does not mean there should be no article about this band. If the original author of the material on the myspace web-pages that has been incorporated into this article releases it under an appropriate liscence, or puts their material in the public domain, the copy-vio concern goes away... -- Geo Swan 22:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Excellent article, seems notable enough. Kevin 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks notable to me. A.J.A. 00:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well researched, needs some help with the style, but overall no way that this should be deleted. Soo 01:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong Talk 14:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted (A7) WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Ramsden

Delete. Quite simply this is a vanity page, the person is not notable, the information not verifiable, and finally the article appears to have been created by Jonathan Ramsden himself. Brendanfox 10:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep (nom withdrawn).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fish heads

Unencyclopedic dicdef. Delete CLW 10:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Place

Advert and Not Notable - Google search comes up with mostly addresses. Speedy Delete. VegaDark 10:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete? See, this is one of the reasons nominators voting sucks. Sometimes the votes make no sense. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to fit the article 7 criteria for a speedy delete, does it not? VegaDark 11:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't believe it does. And if it were a speedy, why did you go to AfD instead of tagging for speedy? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I figured there was room to argue if it met the speedy delete criteria or not (although I personally feel that it does), so I just put it through this so people could add their input. VegaDark 03:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you tag an article as speedy and it isn't, then the worst that will happen is an admin will come along and remove the tag. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. The worst that will happen is that the article will be deleted, and if it's not on a watchlist, it's probably gone for good. That said, this embarrassment of an article ought to be speediable. Denni ☯ 03:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Next time I'll do that. VegaDark 04:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

500 Borough Drive

Non-notable Toronto building. YUL89YYZ 11:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D-TNG

non notable fancruft. If we included every fan site of every tv show, we'd be a bit overloaded. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adini Online

Blatant advertisement, unwikified and orphaned. One might suspect that it's a copyvio, but I can't find the exact text out there. This article is so bad and so biased that, even if the Adini Online website merited an article, we'd be better off starting from scratch. WP:NOT a vehicle for advertising. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily A7 deleted WhiteNight T | @ | C 23:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

westside Piru

non-notable group Mikeblas 11:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted (A8) WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Siemens CF75

Appears to be an ad. Definitely POV. -- MatthewDBA 11:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to The Groosalugg. Redirects for spelling mistakes are common. This prevents someone else who doesn't realize they made a spelling mistake from making a new article. howcheng {chat} 23:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Groosalug

Blank, wrongly spelled and thus unnecessary. Real article at The Groosalugg
Kusonaga 11:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why redirect and not just delete? I could re-direct if you want, but it just seems useless to me.

Kusonaga

Redirects for common misspellings are allowed and encouraged. I have no idea what the Groosalugg is, but I guess many people are likely to forget the double g at the end. If this is not a common misspelling, then I'd vote delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So just delete the deletion notice and go for a redirect?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. - brenneman(t)(c) 14:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Lovett

non-notable, also appears it may be a vanity page; fails WP:BIO and WP:VAIN --Krich (talk) 11:37, 29 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. -Splashtalk 01:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mysbelysning

A dicdef for a Swedish neologism and/or trademark of a form of lightning, with very little context. Non-notable. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. The article had already been deleted by another administrator. Mindmatrix 16:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The apartment creative agency

advertisement Mikeblas 11:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted, it was a straight copyvio. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:45, 29 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 wasno consensus reached, defaulting to keep. Tznkai 10:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sina

If you're here because of a request from an external website:

Please understand that this is not a vote; it is a discussion. Multiple comments by very new users that fail to provide evidence are highly likely to be discounted by the closing administrator. Many Wikipedians have been known to react unfavorably to attempts to alter the course of a nomination in this manner, and may in fact recommend to delete based upon it. If you wish to prevent this article from being deleted, the way to do so is to provide verifiable evidence.

There is no proof that Ali Sina is who he says he is. He might just be an a group of islamophobes with an agenda. There is no way to objectively determine who or what Ali Sina is, all we have is "his" own words and "his" hatefilled website م 11:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

NOTE I suspect that the editor who put the page up for deletion is a sockpuppet , only a few edits in Wikipedia.--CltFn 13:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Just that a section of people finds it offensive doesn't mean we silence the voice. It is 21st century, we are not barbarians and just that I disagree with him doesn't constitute reason enough to delete.
  • Strong Delete: Very strong attack on a sixth of the world. One of my best friends is Muslim, and she even wished me a Merry Christmas, so I highly doubt Islam is a religion of hate. Sceptre(Talk) 12:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Very controversial character but he does exist in some form. With the same logic we should delete number of other articles about other religious commentators who use similar rhetoric. Article is relatively NPOV - Skysmith 13:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep did you even read the page, most of it is criticism of him. Needs a cleanup tag added though, and possible NPOV'ing - FrancisTyers 13:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel we need to focus on the importance of the Website here. We may strongly disagree with what it says, but that's not an adequate reason for deletion. Dlyons493 Talk 13:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Alexa rank >40,000, Wikipedia is the top site linking in according to Alexa. Thgere is no practical limit to the number of bigots out there, we are not obliged to cover every one. Existence and content are both verifiable, though the sources generally fall well below reliable. Of course this could just be my wishy-washy liberal side coming to the fore. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Attack page. --Pboyd04 16:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a person who runs his own webpage to attack a religion. Agree with what Just zis Guy, you know? said about every bigot having an article. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting Ali Sina with your generalizations, I wonder why? Here we see the true face of Anonimous editor , not the one he presents at his request for adminship. Ali Sina is a humanist and stands for human rights and freedom of religion , freedom of thought and speech. He has taken a couragous stand against human oppresion of the vilest kind. I wonder why you omit to mention that? --CltFn 13:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, his wikipedia account would often make comments such as "We are all Sina". Yuber(talk) 17:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Could use some chopping of quotes, but I fail to see how the contents of the article are unverifiable. Further, the original move to delete seems to have been by someone with no name. I smell an intent to suppress and censor. rudra 11:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this guy is allowed to express his point of view even if many find them offensive, and there are plenty of anti (put you favorite religion here) hate site out there. On the other side we just can't pretend he doesn't exist and burry our head in the sand. We better have a strong NPOV entry about this guy which can balance his radical and personal views.--Khalid hassani 20:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's a published writer and is notable enough. It also seems that the article has recieved a fair amount of interest from Wikipedias readers, and it has been edited maybe around 6 or 700 times since it was created around a year ago. -- Karl Meier 22:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That might be because every week he(or the people he trains for publicitizing his views on WP) add a lot of praise to him . The article is a continuous battle field b/w him/his followers & people who want to keep it NPOV (see talk page). F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 22:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum - I've just noted this new addition in the article by an anon [24]. Please read it carefully! The additions is a quote from the subject's website stating that "My site is not hate-filled and this is clear to any unbiased person." This is what the article serves for! A forum for an alien, a pseudonym!!! Also it states " "With all due respect, as long as you are a Muslim you are a potential terrorist and this is the message that I want to communicate to the world." " W/o Wikipedia, the subject is everything but notable! The new additions are directed to wikipedia and not to the Washington Post! Wiki me up&#153;
  • Strong Keep. As Ali Sina says himself, his credentials are not relevant to the truthfulness of his claims. And these claims are true. And truth should be voiced. When Muslim countries will start to treat religious minorities as it should be, there could be a talk about "Islamophobia". For now, it is only the "Kafirophobia" that is strongly present. If there is an article about Islamophobia here, there should be one about Kafirophobia as well. Also, Mr. Sceptre should know that "best friends" cannot change Quran and Ahadith. And one person does not represent "one fifth" of the world. So this vote is not based at all.--Aleverde 15:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong Keep He is a published author and the leader of the ex muslim apostate movement. If the article was not notable then why all the interest, why all the edit wars. And I wonder why a particular group of editors has been toiling incessantly to denigrate Ali Sina and his work.--CltFn 13:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable --Kefalonia 14:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC
  • Keep It does not matter whether he is or is not a "real person." Fictional characters also have a place in Wikipedia. It does not also matter whether it is a pseudonym of just one or of several individuals. All that matters is that some author who calls himself Ali Sina and claims to be whatever he claims to be maintains a popular website devoted to everybody knows what despite repeated opinions that he is not notable.--Pecher 20:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding verifiability, it is still possible to include self-published information in biographies of living persons. I do not see any problems in this case if his biographical information, clearly attributed to his website, is included in the article. It is certainly not ideal, but still possible.--Pecher 20:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ali Sina is notable enough at least for thousands of sites that mention his name and quote him. He has also been interviewed in radios. In no place he has said Ali Sina is a pseudonym. This is something Wikipedians have written about him and he has neither confirmed it nor denied it. [25]. Despite that encyclopaedias cover totally imaginary personages including mythological figures. The fact that a personage is imaginary is not reason for him not to be reported. There is more evidence that Ali Sina exists as a real person than there is for Anaxagoras, Heraclitus, Anaximander, Anaximenes and Democritus. These ancient philosophers are only mentioned by Plato and there is not even a book left from them. All it takes to dismiss their existence is to doubt Plato and yet no sane person would do such thing.
Let us face the truth. All these vilifications and belittling of Ali Sina are motivated by religious hatred. It is basically the same editors who constantly censored anything I wrote on Islam who are now claiming this Article should be deleted. This is another attempt to censorship and silencing the views contrary to Islam.
Wikipedia has articles about less notable persons than Ali Sina. There is no pandemonium about deleting them because those people do not criticize Islam. This commotion is about Islam and not about Ali Sina. It just shows the intolerance of Muslims to even acknowledge the existence of apostates and critics of Islam. Sadly these people come here with a religious agenda and not to promote knowledge and impartiality. Denying this fact, because it may offend these people is like hiding our heads in the sand and not willing to see the obvious. OceanSplash Jan 5, 2006 23:16
Firstly, mythical figures are noted as mythical. I really don't think you want us saying Ali Sina is mythical. There is also tons of literature written about Zeus — this is not true about Ali Sina. Also, it's not because he is an ex-Muslim. The Ibn Warraq article is not up for deletion because just about no one thinks he is not notable. So, we shouldn't exactly oversimplify this to being Muslims against non-Muslims. My personal opinion is that a lot of people are voting delete because this article has attracted loads of anons and unfortunately there have been calls on the FFI forums to come here and edit... well, when people come to get into edit wars on an article that is most definitely not necessarily encyclopedic then people will want to delete it. gren グレン 05:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with OceanSplash. Why else would someone delete my "Keep" comments only 18 minutes after I had posted them here on January 4th? (please see History) Anonymous 5 January, 2005 8:38 PM Eastern Time

The reason is likely because your vote won't be counted anyways. User with little or no edits votes don't really count. Although, I did not see the particular circumstances. gren グレン 05:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gren Your contribution in this page goes beyond just giving your opinion. You are responding to every “Keep” post and are being militant. This is indication of strong bias, a kind of bias that can only be inspired by religious zeal. Your views can hardly be taken as impartial in this matter. OceanSplash Jan 5, 2006 23:36
He asked a question. I answered. One would almost thing that if I felt so strongly I'd vote delete... no? Or you know, delete it myself with my special little button. ~_~ If you look at AfD policies admins don't taken into account votes of users who have incredibly few contributions or seem to have come only for an AfD. Find me any user who voted delete with so few edits and I'll tell them too. However, if you look at it, mostly users who voted "keep" have so few edits. Geez, man.  :)gren グレン 10:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Ali Sina is not nearly notable enough to be a necessary entity for this encyclopedia. However, this is wikipedia and we are not paper. We have pages for minor porn stars, really non-notable albums and I'm sure I could dig out other articles. Ali Sina is about on that level. The only thing that makes him different is that he has an internet following and that makes his article prone to edit wars. So, I'm not going to delete it... and last time I voted keep... it really causes too many problems for its worth so this time I won't taken any initiative to save it. gren グレン 11:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think Fayssal's Israel Shamir comparison is a good one, and we have a long and reasonably sympathetic article on Shamir. If this one needs to be cleaned up and improved, let's do so, but that is not grounds for deletion of the topic. Babajobu 20:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per Fayssal ... the article is cleaned up from too much detail from his website and his opponents' sites. We should summarize both his views and his opponents w/o quoting large chunks of comments or writings from both sites! I agree, and if the article doesn't improve in a while and it is brought up for deletion again I may consider revising my vote. But for now it stays as Keep, this seems like a content dispute that has spilled over into AfD. - FrancisTyers 20:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article provides one person's view and there is no attempt to pass it off as fact or endorse it. Like Babajobu said, it's the same issue as Israel Shamir article. Do we silence someone because we find their views offensive or different from ours? I hope not. Aiden 20:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while keeping my comments on my previous delete vote - My first comment before voting delete was a thought for a keep on the grounds that this article should be cleaned up and abide by the rules of Wikipedia. After the confirmation of Babajobu and Francis, I change my vote to keep with ease, somehow getting an insurance. I'll be up observing that happening and don't mind if I'd sometimes get bold applying the rules. The trolling is not acceptable there. Trolls, be aware! Cheers -- Szvest 21:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]

Edits by anons and first-time editors as well as related comments are placed here

keep! - why are people worried whether he is ex-muslim or not? does his charges aginst islam become void in that case? it is not right to censor thoughts, everyone has a right to express his ideas. so keep this article and try to improve it!

Comment Wikipedia isn't the place for people to express their ideas, it is an encyclopedia--a collection of knowledge. Logophile 01:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both Ali Sina and Faithfreedom.org are notable. Faithfreedom was quoted in a report by the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment on the murder of Theo van Gogh. -- Kwnl 0:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Rudra, I'm just not very computer-literate, I thought I did sign my comment if not my user name is (م). My intention is not to censor anyone. My objection to this racist's entry are basic. First, I don't know how popular this "guy" is, but the first time I heard about him was on wikipedia. His name was constantly thrown around by someone on the Islam discussion board. That user has since been blocked for his racist/hatefilled/islamphobic comments (Gren I think you know who I am reffering to ;). Hence, I do not want wikipedia to be used as a platform for "his" hatred. The second reason has to do with "his" identity. I know that bios are done on everone, good or evil. But no one knows who this "man" is. He could be one person, he could be an entire hate group. Wikipedia can not rely on this idiot's words for its main source. By the way Kwnl I wonder if the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment realizes that this bigot(s) main, and stated, purpose is to eliminate all muslims from off the face of the Earth.م 06:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Calling Ali Sina a "racist", a bigot" and whatever else without substantiation only reveals your motivation more clearly. This is not the place to debate his views, nor the place to enforce your personal opinion of them. rudra 22:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is a bigot, but I think that it is important that bigots be exposed. 129.234.4.10 17:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
  • Keep There is enough interest on this subject to be included. There is no reason why the content cannot be improved to be impartial. However, there's evidence of 'conflict of interest' by certain editors.
  • Keep Ali Sina has debted with very notable Islamic scholars, and has quite a large fanbase. He has also attracted a lot of attention from many well-known Islamic representitves, including Zakir Naik. He's certainly influential enough to have his own page, no doubt about that.
  • "Strong Keep" Everybody is entitled to have their own views, we might agree or disagree, but disagreement is not the basis for deletion. It is censorship.
Your personal opinion that this person is a "bigot" does not make him any more or less notable.--Pecher 09:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just my personal opinion, but let that pass. If this was a known, credible person, or if the column were sindicated in reliable sources I'd have no problemwith it. But we don't know who "Ali Sina" is; all we know is that there is a website (which appears to me to fail WP:WEB, but that is debatable since there is some evidence of external coverage). Since "Ali Sina" is not known to be a real person, this is really covering the website (really more of a blog) not the person. I don't think either the website or the fake "Ali Sina" persona is notable. There is precious little which can be verified from reliable sources. There is, after all, no world shortage of bigots opinionated cowards (if you prefer), we don't need to cover them all just for fear of offending some islamophobes. Many of the arguments here (not yours) seem to be based on "X has no right to say this" or "we may not prevent X from saying this" - that's a diversion. This is not about the opinions or their merit, it's about the article and its subject. In my opinion this bigot is no different from all the other bigots pouring out hate speech on the Internet. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strongly delete
That's not relevant to the issue of notability.--Pecher 09:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahboob Hayat

"Mahboob Hayat" doesn't get any google hits, but it's possible there's another transliteration for his name. Note that the original contributor has a history of unconstructive edits [26]. Kappa 12:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Mo0[talk] 04:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Langman

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

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

Since then, more info has been added to this entry. --Vodex 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I can find the mention that the newspaper in question published a name, but not any information that this actually is his name. If someone can verify it, change to keep. - Bobet 13:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since then, this person's identity has been verified. --Vodex 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since then... see above. --Vodex 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since then... see above. --Vodex 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here is the Greek newspaper article published on 25 December 2005 Stavros-Athens

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

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 19:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — JIP | Talk 05:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK railfan jargon

Wikipedia is not a slang guide. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Pablo-flores. Bobet 15:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Confrens

Something someone made up, with no verification. Googling only gets results from people who can't type. I left the move to wiktionary tag on but seriously doubt that they would like having it either. - Bobet 12:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linknz.co.nz

website is 403, seems like an ad Mikeblas 13:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayu Khandro

Originally speedy delete, restored by Tony Sidaway without notifying User:Ulayiti and bringing it to AfD per Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy. Completing process for him.

Not encyclopedic, no sources cited. Low Google, but beware systemic bias. Recomend delete unless WP:V and WP:CITE can be met. brenneman(t)(c) 13:29, 29 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.

While normally closing an AfD you participated in is bad form, I think that I'll be forgiven. The results of this debate was Keep and a pat on the back to everyone who improved the article. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Sit

Originally speedy deleted, restored by Tony Sidaway without notifying User:Brookie or bringing to AfD per Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy. Completing process for him.

Does not have an allmusic entry, Google does not appear to demostrate she satisfies WP:MUSIC, her website doesn't help me, but perhaps will help others with more character sets installed. Delete unless further information provided per WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:MUSIC. brenneman(t)(c) 13:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Good. -- JJay 22:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, how about this: Wikipedia is not a democracy, and we don't determine things by voting. We attempt, though discussion, to reach a meaningful and rational consensus. By fully explaining your reasons for supporting a particular course of action, you not only demonstrate your respect for the other parties invovled in the discussion but may sway those whose opinions do not match your own. Terse or sarcasticly curt recomendations may be discounted by the closing admin. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Aaron why are you nagging people when the reasoning and eventual outcome are clear enough? There is no chance of this being deleted now, so why should JJay care if the vote is discounted? Kappa 23:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd hardly call it "nagging", but I'll answer your question regardless. My comments have nothing to do with the eventual outcome of this discussion. This has already had a positive outcome: The article is substantially improved, and now has references and links to her other works. Bare votes (or worse, borderline uncivil expansions) defeat the purpose of these discussions. I'd have made the same comment if it had been just the word "delete". - brenneman(t)(c) 23:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        As you point out, this discussion has already achieved the purpose of establishing the notability of the topic and had the side effect of improving the article. All that's left is to make the consensus nice and clear for anyone else skimming AFD and for the closing admin. WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Kappa 23:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be blazingly obvious why I made no comment with my vote. Why waste bandwidth giving reasons for an article that should be a speedy keep and that should not have been speedied? Fiona Sit's achievements boggle the mind. She is a supremely talented international recording star. We should all send a letter of thanks to the editor who brought Fiona to our attention. I am also tired of the consistent bias demonstrated against Asian pop stars. The abuse of CSD is a further cause for concern. These are issues to talk about, along with why you have not yet withdrawn this nom -- JJay 23:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep as notable. - ulayiti (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Conglomerate and its redirect Harry Shaw-Reynolds and Jules Pascoe

Harry Shaw-Reynolds was originally speedy deleted as nn-bio. Restored by Tony Sidaway without bringing to AfD, although he did notify the other admin this time. Completing process for the original article and its redirect target.

Does not meet WP:MUSIC. See allmusic.com. I note that The Cat Empire lists Harry Shaw-Reynolds as a member, but he doesn't have an allmusic entry, so I'd like to see more info per WP:V. This mentions him but this won't load for me. Delete unless more information provided, in the event that Harry Shaw-Reynolds' member ship can be confirmed, obviously don't delete that article, but "The Conglomerate" would still fail WP:MUSIC as it says "member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable", emphasis mine. brenneman(t)(c) 13:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and same story for Jules Pascoe. No allmusic entry, some links to Cat Empire as well. More information? - brenneman(t)(c) 14:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not major media? I believe it's Australia's largest circulation newspaper. The link is in the article, which I assume you read. The CD was also prominently reviewed by The Age. And frankly, allmusic.com is not exactly an authority on Australian jazz.-- JJay 09:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did read the article, however I had forgotten that that the link was from the SMH. It was so brief, I assumed that you were talking about something else. It's not a major music magazine, which is the criterion I was referring to. See Category:Music magazines.
  • The lack allmusic entry in of itself means nothing, systemic bias and all. It's just an easy way to see if something passes the bar: two albums on major label, international tour, gold album, etc. These guys don't appear to have those.
brenneman(t)(c) 09:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, what's your point? -- JJay 09:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, my point is that these inclusion guidelines were worked out by a very large number of wikipedians over no small amount of time, and if we are going to ignore them in this case it would be nice to know what the reason for doing that is. This isn't straight forward, so I may spread the word a bit to get a wider opinion. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that it is you that is ignoring the spirit of the guidelines. You like to make accusations, but reviews in two of Australia's leading newspapers with combined circulation of over 400,000 is far more impressive to me than a mention in many of the so called major music media in our category. Furthermore, do you really doubt given this exposure that the Conglomerate has been mentioned in Jazz publications in Australia? Have you even tried to confirm this? And why you deny the connection with the Cat Empire is beyond me. At times I can not understand what motivates your zeal. -- JJay 07:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm just trying to be consistant and orderly, as is my nature. I'm sorry if I've offended or insulted you, or if you feel like I've made "accusations". I brought this to AfD because that's the best thing to do with something borderline and I'm simply pointing out how the guidelines apply. It's not personal, nor is there zeal. - brenneman(t)(c) 10:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being extended and relisted to generate a clearer consensus. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan aziz

The article is unverifiable, several claims are provably false (platinum albums (RIAA database of platinum albums), MTV Europe music award (searching on MTV.com for the name brings up nothing), Grammy Nominations (Grammy website only has winners, nominees can be found at http://www.rockonthenet.com/archive/1997/grammys.htm)) EsonLinji 14:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Brolly

Speedied a few times, restored a few times, I'm bringing it to AfD per Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy.

Google[35] doesn't turn up much to make me think he's encyclopedic, and news has nothing[36]. Delete unless further information can be provided to demonstrate notability. brenneman(t)(c) 14:25, 29 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterion

Subject not notable. Entry is an advertisment. Mr Twain 11:47, 29 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googlenonymous

nn, article even says it's a neologism.. splintax (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you forgot to add the AfD tag! I've added it now. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 05:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Muir

I came across this in a review of edits by a particular user. This was previously AfDd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Muir, with a slew of suspicious-looking anon votes. It was relisted for further consideration, and several editors I know voted delete (and one or two I also know to be genuine voted keep). The debate appears to me to have been curtailed amid misunderstandings regarding relations between two named users, now subject to arbitration.

In the mean time, my investigation of this article's subject suggests he is not actually that notable. A few academic publications years ago (list is very short by academic standards) fewer Usenet posts than me by quite a large margin, and not that many rlevant Google hits either.

Since the last vote seems to have been overshadowed by arguments re sockpuppetry and individual users' good or bad faith, I'd like to submit this for a second consideration, on the merits of the subject. Apologies to anyone who finds this objectionable, my motives are simply to have a proepr, clean discussion so that it is either klept or deleted based on the content and the subject, which (to my admittedly rather jaundiced eye) is not what happened last time. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ǂ

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

The result of the debate was DELETE BOTH ARTICLES. GTBacchus(talk) 08:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Druth and Drooth

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

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 19:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elisheva Federman

The article Elisheva Federman contains a picture from an unknown source, an introduction with virtually no information (the wife of... continues to be active) and an interview from the Israeli daily Maariv. The inclusion of the interview in Wikipedia and perhaps also the picture seems to be a serious breach of copyright law. I suggest deleting the entire article. gidonb 23:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ellingham

I think this page should be deleted because it is a disambiguation page with all red links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flarn2005 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-29 01:48:39 UTC

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 06:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Muslim Islamic scholars

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

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 19:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. The only discarded comment was from the anonymous User:216.8.155.66; I've included comments from User:Mcjsfreak07 and User:Phantasmo because they have had other positive (but minimal) contributions to Wikipedia. Overall, 11 delete and 7 keep. Personally, I believe this subject does not belong in Wikipedia, but may be suited for WikiNews. It appears to me that some people are confusing the concepts of encyclopedic value and news-worthiness. Many topics make the news, even at a national scale, that have little or no encyclopedic merit. In my opinion, the Saugeen stripper made the news simply because the story was sensational, rather than the story having any social value. Irrespective of my beliefs, the article stays because of a lack of consensus. Mindmatrix 17:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saugeen Stripper

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was unclear, but it seems likely he is the same person who blanked the article two minutes earlier, saying "This has NO business on wikipedia, it is a glorified non event that people need to get over". Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't know...seems to be getting plenty of traction as an Internet meme. I've got over 20k Google hits, and have seen it all over the blogosphere. I'm leaning to Keep. You can call me Al 16:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tagged this as a possible hoax when it was created and the creator provided sources on the talk page which show that it was picked up by mainstream media in Canada - I think that makes it notable enough. I see no other argument being made for deletion, therefore I say keep. David Johnson [T|C] 16:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC) I'm changing my mind. I am still not convinced that the event is not notable enough for Wikipedia (it was picked up by national press in Canada for which sources are provided) but the article as it stands isn't a Wikipedia article, it's a cross between a news article and a blog post, so delete (unless re-written). David Johnson [T|C] 02:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article amounts to "students got up to some stuff, someone took pictures". It's a nine-days wonder. For values of wonder which exclude interest by the 50% of the population who prefer the other gender, and the ninety-odd percent of the rest who are not in the grip of chronic testosterone poisoning. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. --YUL89YYZ 17:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a non event, let it go. --Oxxiox 17:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep If this article has sources, and this really was a notable event (reported in the media or something to that effect), I see no reason why it should be deleted. - Bootstoots 19:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So you propose deleting a valid article because 100% of the facts arent yet there? Flag it to be cleaned up, of heaven's forbid, maybe some of those with the information could actually contribute rather than blanking pages? The answer is not censorship. Tokyojoe2002 01:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It cites blogs, which may not be reliable, but are just as reliable as everything else on Wikipedia. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 216.8.155.66 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep keep keep. All of the sources are legit. It is a legitimate pop culture occurence that has received tons of national and international press. This deserves an entry, absolutely and without question. There may be moral questions, but those who have a problem with it can cite nothing other than personal feelings for the subject. Should we start allowing subjects of wikipedia articles based on true events determine what is said here? This is a SOURCE for information based on real happenings!! ... clearly, those who are pushing most ardently for the removal of the page are doing so based not in any violation of wikipedia policy, or lack of relevance in information, but rather due to personal relationships with the apparent subject of the article. Deletion for these reasons and these reasons alone is a slippery slope. THAT to be seems to be the most dangerous precedent of all. That said, I will defer to the decision of the admin, but I strongly believe deletion would be wrong.Tokyojoe2002 19:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The convention on these discussions is to add new comments to the bottom. I've moved your comment. You can call me Al 19:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The story is more the mainstream propogation of the story, and how quickly that happened (granted over 2 months after the event), the actual events are a footnote compared to that, furthermore, reporting on the speed of how quickly a story spreads, in the mainstream media, is effectively giving the story a very large booster shot, which in my oppinion makes it a conflict of interest, as then the media sources are directly involved in the story on which they are repeating. I apologize for the run on sentence!-Oxxiox 20:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's humurous. I don't even know this person's name, and I want this junk tossed. --Rob 22:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uppland and Rob. --Metropolitan90 01:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the admins, when making your final call, I ask that you consider the that a number of those on the delete side seem to have an agenda other than providing Wikipedians with information. IF the story is legit, and has spawned national and internation interest, and has spread onto over 22,000 websites, then it IS A STORY and it belongs here for people to know about. As of now, no real names are used, and while I think that it would be a valid piece of information to the article, the fact is, it can stay that way if needed. But to keep the story off of the pages here for some arbitrary moral reasons that fly in the face of the provision of information is not the answer.Tokyojoe2002 01:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you are not including me in that smear, Tokyojoe. My reason for voting delete was precisely as stated, although it now transpires that there are verifiability issues as well since the primary source turns out to be unreliable, whatever the secondary sources might say, and as yet we have very little actual information - no names, no date, no room number, no actual proof that this was not a staged event or a publicity stunt. As above, the fact that students get up to pranks is scarcely groundbreaking research. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reconsidered. Removal of this article will be a absolute travesty. I look at the list of items on the articles for deletion page, and of all of them, this one absolutely belongs. Do the right thing, admin. Make the call. Keep the article. Tokyojoe2002 13:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm wondering, other than the fact that you made the article, what is your stake in this? Do you really believe that wikipedia must educate the world about how some nameless girl stripped for a room full of guys one night in unversity? Why is this worth reading? If you live in saugeen I'd love to sit you down and ask you in person why you feel it is so completely important that you educate the masses on exactly what happened that night in that room. And if you don't live in saugeen, why is this so important to you? It would just be some drama that happened "over there" at the UWO. I knew far more about the story than is posted in the article the day after it happened and you don't see me vehemently defending the article I created about the incident. I'm sure I've said this before, cause I think it's pretty catchy and illustrates the point very well, but please, show her the respect that she (arguably) didn't show herself that night and just let it go. I really have nothing else to add. I sincerely hope that you see where I'm coming from with this. -Oxxiox 01:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • if you knew more about this the day after it happened than the article talks about why arent you being constructive and contibuting rather than trying to delte the article? that doesnt make any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.230.196.116 (talk • contribs) 12:55, January 3, 2006
      • I too am wondering about Tokyojoe2002's fervor on this topic, as well as those who are fervently arguing for its deletion. Perhaps it's my own surfing habits, but I have encountered discussion of this "event" multiple times out and about on the web. I certainly think it qualifies as an Internet phenomenon but I don't understand all the emotion surrounding it. Personally, I think the article should have far more information about the discussion of the event than the event itself. You can call me Al 16:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough blogosphere and mainstream traction. Item on national newscast. The Tom 03:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and hardly verifiable. Not all events having had media coverage (even at the level of national broadcast) are for WP: I have seen a report on a car accident in the last TV news program, but yet we don't have and should not have an article on it. - Liberatore(T) 19:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia inclusion is merited as this story had a very brief, but very loud, impact on the web. this is a term coined in national media that now has name recognition and a story behind it. scanning the list of articles on the afd page, most had very little meaning to me, but this one had instant recognition and the article, while lacking many details (and needing a rewrite), provides an outline of this semi-major media event. Phantasmo 20:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I'll concede that it's received some attention in press blurbs and blogs, but ultimately I think it sets a bad precedent to include flash-in-the-pan stories like this. It's certainly not the first time something scandalous has happened in a dorm. Ohnoitsjamie 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is a notable meme erasing it does not make sense Yuckfoo 18:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. DS 23:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image of the future

This page is badly titled and is merely an unabashed expression of the personal tastes of the person who wrote it. Michael Hardy 00:26, 29 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.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troop 26

  • delete If Troop 34 does not deserve a wikipedia article according to wikipedia members because of various valid reasons, such as non-notable, scout troop vanity, and irrelevant, This policy should be instrumented across wikipedia.

Abduncan4 20:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 03:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bakke Mountain

POV advertisement for Hoosac Wind, largely copied from http://www.hoosacwind.com/views_bakke.html Econrad 15:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shreshth91
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NESkimos

I originally speedied this a week ago as a NN Band, then withdrew it when the page author claimed notability in the 'outside the mass media' category of music. Since then, the page author has failed to provide any verification for notability in this category and so I'm moving it over here to get it off my watchlist MNewnham 15:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shreshth91
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (non-notable) --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Silcock

This article appears to have no encyclopaedic value and appears to be personal. It also contains spelling errors and would need to be Wikified to conform with the standards of Wikipedia. (aeropagitica) 15:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Brighterorange 20:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fucking assholes

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Also, very likely ot be a hoax. Bachrach44 16:02, 29 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 kill everyone involved in writing the article. DS 23:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NTHTLVA

Unverifiable [38] [39], probably an hoax. - Liberatore(T) 16:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 23:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Visual literacy

From the article's talk page, this would seem to be some kind of school project, and a lot of work would appear to have gone into it. Unfortunately, however, this probably makes the article original research. Delete CLW 16:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Shreshth91
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 unverified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Althon

This article was originally nominated for a speedy. This just barely squeaks by my A7 criteria, and I thought I'd send it here to be sure. This stub attempts to establish notability, however fleeting, by mentioning that his mother is related to royalty. --Deathphoenix 16:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Silencer

Extremely non-notable. A google search puts up ~97,00 results, but only 2 appear to deal with this character. One is the wikipedia page, and the other is the category it's in. Toffile 16:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amputron

Non notable, a google search for "Amputron comics" results in 16 hits. Toffile 16:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cytilus

2 google hits for "Cytilus Comics". Both are wikipedia. Toffile 16:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Crutched Crusader

Doing a Google of Kieran Murphy comics informs that the writer is an Irish comics writer; the artist does not come up in any Google attempts. But as mentioned above a further Google of Kieran Murphy Edwin Jobling comics brings up only the first two questionable articles as plausible hits, and nothing else. So while Murphy himself might (and I'm stretching here) be noteworthy enough for a Wiki entry, this article likely isn't and this is nothing more than advertising. --Mitsukai 16:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enough said. Delete.--Toffile 16:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wave Trek Surfboards

Advertising for a non-notable company that was "re-opened" in 2005. The external link has no Alexa Rank and a Google PageRank of just 3/10. --Deathphoenix 16:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete both despite copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 05:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford E-Learning, E-Learning, Oxford

This was incorrectly posted as a speedy. This reads like advertising for Oxford's E-Learning program, so yes, it should be deleted. --Deathphoenix 16:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COIL programming language

A trivial programming language created in December 2005 and posted here by its author (so it's not a copyvio, as originally tagged). No notability whatsoever; anyone who knows how to use lex and yacc can build a much more usable one in an afternoon. —Cryptic (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's the "some cruft justifies all cruft" argument, though, isn't it? There's nothing stopping you nominating the other unused languages in the interests of freedom, justice and the American Way, if that's an issue for you. As to why it's vanity, that is an inference drawn form the similarity between the name of the software author (Farhner) and your username (Farhnware). It is quite elementary, Watson! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 21:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of all the votes cast here, the ones that were actually valid were 10 DELETE votes and 3 KEEP votes, two of them being marginal as Jhyancey and Patentgeek have only edited articles related to this discussion. There were 3 subsequent keep votes (one as NO REDIRECT) signed by Jhyancey, those were discarded. All IP address votes were discarded. Before anyone cries foul, that includes the IP that voted delete.

Patent jock

Neologism or hoax, i.e. patent joke... Google doesn't show any evidence of widespread use. I have the strong feeling that this is a gross hoax. The result of the previous vote was "no consensus". Please do revise your opinion. The burden should be on the author of the article to prove notability. --Edcolins 16:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom. --Edcolins 16:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only use I could find was patentjock.com --Pboyd04 16:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete search engine results conclude this article is non-notable. Ajwebb 18:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT Delete Patent Jock is a real term, and is not a "gross hoax" as asserted by Edcolins. Indeed, I first learned of this term while studying law several years ago. Please also see previous deletion attempt for evidence of usage. As for notability, please re-read this page and note that "widespread usage" is not required for so-called notability. For example, I know nothing about "Action Directe", but it received a wiki entry (See: Edcolins). This means that just because one does not know about a wiki entry that it should be slated for deletion. As for the results of a internet search, this means nothing. Just because the results of an internet search engine does not produce a plethora of results, does not mean the term is not well-known. It just means that google does not list a page using this term. Also, no "burden" is required under wiki deletion policy and if one is required, it was satisfied in previous deletion attempt. Jhyancey 19:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Delete Never heard of such a term. Jurisnipper
  • Keep it already survived one AfD vote what the hecks it doing back here?! Surely we should be concentrating on new stuff not just rehacking old ground? Unless this is an attempt by the deletionists to get there way by throwing it back here ad nauseum till they finally get it deleted........not that I would suggest such a thing..."G"... Jcuk 21:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT Delete Never heard of such a term? How many of you have heard of omphaloskepsis (meditation while gazing at one's navel), gamp (a large umbrella), ferruminate (to unite; solder), effulgent (shining brightly), pelmatogram (a footprint), jentacular (pertaining to breakfast), ecophobia (fear of home), ultrafidian (ultracredulous; extremely gullible), karimption (a crown, a mass), or savate (fighting with the feet). I guess if we delete this term, then we should delete many other words and phrases that people have "never heard of" from older dictionaries and encyclopedias. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think any of us are omniscient enough to know everything about everything. We should be asking patent agents and patent attorneys whether they have heard or use the term, not whether Joe Schmoe off the street has heard of the term. --Jfredericks 21:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable unverifiable recent neologism, hoax. We're not saying "I never heard of it"; we're saying "we can't find evidence that anybody ever heard of it". --Quarl 21:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Well, if all you are saying is "we can't find evidence that anybody ever heard of it," then you haven't read the prior discussion where Jhyancey and Patentgeek (providing a couple of sites) indicated that they know that the term is used. Or are they (and the sources they site) considered nobody? --Somebody 22:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.237.72 (talk • contribs) [reply]
    • You are right, I don't consider meat puppets and sock puppets as reliable sources. I did check the websites cited as a sources; patentjock.com has no content. --Quarl 22:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the other link to Baker Botts LLP, one of the more prestigious law firms in the country, carries no weight? Ouch! Hope Jhyancey and Patentgeek don't mind being characterized as puppets... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.237.72 (talk • contribs)
        • It mentions the phrase in passing but there's no way to tell what it means. So the phrase is still unverifiable. P.S. there's no need to create multiple accounts to create the illusion of wide support -- such votes don't count. Almost by definition, anybody who has no prior contributions and suddenly starts supporting another user on an AFD is a meat or sock puppet. See WP:SOCK. --Quarl 23:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wow, now we lower ourselves to accusations. I am the same person who has posted the last two "anonymous or unsigned" entries, as I have not created an account on wiki. Of course, by your name, perhaps that's what you do best... Sorry, but the irony in creating a new and 'unverifiable' term called "sockpuppets" for those who post under different names or "jump in" on deletion wars is quite laughable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.237.72 (talk • contribs)
    • I take the view that 24.196.237.72's vote is likely to be a sock puppet (contributions) and that his/her vote should be not be taken into account. --Edcolins 07:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking evidence of importance, but having abundant evidence of sockpuppetry. Note to anons: sosckpuppetry is a great way to ensure deletion, keep it up. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but clean out the POV stuff ("rare skill and extraordinary intellect" "most Patent Jocks are formally trained and some Patent Jocks study at the Franklin Pierce Law Center"--sheesh). rodii 23:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Changing vote, see below.[reply]
  • KEEP NO SOCK PUPPET HERE--What is the goal and purpose of wiki? As a regular wiki reader and user, I think one of wiki's main purposes is providing information to increase knowledge of all. This is exactly what the Patent Jock entry does. How many of you before reading the Patent Jock entry had any knowledge about this subject matter. While the term is well-known in patent attorney circles, this entry conveys this information to all of wiki land. On another, as the main contributor for Patent Jock, I have solicited any assistance from sock puppets, nor have I engaged in that practice. For all of you urging deletion on this article, please see previous post and in particular read the baker botts cited article. (See it here: http://www.bakerbotts.com/9/infocenter/publications/Detail.aspx?id=98609148-a306-4faa-8b42-1f0e376f15d0) Jhyancey 23:34, 29 December 2005 UTC
    • That page (as I explained to the other puppet) doesn't provide enough context to verify anything about the phrase 'patent jock'. If I were to guess I would say you got lucky that some law firm's website happened to have that phrase indexed by Google. Another idea is you have a conflict of interest in having your phrase be "more official" since the registration of patentjock.com on 2004-06-22. Even if it weren't a hoax, it is non-notable; we don't need "copyright jock" and "trademark jock" and "intellectual property jock" and "divorce jock" --Quarl 23:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The vote signed by Jhyancey is a contribution by User:69.25.80.1 [43], which is likely to be bad faith sock puppetry (given the comment "NO SOCK PUPPET HERE" and the previous vote signed by Jhyancey above). Should not be taken into account. --Edcolins 08:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I voted "weak keep" last time with the reasoning that this term might be so specialized that traditional sources may not be good enough. There was a link to a law web site in the previous AfD discussion I remember. howcheng {chat} 23:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article cites no sources. I, like two of the editors in the original AFD discussion, can find no sources. The article's author, when asked for sources, points to a news report that uses jock colloquially, and that provides nothing whatsoever to support any part of this article; and to an empty web site that appears to be a site for a patent attorney to advertise xyr services under the trade name of "Patent Jock" (notice "Our Rates"). Given that, and the promotional tone of the article, it seems that this article's purpose is to mis-use Wikipedia as an advertising platform for a patent attorney who styles himself a "patent jock". The article is unverifiable, original research, and an apparent advertisement. Delete. Uncle G 00:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the discussion has been interesting, puppets aside, I repeat my earlier posting that I am familiar with this term. I don't know about the rest of the wikipedia users, but I believe the strength of wikipedia is to provide everyone with descriptions of terms that are not only common, but also those that may be somewhat rare and used in certain circles. Otherwise, this tool is useless and fails. I may not be familiar with what terms an astronaut or garbage man uses, but I do know patents. I have worked in Boston, Atlanta, Los Angeles and New York. In each of these locations I have heard patent practitioners use this term in same fashion as the description provides. Just because a websearch provides minimal sources should only be A factor in deciding if this term is a neologism. Baker Botts is a reputable and well-known patent powerhouse, and they used this term in 2002. And I find that just because the author failed to define the term "patent jock" in his article to be a ridiculous argument. One skilled in the art, ahhm...a patent jock, understands this use usage as should a lay reader. I find jyancey to be on point, as is Jfredericks. Do not delete.--Patentgeek 01:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • WEAK KEEP - I know this doesn't actually verify the definition of patent jock, but it DOES show that it is used within the industry. See http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2004/11/what_five_thing.html, where Dennis Crouch (one of the "notable" patent attorneys listed in the wikipedia listing of "patent attorney") uses the term patent jockey.--24.196.237.72 03:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote after reading here and thinking a bit. I believe "patent jock(ey)" is a real term, but don't think it's worthy of inclusion here. What distinguishes "patent jock" from garden variety Patent attorney? I think it's just the term, not the concept, and while that may be of interest to Wiktionary, it's not relevant here. An encyclopedia needs to provide information on concepts. Someone might, I grant, occasionally search this place for patent jock... So: Redirect to patent attorney. rodii 03:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to patent attorney I support Rodii’s suggestion of a redirect to Patent Agent/Attorney. “Patent Jock”, as defined in the article, appears to be a skilled patent agent/attorney. For example:
By definition, all patent attorneys/agents are registered with a patent granting body, such as the US patent office.
Patent attorneys/agents are skilled at getting their clients patents. Some are certainly more skilled that others. Very skilled ones receive promotions in corporations, make partner in law firms, or have successful solo practices.
Patent attorneys/agents can generally recite portions of patent law from memory.
Patent attorneys/agents have historically been in high demand by both government and private industry.
Patent attorney/agents come from diverse backgrounds. Most learn their skills from working under the guidance of more senior practitioners. Most also take formal training courses, such as those provided by the Franklin Pierce Law Center.
Patent attorneys/agents work with their clients to distill the essential features of an invention and draft claims accordingly to build a strong patent portfolio that meets their clients' business needs.
Many registered patent attorneys are also accomplished patent litigators.--Nowa 04:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP NO SOCK PUPPET HERE--What is the goal and purpose of wiki? As a regular wiki reader and user, I think one of wiki's main purposes is providing information to increase knowledge of all. This is exactly what the Patent Jock entry does. How many of you before reading the Patent Jock entry had any knowledge about this subject matter. While the term is well-known in patent attorney circles, this entry conveys this information to all of wiki land. On another, as the main contributor for Patent Jock, I have solicited any assistance from sock puppets, nor have I engaged in that practice. For all of you urging deletion on this article, please see previous post and in particular read the baker botts cited article. (See it here: http://www.bakerbotts.com/9/infocenter/publications/Detail.aspx?id=98609148-a306-4faa-8b42-1f0e376f15d0) Jhyancey 12:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reference to the Baker Botts article and also I thank you for the initial effort you put in composing this article. As someone who has had his own articles marked for deletion, I understand the initial anger of having your efforts tagged as perhaps being “not worthy” of inclusion in Wikipedia. It appears to me that you’ve put a good faith effort into this article in an attempt to make Wikipedia more useful to the general public.
That’s one of the reasons I’m recommending that “patent jock” be a redirect to patent attorney. At least according to the Baker Botts article, it is a term that’s used as slang for at least patent attorney/agent or perhaps any other person with an interest in patents.
The article, for example, states:
While the nation’s patent jocks eagerly await the Court’s decision in Festo, the copyright folks can start clearing space on their fall calendars for Eldred v. Ashcroft (01-618)…
It appears that “patent jocks” is used as slang for patent attorneys/agents just as “copyright folks” is used as slang for attorneys specializing in copyright law.
Do you have any objection to a redirect? --Nowa 14:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO REDIRECT You "deletionists" just do not understand. I will re-post patent jock again in the future after preparing additional support to satisfy the desire and craving to remove from wiki a useful entry. For those of you supporting Keep and Redirect, thank you very much, but please take note that only a select few patent attorneys ever make it too Patent Jock status. It is not a slang term, rather it is the highest level of competency all patent attorneys strive for. I will keep entry alive in my sandbox for those who wish to contribute to this useful entry. Jhyancey 15:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)][reply]
  • And you really think that helps your case? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like a bit of self-promotion to me. What's so special about a third-tier law school [44] like the Franklin Pierce Law Center except that Jhyancey graduated from there? ([45]) Why is it so important to establish Patent jock as a separate term when one sentence in the Patent attorney article would suffice? I'm sorry, counselor, but you just haven't made the case that your term is really that notable or distinguishable from other classes of patent attorneys; all you've done so far is (increasingly heatedly) assert that. (I'm not a deletionist, by the way. I started out voting keep, but you have actually persuaded me the other way.) rodii 16:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will keep entry alive in my sandbox for those who wish to contribute to this useful entry. Jhyancey, I think that would be a good idea. --Nowa 18:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yo "Just zis", the wiki cause should not be about winning or losing and fighting over entries. If the "deletionists" do not take the time to understand the term and assert it's a "gross hoax" then so be it. The purpose of the entry was to edify you and every other wiki user about Patent Jocks. Have you ever heard of Judge Giles Rich, P.F. Federico, Herbert Schwartz, The Telephone Cases, or Doctrine of Equivalents? Patent Jocks know much about these terms. Thus, the purpose of this entry. Jhyancey 16:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No Redirect I'm changing my vote slightly to "Delete - No Redirect". I maintain "delete" since I've not seen a preponderance of evidence to indicate that "patent jock" is either a formal or informal designation that is commonly aspired to by registered US patent agents or attorneys or the patent agents or attorneys of any other jurdisdiction. I change my vote from redirect to "no redirect" in respect for the original author's assertion that "patent jock" is not slang for patent attorney. --Nowa 18:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also was temporarily inclined to change my vote to "Redirect" since it appeared patent jock(ey) might be slang for patent attorney. We delete articles as "non-notable neologism" every day which are far more verifiable and less vanity than this. I maintain my Delete vote and recommend the author of the article copy it to his user page until he can build a credible case for the phrase. If the author is a lawyer, or knows lawyers, it should be easy to build a credible case and survive AFD next time. —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 00:10Z
  • Delete This lengthy discussion has provoked far more heat than light, but it seems clear to me that even if the phrase is used, it is not of sufficient currency to merit its own article, and in the single case presented as evidence of its existence, it could be an on-the-spot invention by newswriters. And there are enough sockpuppets here to fill a locker room. Denni ☯ 04:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak/Delete This wiki term is less about patents and more about the term "jock." I'm a patent attorney, and I have heard the term used in conversation, but only in the same way one would call a Washington staffer a "policy wonk," i.e., someone who's really into a particular intellectual subject, and measures his prowess according to their knowledge in that field. List under "jock"? --Phlaemenbicz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.231.134 (talk • contribs)
  • No vote This link was posted to a patent law board, presumably to draw support for the article. However, patent attorneys are generally too smart to bother with such things as the foolishness that is the wikipedia community. Baseless accusations of being socks is second only to baseless accusations of POV. Baseless accusations of being a hoax is a new one to me, but I gave up on this place a long, long time ago. Patent attorneys have both law degrees and technical degrees. As such, they tend to adopt techie terms -- such as "jock" (see the jargon file. That being said, the article, in its current form, is crap. Mentioning Franklin Pierce is pure self-promotion as it isn't even one of the top three, as reported by U.S. News & World Report. Not all patent attorneys are jocks, only the ones who (1) know caselaw in and out, (2) have a huge patent grant rate, and (3) deal primarily in patent preparation. I have never heard the term applied to a litigator, as stated in the article. Patent prosecuters (of which I am one) are geeks and patent jocks are the geekiest of the geeks. But what do I know, I'm merely a POV sock perpetrating a hoax. 71.129.147.6 00:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • how long must this go on? lets get on with it and delete it, must we waste any more time and resources on this useless entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.104.28 (talk • contribs)
  • this article sucks, doesn't it? even Donald Chisum would vote against this, but who is Just Giz, and what does he/she do during free time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.70.190 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, or at most redirect... seems slang, and from the debate I've not seen a single source for this thing. --Raistlin 23:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was BJAODN. - Mailer Diablo 05:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AYPS

This page isappears to be an obvious joke, hinting to considering the AD/CE squabbling on Wikipedia.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as re-creation of exactly the same content that garnered a unanimous consensus to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hywel Morgan. Uncle G 18:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hywel Morgan

Already deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hywel Morgan,) but has been re-created. Essexmutant 17:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPURware

Advertisment for extremely small company.  J\/\/estbrook       17:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment someone is making up words... "vanispamcruftisement" ?  J\/\/estbrook       17:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment my apoligies didn't realize there was a definition... BTW author blanked article  J\/\/estbrook       18:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the definition was just created....you're playing with me  J\/\/estbrook       18:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Guilty as charged :-D - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popula

Nn auction site. Nn Alexa rank. "link:www.popula.com -site:popula.com" gives 2 results. "popula -inurl:popula" only gives wrong spellings of "popular". No incoming wikilinks. Fails WP:WEB. Neglected anon submission on October 2005. --  Perfecto 17:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not giving a reason for my vote, I am only making the comment that its deletion won't usher in the end times. Endomion 09:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Murkhana

Star wars fancruft, googling the title gets results from one blog, one message board and the rest from wikipedia and wikicities. - Bobet 17:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Dutson

WP:BALLS MNewnham 18:06, 29 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. The consensus was actually to MERGE, but the article it was getting merged to was AfD'd into a delete. If this article had been merged first, it would've disappeared anyway. Mo0[talk] 21:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time To Review

Local cable-access show which this page indicates ran 1988-9. Not notable. However, host Frank Ochieng seems arguably noteable enough for an article into which this might be merged. Nominator votes delete. bikeable (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Forest

This is an article about a set of web-published stories written by the contributor. The contributor was asked for an external link and provided it, but it's a link to his own site.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Broth

non notable author of a nn book who claims to know Seinfeld and article is fuill of sentences that are borderline nonsense and totally irrelevant.Gator (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there -- I authored the article. I decided to write the piece when I found an article on Ted L. Nancy, who is rumored to really be Jerry Seinfeld. This author, done in the same format of the Nancy books, down to the Seinfeld foreward, I thought should be included as well as it part of the "series" of books which are already a part of Wikipedia (i.e., there is an entry on the author of the first three books in the series, so I thought an entry on the author of the fourth supposedly entry should also be included). I will let the moderators decide, as I agree that Broth -- assuming its not a pen name for Seinfeld or someone else -- is not noteable. However, I always thought that obscure entries are what seperates Wikipedia from other online reference sources. Thanks for listening! --Ataricodfish 19:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Oh, and I just updated the article with links from Variety noting that Broth is pending a forthcoming animated series based on this book. At some point, whether now or when the cartoon is released, there is going to have to be an article on Broth. --Ataricodfish 20:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pdoyd04, I appreciate your feedback and have reviewed the policy referenced in your deletion recommendation. However, the "Not A Crystal Ball" policy states, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced.". I have properly referrenced the link to Seinfeld promoting the animated series, as well as referrenced the link stating that Broth has earned a "six figure deal" and is writing the pilot. As well, the link is to Variety, which is a reputable source and not a fan listing. As such, respectfully, I disagree that the "Not A Crystal Ball" argument would apply in this situation.--Ataricodfish 22:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Further, I wish to reference Wikipedia:Notability (people), which states that a living author could be included if "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more". As such, Ed Broth would qualify as notable, and the article should remain. --Ataricodfish 22:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Blacke

non notable vanity and using Wikipedia to advertiseGator (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The Gadget Shop

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

Meets WP:CORP point 1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself from the link above. --Nick123 (t/c) 22:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 19:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 19:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sankara Nethralaya

The user who nominated this page for deletion did not complete the process. It was originally nominated for Speedy Deletion but the criteria did not qualify for an article. In my opinion, I vote for Delete Keep the rewrite.Ajwebb 19:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment for the time being : Looking for precedence, I looked around in the articles about the four metros and apart from the eight listed in Category:Medical_colleges_in_India I couldn't find any other hospitals. Even in Chennai, there are bigger and more important hospitals - Madras Medical Mission, Vijaya, Malar, Apollo, RMC Porur etc none of which seem to have articles about them. For articles about places, there is an unwritten rule that if the real is place is real, it can have an article. Unless there is some such convention, I don't know why this should be kept. Tintin Talk 18:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes the argument "articles less-notable-than-this are kept" is an argument to keep, and sometimes "articles more-notable-than-this have been deleted" is an argument to delete, but I don't see how "articles more-notable-than-this haven't yet been created" is an argument to delete. If you know about those hospitals, why not create articles for them? —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 00:19Z
      • My personal opinion is that except MMM (who pioneered heart transplant in India and is headed by the finest heart surgeon in South Asia) none of the others are significant enough to deserve an article. This is the first AfD that I have come across for an Indian hospital. So I'll probably vote delete this time, but depending on the decision reached here change the benchmark for the next one. Tintin Talk 00:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Shankara Netralaya is certainly notable. People from all over India come here. Its head Dr Bhadrinath is a well known doctor. Coming to the setting precedence question. It should not judged like places. Each hospital should be considered separately whenever it comes for an afd.--Raghu 15:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable, 'coz it is one of the three famous eye-hospitals in India that perform free eye-care to the poor and needy, the other two being Aravind Eye Hospital in Madurai and LVPEI in Hyderabad. --Gurubrahma 14:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- its notability is beyond doubt, and even people from Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and several other countries come here for treatment. --Bhadani 14:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on comments on notability by very established Indian Wikipedians and the fact that the only "Delete" vote remaining was based on copyvio status at the time, I recommend SPEEDY KEEP. Expanding the article would be nice too, since I rewrote it without knowing anything about the subject. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 21:24Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 ☎ ) 02:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Rose Childrens Charity

Non-notable charity. Only 7 unique Google hits. Created in tandem with the deleted White rose challenge walk (see discussion). howcheng {chat} 19:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the Ethiopian Throne

Not notable PatGallacher 19:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Ethiopian monarchy was deposed in 1975. Although Ethiopia has gone through various upheavals and changes of regime since then I am not aware that the monarchy seems likely to make a comeback. There are indeed "line of succession" articles for several other countries. However as far as I am aware they are all for reigning monarchies, this is the only one we have for a deposed monarchy. There are pretenders to the thrones of Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Greece, Italy, and probably a few other countries, should we have articles on all these lines of succession? The existence of a pretender to the Ethiopian throne is just about notable, but not this level of detail.

Also, this article is not sourced. It says that there are complex rules governing the succession to the Ethiopian throne, which could easily lead to disputes about who is the "legitimate" claimant. PatGallacher 19:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE (patent nonsense) --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Walter_Cramerstetter

Not notable/hoax/??? -Andrew 19:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rob

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Has an allmusic.com entry, but it's empty. Only one album on an independent label. The article also reads like a promo. You can call me Al 19:23, 29 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.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's cross

Seems like original research and the article does not establish notability. delete dcabrilo 19:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 19:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skinner (surname)

Short article providing little context, seems to be insignificant. - Bootstoots 19:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (G4). howcheng {chat} 23:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic C. Beil, Publisher

Non-notable at first sight. Looks like an advertisement (written by F. C. Beil himself, apparently). Follows already 7-times deleted Frederic C. Beil. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (vandalism). howcheng {chat} 23:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PTC Corporation

Something's very fishy here. Patent nonsense, hoax or just confused... jengod 19:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gauche

Advertisement, should it be deleted or rolled into the Scheme programming language article? —the preceding unsigned comment is by MatthewDBA (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clowncore

Just a vanity article about three guys and their bands. It doesn't even say what clowncore is supposed to be a genre of. Dysfunktion 20:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muffin Man

Article seems to be just something made up by the author. It doesn't look true and it doesn't relate the "Muffin Man" in the story to the song at all. I had it listed as a speedy but the author says that the article is true, so I'm listing it here instead. Delete. TomTheHand 20:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Fuchs

Biography; does not appear to be sufficiently notable JeremyStein 20:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No scope

Esoteric slang for video gamers doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Maybe it goes to Wictionary, but it seems doubtful for that project, too. Mikeblas 20:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Shreshth91
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Has already been pre-trans-userfied. -Splashtalk 00:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ioannina_prefecture

This article is not an encyclopaedia entry and the contents should be moved to the creator's talk page before deletion of the article. (aeropagitica) 21:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Shreshth91
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

777.com

Website that does not meet WP:WEB. Alexa rank=170,653 [55], five pages linking to 777.com (beside self-links) [56], probably all ads. - Liberatore(T) 21:05, 29 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. Being relisted once is enough, having been on AfD for nearly 2 weeks without any trace of support for the article. -Splashtalk 00:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmo Connor

This article was nominated for AfD, but the nominator failed to carry out the second step of the process. No reason is given in the edit summary. My personal assumption for deletion is that the subject, a German 'warez reporter' is not an encyclopedic subject and fails the qualifiers at WP:BIO. But as I said, I'm just cleaning up the nomination. No vote at this time -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Shreshth91
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was not advertising anymore, other suggested articles for deletion now redirect to this one. Default keep, I guess. On second thought (and more careful research), this appears to be a delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr5

This appears to be an advertisement. The page appears to have been created by the inventor and seller of this process. JeremyStein 21:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 19:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramifications Thereof

A non-notable cable news program produced by a this guy, who has now been userfied. --Deathphoenix 21:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedied. Brighterorange 05:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daraism

Obvious hoax/vanity religion. I speedied the creator's page, but this doesn't meet any CSD. Brighterorange 21:34, 29 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 (part of a group of mutually-referential non-notable entities...) --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2002: The Year we 'Came Back'

Either a hoax, or so far in the future as to be non-encyclopaedic -- SGBailey 21:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katty Weaver

No hits on Google. Relates to a book which is either to be published in the distant future or a hoax -- SGBailey 21:43, 29 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. Mo0[talk] 21:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truman Smalley

Either a hoax or relating to a book to be published so far in the future as to be non-encyclopaedic. No Google hits. -- SGBailey 21:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The Evaluators

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

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 19:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bigmouthmedia

Article on obscure internet marketing company void of encyclopedic value which reads as an official site and shamefull spam. Wikipedia is not Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine nor Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider Mecanismo | Talk 10:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng {chat} 21:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus after 2 weeks of voting --Ichiro 19:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expressed emotion

Dicdef. Delete. Parallel or Together? 13:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng {chat} 21:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

|} |}


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

The result of the debate was redirect --Ichiro 19:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biological phenomenon

I think this article should redirect to biology, but there is some debate on its talk page so I have put it up for deletion discussion. —Brim 14:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng {chat} 21:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect This page adds nothing to the understanding of life or biological systems. Redirect it to one or other of the pages where WP users can read a more comprehensive overview of the subject. -- (aeropagitica) UK 00:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus after 2 weeks of discussion --Ichiro 19:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Necro poster

Nothing more than a dictionary definition of slang terminology. Transwiki to wiktionary. —Brim 15:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think there should be an article about thread necromancy on Internet fora. For starts, necro should be turned into disambig page, not about some obscure rapper. However, the term "necro poster" is probably quite rare, because the poster who does nothing but necroing old threads must be really bored...  Grue  17:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A necro poster is a nowadays internet phenemom like the Internet troll which got a page in Wikipedia, too. I made this page because i came across the term necro poster during browsing a forum. I didn't know what that means and my first stop to search for that term was Wikipedia. Here it was nowhere to found, but after using Google and browsing through douzens of Websites i had my explanation. Afterwards i made this page to help people who come across this term and think Wikipedia could help them. SixthHokage 15:31, 26 December 2005 (GMT+1)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng {chat} 21:44, 29 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gourmet Guy

Idiosyncratic non-topic AppleSeed 15:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng {chat} 21:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 19:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous Dreams

Doesn't follow the requirements for bands. Jporcaro 17:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng {chat} 21:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 19:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Gyles

A NN official who committed a crime. This is possibly an attack. If anything, perhaps a line in Mississauga MNewnham 19:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng {chat} 21:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no concensus --Ichiro 19:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brigance

Sounds like an advert ComputerJoe 19:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undecided - Possibly a notable researcher in his field, but it needs to moved, cleaned up and sourced. It got kept awhile back on an AfD but the article has not had a single non-vandalous edit since then. Like everything else, it just sits there. FCYTravis 22:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng {chat} 21:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply] 

 Dlyons493 Talk 22:13, 29 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. Mo0[talk] 21:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ochieng

Seems to be squeaking on the border of notability, though more on the side of non-notability. His official site has no Alexa Rank, and a Google PageRank of 4/10. --Deathphoenix 21:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Qualified Ochieng's appearances on WBZ radio have proved popular over the years. He has met the qualifications to be part of Rotten Tomatoes, MovieEye, SF Crowsnest, etc. Frank's reviews are witty and informative, and he's well-respected amongst

other film critics. As someone who has interviewed him numerous times on my own radio show (WMWM Salem MA), I can testify his knowledge and insights on film and television media do qualify him for WP inclusion. (raccoonradio)

  • Qualified Frank Ochieng in my opinion deserves to be part of Wikipedia. He has been a major contributor to many on-line, and various print publications over the years as expressed (above). I have been reading Mr. Ochieng's work over many years and there are few writers like him in-depth, informative, and more than qualified to be part of your site.

I can also say this as well because of his numerous appearances on my TV interview program 'A Time To Review' on Brookline Access Television. He is a great writer and he has proven this because I have worked with him personally (The Voicemakers). Daniel Berman, Newton Magazine


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Ichiro 19:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry L. Valance

While Morgan was notable, I can't see that this article can ever be made encyclopedic. There was no body recovered (the body that was recovered was identified as someone else), this confession was 20-30 years after the fact, and wasn't published for another 20 years after that? DeleteMerge. SarekOfVulcan 21:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge Clearly not noteworthy, and the facts of the Morgan case have never conclusively come to light. Having done some research, there isn't even a real consensus on what happened in the first place. MSJapan 05:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The Voicemakers

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

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

The result of the debate was --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Alderman

Either a hoax or relating to a book to be published so far in the future as to be non-encyclopaedic. Part of a series of articles added by Janet6 (talk · contribs). --Stephen Deken 21:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dobia Anakali

Either a hoax or relating to a book to be published so far in the future as to be non-encyclopaedic. Part of a series of articles added by Janet6 (talk · contribs). --Stephen Deken 21:56, 29 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 (along with others in same article series). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serpentius

Either a hoax or relating to a book to be published so far in the future as to be non-encyclopaedic. Part of a series of articles added by Janet6 (talk · contribs). --Stephen Deken 21:57, 29 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.

Shane ruttle

The result was speedy delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cybertopia

NN neologism, less notable than already-deleted cyberpunk-spawned portmanteaus (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dieselpunk, etc). Almost all Google hits are unrelated. -Sean Curtin 22:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Duggan

Tagged for speedy with the reason "Sub-stub, not-notable, exists only as a source of contention." IMO this is not a speedy reason, but I am not convinced this person is notable enough for an article. Weak delete. DES (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect' to Singularity_(operating_system). - Mailer Diablo 05:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft_Singularity

this article is a clone of "Singularity_(operating_system)" Dsda 22:32, 29 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 --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duders.com

Was tagged for speedy for being an attack page, but that clearly does not apply. However, with 96 users, fails WP:WEB in a big way. howcheng {chat} 22:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge to Reykjavík, then redirect. Mindmatrix 17:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nightlife in Reykjavík

Article is very unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. SoothingR 22:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wanted it deleted because the article makes Wikipedia sound like a travelguide. Which of course, it is not. However, I also think that a merge will do just fine.SoothingR 13:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Luke Corbett

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

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 19:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 18:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shitcore

Only 450 unique Google hits, many unrelated. Doesn't look notable. Delete Owen× ☎ 22:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page was just created, and I have not taken suffecient time in gathering all the facts about the genre and everything. Also it is not a very popular genre, and is only (or at least to my knowledge) in the Alemeda County District, in California. Save

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMT Labs

Was tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "advertisement without encyclopedic relevance," which is not speediable. Bringing to AfD to respect the wishes of the anon user who tagged it for speedy. No vote. howcheng {chat} 22:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. enochlau (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intusoft

Was tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "advertisement without encyclopedic relevance," which is not speediable. Bringing it to AfD to respect the wishes of the anon user who tagged it for speedy. No vote. howcheng {chat} 22:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn company google search just shows business listing sites and a couple of trade shows they've attended. I'd also be willing to vote delete for ICAP/4 there only prduct as far as I can tell. --Pboyd04 23:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete garden variety software company with no notable accomplishments. Endomion 23:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep they are a well-established company (20 years in operation) and can claim that "75% of the Fortune 500 electronics, aerospace, and computer companies own Intusoft products".[59] I have no personal ties with Intusoft, other than the recognition of their powerful product that is well-used by people within the EE industry.--Bovineone 07:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Intusoft is very well known in the EDA industry and has more than 24000 hits on google alone. Also Mentor Graphics is a very large EDA company that makes use of Intusoft's underlying ICAP/4 simulation engine in their own products. 71.130.8.132 23:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOT: "Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style... articles about very small 'garage' companies are not likely to be acceptable." It seems the issue here is our confusion of "garage" and "niche." --Lucent 09:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lucent & any tech company being around for >20 years is notable in itself, plus their fortune 500 customer list. Perhaps expand a bit though. Dbchip 17:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Jam Creative Productions

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

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 20:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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


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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn after re-write. Mindmatrix 17:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neck crank

The term "crank" is not sufficiently developed in the context in which this is used and is currently address in Hold (grappling) Rorybowman 22:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 20:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rules lawyer

Never likely to be more than a dicdef, already transwikied to Wiktionary. Andrewa 22:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per request, I'll phrase that more civilly: It can be easy to mistake something that's really important to yourself as something that is really important to everyone. There are some areas where this tendancy has been a problem with regards to wikipedia articles. Pokémon, WWF, Harry Potter, etc. In all of these cases it if often observed that the amount of material contributed by fans far outweighs that amount that is notable and encylopedic. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. DS 13:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myrix

A fictional world, but one not known by Google. A search for Myrix reveals no relevant results, and searching for the word in conjunction with "chaos theory" or "butterfly effect" gets zippo. Unverifiable. howcheng {chat} 23:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaulting to keep --Ichiro 23:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harq Obispal and Stalinvast

This is a combined nomination for Harq Obispal and Stalinvast. Both these articles are non-canonical in the Warhammer 40,000 fictional universe, and appear to be the subject of a role-playing character and setting, respectively. "Harq Obispal" attracts nine unique Google hits, the majority of the non-Wikipedia ones are for role-playing forums. -- 22:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project

  • I strike my previous charge, but still believe this is a candidate for deletion. See below the relisting notice.

Both Stalinvast and Harq Obispal are sourced in the Black Library Publication of "Inquisitor" by Ian Watson and as such exist properly inside the Warhammer 40K Universe at large and not any specific gamers campaign.

  • Stalinvast is key to the story in question while Obispal is an essential but relatively minor character-still working on template for Draco and the other main figures-though more worthy of a seperate entry than say planetary governor Lord Voronov-Vaux. The book I have is entitled Inquisitor and is the first of the Inquisition War Trilogy. it was reissued by the Black Library as Draco in 2002. Found it easily on a google search.


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Shreshth91

I admit that my first claim of non-canonocity is false, in light of the evidence. I admit I was wrong. However, I still find myself questioning this article's 'place' in the grand scheme of Warhammer 40,000-related articles on Wikipedia.

Many of the characters in the fictional universe do not have their own articles. The Emperor Himself, arguably the single most important character/'historical figure' in the game and fiction, is a section in another article (although I do concede that there are plans to move him back out, and support this move). The majority of the Primarchs are included in the article on their Legion (with one exception, who is arguably the second most important character/'historical figure' in the fictional universe.

I have never read the Inquisition War (and knowing my luck, will probably never get the chance to), and don't know how important the character of Harq Obispal, or the world of Stalinvast) is to the plot. I think the best place for this information would be either in an article on the Inquisition War trilogy, or in an article on "Jac Draco", who appears to be the primary character of the trilogy. Failing that, my call for deletion still stands. No offense to the article author or the subject material, but to me, this is at the moment little more than Warhammer40K-cruft. -- Saberwyn

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but very weak). Ideally, produce a high-quality article on the book and merge these articles into that, but if that doesn't happen I'd rather keep the information available rather than delete it. Cheers --Pak21 10:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wilsonville High School

nn school? nonsense? (from WP:CSD) No vote. r3m0t talk 23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pboyd04, you beat me too it. I added some sports stuff back. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for helping get it fixed, Pboyd04 and CambridgeBayWeather!Mikeblas 04:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cold weapon

Unusual term not in general use. Single circular reference to brass knuckles. Rorybowman 23:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Solomon Key

This is soothsaying, speculation, maybe even "original research", but not an encyclopedic article with actual facts. Please come again when the book has actually been released or any actual facts can be reported. zerofoks 23:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The book is a real matter, and yes speculation is involved as the book is not released, however there is information on this page we can confirm. we know the book is about the founding fathers of our country, in which it is confirmed many were active freemasons. why should speculation not count as information. there is much speculation over many things. speculation breeds thought, thought breeds knowledge. The announcement should be made, and this page should be kept for those who until then, are interested in hearing the possability of this book. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 12.73.12.105 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep It is very stupid to delete this. It is very interesting and is helpful for people who want to know what Dan Brown is up to. Whoever wants to delete this entry is wasting their time. Peace out. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.46.155.141 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep No need to delete the article, speculation can be removed, and actual facts added as they appear. Qutezuce 00:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very least you would have that it is a future book by Dan Brown, which is already enough for an article that will grow in the future. Secondly, it should be pointed out that much of the speculation is not Wikipedians speculating, but speculation that has already been recorded elsewhere, and hence is verifiable. Finally, there are many facts, the relation to Kryptos is fact (the coords of Kryptos were on the dust jacket of his previous book), the web quest is all fact as it comes from the publishers website, etc. Whether these relate to The Solomon Key is debatable, but outside sources have made the connection, not Wikipedians speculating. Qutezuce 00:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of that is "fact". It's pure media hype generated for something that doesn't even exist, yet. I see no reason how Wikipedians should report on this in a NPOV-manner suitable for an encyclopedia. And no, you would not have at the very least the "fact" that the book will be out in 2006 because you don't know it will be. It might be, but then again, it might be not. It's just a plan. --zerofoks 00:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said anything about 2006, I said it is a future book by Dan Brown. The term "future book" obviously doesn't mean that the book is sure to come out, as no on can predict the future, Dan Brown could die suddenly and the book would not get published, but right now he is alive and his intention is to publish the book in the future. The publisher may be trying to hype the book with a Web Quest, but it is still a fact that a Web Quest existed. Qutezuce 01:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article is not speculation itself but a record of the speculation of others. I imagine that the book will be published whether or not Dan Brown is alive to see it. In the event of its non-appearance, the content of the article can refer to the book and media hype in a neutral way. -- (aeropagitica) UK 01:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. This is real fiction. -- JJay 04:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As long as information on the page is drawn from other sources, it is valid. For example, Dan Brown has hinted at potential topics of the book in occasional lectures and interviews. There is huge public interest in the book, and those hints have been covered by news organizations such as Wired and the Wall Street Journal. It is perfectly valid for this article to provide a collection of Brown's hints and other speculations, as long as their source or reference is mentioned. Elonka 08:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:Not_a_crystal_ball states: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." This has verifiable information, and I'm sure a book by Dan Brown merits as significant interest. Metsfanmax 17:06, 03 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_29&oldid=33184383"