Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thryduulf (talk | contribs) at 16:02, 25 December 2005 (Barney Live! The Let's Go Tour). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< December 24 >

Purge server cache

December 25

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jaranda wat's sup 00:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rasor Elementary School

Delete. This is a non-notable elementary school in Plano, Texas. I am from Plano and can think of no reason why Rasor, or most any elementary school anywhere, is notable. The article has only been edited by two users: the creator, who just registered recently and only has 2 page edits, and an anon IP that wikified some things. -Scm83x 00:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of the schools in the elementary schools in Texas are K-12 schools (and are in all 3 categories elem middle and high), had a bombing/suicide occur there, or have multiple famous graduates. Please look at how much Rasor sticks out in this list at Category:Elementary schools in Texas. I see absolutely no reason why Rasor is notable. None. -Scm83x 03:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precedent implies practice not a rule. There will probably never be a policy which says that because some users won't stand for its introduction, but school articles don't get deleted anyway. Bhoeble 04:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a nice article. It just needs to be expanded. -- JJay 02:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons already given. Bhoeble 04:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Strong Delete. Even though I'm a 1997 Rasor Elementary School alumnus myself, I absolutely cannot see any use in keeping this article. As for the content, there is very little information regarding the school itself. Most of the information is about John Henry Rasor, his family, his properties, and related developments in the history of Plano, Texas. Sure, it's a nice backstory, but it has nothing to do with the school. We don't stick all our information about Todd Beamer under an article about the post office that was named after him. We don't put Martin Luther King's information under an article about one of the many streets named in his honor. If this information is relevant, it should stand on its own in another article. With regards to relevancy to Rasor Elementary, all but the first three and last sentences should be removed.
Those voting "Keep" will then argue that the content can always be changed, but that we shouldn't delete the article itself. I've seen the massive debates about school notability, and I normally side with those who want to keep as many articles as possible. I usually hesitate to delete most school-related articles. However, it's important to note the structure of Plano's school system - there are 45, unindividual, non-notable primary schools, with more being built all the time. The secondary schools are big enough to justify an article, but this article simply does not - think 45 articles with no notable information except their location and founding date, unless you want to include the fact that, say, Mendenhall collected the most aluminum cans in such and such year.
Others want to go on "precedents" or "implied practices." The implied practice on Wikipedia is not to have a separate article on individual schools in a massive, bureaucratic school district. If you search for directories of schools on Wikipedia, the best listing you'll get is one of New York's high schools. Would we possibly want a listing of each of the hundreds and hundreds of New York City's primary schools? No! Primary schools are largely nonnotable when you single out one in a massive web of dozens or hundreds of completely standardized buildings.
Finally, when we look at the category it's listed in (primary schools in Texas), there's nothing that allows Rasor to stand out on its own. There's been no bombings or shooting, it doesn't cater towards a special group of kids, there's been no long history of tradition - it's not even unique within its own school district!
I believe that most of the school-related articles on Wikipedia should be kept. But there is a limit to me leaving a "Keep" comment when something is this nonnotable and the content is this offtopic. -Rebelguys2 06:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with all of the positive feedback above. Plano is one of the few places I know where all of the schools are named for local heroes/pioneers/etc. so it would be nice to know about the namesakes. Maybe people will write about the others as well? If a student at say George Washington High School or Martin Luther King Middle School (i.e. those who are at the New York City schools mentioned above, most of which are simply named after numbers anyway) can look up more info about his school's namesake, why can't a student at Rasor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.210.234 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep I just looked at some of the other local school district's articles and there are several schools that have their own entries without even saying who the namesake is - simply stating BLANK is a high school in the BLANK Independent School District. The private school articles (check out Greenhill's) also don't add much. The Rasor article does say something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.210.234 (talk • contribs)
I went ahead and struck out one of the two preceding "Keep"s, as they came from the same person one after another. Regardless, they were unsigned by an anonymous IP user, so the votes technically shouldn't count. I'll go ahead and respond, regardless:
Your argument fits well with my vote for deletion. You're saying that a student should be able to look up the namesake of their school, which is precisely why I forked the information to John Henry Rasor as you were writing your comment. The article about the person should stay at the person's own article - not one about a school. Why don't we create an article about "Rasor Boulevard," then, and stick his biography in there? We don't because it's irrelevant and in the wrong place.
Finally, you argue with other examples of school-related articles. Greenhill school, for example, is notable because it is "the region’s first co-educational independent school." It isn't much of an article, especially with lines like this, "Philip Kafka - Graduated in 2005 with a major in women studies and a minor in throwing parties.," but it has at least a very minor degree of notability. -Rebelguys2 06:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see how merging this article shows a complete disregard for the category system. When this article was first put up for deletion, it mostly contained information about the person, John Henry Rasor, rather than the school. After the massive debates at WP:SCH, many contributors now automatically vote keep to school articles. I am often an inclusionist when it comes to school articles myself.
As a result, it simply comes down to the debate about whether we should delete schools - NOT a debate on how categories work in Wikipedia. WP:SCH argues for the merging of this article. I've followed many of the recent talk pages in WP:SCH and Schoolwatch, and they often agree on keeping high school articles as they are. However, the custom is to merge schools like this into the district page. You will see that many of the often knee-jerk "Keep" voters here have agreed that this article should be merged with the district article - this is all in accordance with WP:SCH and all of the customs we have seen on Wikipedia thus far. -Rebelguys2 20:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rebelguys2, you may disagree with the votes of others, but you needn't insult them. Please consider being WP:CIVIL. --Rob 21:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my comments, and have struck out the offending line. In the heat of this debate, I let the unintentional holier-than-thou attitude in the back of my head through. ;) Again, I apologize, as I am rarely one to intend to insult people. I hope we can continue this debate civilly. -Rebelguys2 21:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion as CSD A7 JoJan 16:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orcs of Dominion

Seems to be a NN association of players on a certain server in a MMORPG.. --Mysidia (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was, well, I think it's a delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indianpad

Not in the top 100k sites on Alexa.. it seems to me the site is not popular; being a recently-created Digg clone is not an indication of being notable enough much to merit an article, IMO. --Mysidia (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I agree with what was said above, plus it appears to be advertising as the user that created the page has only one edit... and it was the Indianpad page. Deskana 00:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whois Address is 11, Indian Street Whois Tele no is +1.1111111111 Fax: +1.1111111111 JimmyNet 06:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was slow and steady delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson Gothfraidh

vanity, not notable Ronabop 00:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted - the accurate way to put this is, patent nonsense :) FCYTravis 04:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy of Terror

The kind way to put this is original research. Endomion 01:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete has carried the field. Note that most objections stem from the original researchiness of the current article, or the belief that the article should not stand on its own. I see no reason why a similar list (with references) couldn't be placed in the Star Wars article if anyone feels like making the effort. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Impacts of Star Wars in films (was List of films imitating Star Wars)

Hopelessly POV attack list. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Wikipedia articles of the listed films indicate they were so-and-so's answer to Star Wars. Endomion 01:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
imiatating is a necessarily pejorative word. If it were "Impacts of Star Wars in film" that would be encyclopedic, as the word impacts shows that the matter is not concrete- not to mention that the article talks about older movies being re-released when starwars became popular. And hey, I just changed the title, and am editing the introduction to make it clear that the article does not mean that these films were made soley to be like starwars. None of these actions is an endorsement of this article.Lotusduck 02:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Lotusduck, but you should not assume bad faith, it so happens that I've seen and love almost all of these films. I do think that being rigorously NPOV in this case actually obscures the historical phenomenon that is being brought up. Endomion 04:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was going to say that, but having the article nominated so quickly took all the wind out of my sails and I didn't care anymore after that. The old biter bit routine I guess. Endomion 05:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm sorry you were treated like that. Certain noms seem to enjoy treating everyone as vandals by tagging articles as fast as they can. They assume bad faith on the part of the editor and make no effort to explain their thinking prior to adding the AfD template. Instead of weeding out poor or borderline articles from the site, this type of approach mainly succeeds in driving potential valuable contributors away. -- JJay 05:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete, but deleting admin forgot to close. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy filippini

This article is a hoax. Delete Golfcam 01:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was looks like a keeper. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thou shalt not give Hitler posthumous victories.

Quoth, "Since World War II this has been a popular but unofficial addition to Jewish Talmudic Law." There is one hit for the phrase itself, and the minimal contents could very easily be merged into the Hitler article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is a precipitous nomination that ignores my edit note: I have been having computer problems and need to reboot frequently. There are over 26,000 Google hits for the phrase as stated this way [1]. This is known by several terms including the 614th commandment, a representative sample of which will appear in the final draft. The original title is a direct quote from Emil Fackenheim, the statement's original framer. I request withdrawal of this nomination. Three sources including National Public Radio are already cited within the article. Durova 01:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 613 mitzvot Endomion 01:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep Let the guy finish writing his article, and stop pestering him. Wikipedia will not collapse if you give this guy a month to write his article. Travb 02:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nice approach to obviously important subject. I wish the noms here would start following the wiki commandment- respect thy fellow editors. -- JJay 02:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Durova's comments. TerraFrost 02:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is an important and well-sourced subject. Carioca 03:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but as noted, it's gonna need some redirects and serious linking for anyone to ever find it. I found "Jews are forbidden to hand Hitler posthumous victories", "the 614th commandment is: to survive", "Thou Shalt Not Give Hitler a Posthumous Victory", "Do not grant Hitler a posthumous victory", and the fuller piece of the original text (which would make a *really* bad article title) "...we are first commanded to survive as Jews, lest the Jewish people perish. We are commanded, second, to remember in our very guts and bones the martyrs of the Holocaust, lest their memory perish. We are forbidden, thirdly, to deny or despair of God, however much we may have to contend with Him or with belief in Him lest Judaism perish. We are forbidden, finally, to despair of the world as the place which is to become the kingdom of God, lest we make it a meaningless place in which God is dead or irrelevant and everything is permitted. To abandon any of these imperatives, in response to Hitler's victory at Auschwitz, would be to hand him yet other posthumous victories"..... etc. Ronabop 04:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My user page links to the other articles I've created. A quick browse should allay your concerns. One step at a time: these categories and links will come after I finish editing quotes from several rabbis, a Catholic professor of theology, and a Unitarian Universalist minister. To invite readers prematurely - before the sections and quotes are balanced for NPOV - could give deep offense to people who lost family in the Holocaust. Durova 04:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable, verifiable, encyclopedic. Flyboy Will 04:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm sure the most proper title for this article will be figured out down the line, so I'm not really worried about that. Durova's clearly explained himself enough with regards to the legitimacy of the aritcle and his intention to title it as properly as possible. Some of you guys are simply too trigger-happy with your AfD nominations. - Liontamer 04:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic. Drmandrake 05:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepper Liontamer. Let's give the article some time to develop. Movementarian 10:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article seems to be underway, keep as per Flyboy & others. Scoo 11:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, extremely well-written article so far, and a work in progress.--Aleron235 16:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it can not be added to one of God's commandments. But throught the power of the Sunheadren, it could be added to the 7 Rabbincal commandments. I am willing to change my vote if this was change to reflect this. 220.233.48.200 19:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: this is one reason why the title is not 614th commandment although Rabbi Fackenheim did propose it by that name. The introduction explicitly states that this is unofficial. If you can find a reference that adds it to the 7 Rabbinical commandments I'll add a mention to the article. I welcome suggestions and contribution that would add to balance and NPOV. Would you really delete this important subject over a technical objection? Durova 20:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: ripped from my reply on my talk page: You misunderstand me, I was saying this couldn't be added to the 613 (thou shall not add or remove). The only thing possible would be to the 7 (I do asume you know what the Sunheadren is). And that in itself is not that possible. It can't even be called unoffical, that is a clear violation of "thou shall not add or remove." This person you call Rabbi, has not got Smicha (Rabbincal Degree). Do you call some wacko on the street doctor, just because he calls himself a doctor and use him as a doctor? Do I hear a no? Why do people make weird exception for the title Rabbi? Don't give a person a title that needs a degree that they don't have. 220.233.48.200 22:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unless I'm mistaken, he was a Reform Rabbi as well as a professor of philosophy. I would gladly change any relevant reference if that proves to be false. Your criticism appears thoughtful and I would like to include it in the article. Please provide a reputable source that I can cite in the text. Bear in mind that Wikipedia has articles on ideas that aren't true such as phrenology. A good Wikipedia article doesn't endorse a controversial idea. It just reports both sides fairly. That's what I've aimed to do - literally overnight - and it's unrealistic to expect perfection so soon. I hope you support this article and help to make it better. Durova 23:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I found four reputable sources that confirmed he was a rabbi. Please comment on article talk. Durova 00:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • He is just like that wacko on my street that calls himself a doctor, but hasn't got a doctor's degree. He has not got a valid Rabbincal degree. Please refer to Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, chapters 63 - "The Prohibition of Deceiving Others with Words and Misleading Others." And look up the laws of what Smicha is in the big Shulchan Aruch. 220.233.48.200 09:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per other keepers above. Logophile 01:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Let's review what we have for a moment - it's a phrase which sums up the thesis of someone's book. Wonderful. Give the author a page, the book a page, but the phrase doesn't deserve an entry. (Heck - it's an admitted neologism for crying out loud). Secondly, the page is filled with things which are blatantly false - Some Jews regard it as an addition to Jewish Talmudic Law. - some Jews also regard Elvis as still alive, but that's not how we do things on WP. There is absolutely no normative claim under which this can be considered an addition to talmudic law. (For those of you don't know, the Talmud was written between 200-550 CE, and as such, it's a little hard for any 20th century person to be able to claim an addition). The claim that it's another mitzvah is also nothing more than a misinformed joke. People frequently like to joke about the ""1th commandment" or the "614th mitzvah", but the truth is it's just that - a joke, or a phrase used to convey the importance of something with no real fact behind it. Take the worthwhile info and merge in Emil Fackenheim, but the rest of this page is poppycock. --אריאל יהודה 03:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nomination is about the existance of concept which has been addressed. Title and content concerns can be addressed sepearately. novacatz 04:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • COMMENT About the new title Do not give Hitler posthumous victories please don't use copy-and-paste to perform moves (correct me if I'm wrong but it looked like that. Also, it's be better if the move waits for this AFD to be closed, so there wont be dangling pointers (and this debate can still be linked) -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, especially to admin I've done a move/redirect to a more NPOV title. Please double check to make sure I've done this in accordance with AfD policy. To other editors: I've added a new section about terminology to include the passage from Deuteronomy that some editors believe Fackenheim violated and I've made other edits to address this unintentional POV issue. POV is not grounds for deletion and I am responding to concerns. Durova 06:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well - I tried. Looks like someone didn't like the idea. By the time I finished composing that comment there were two pages redirecting to each other. I reverted to the last version under the old title, but as soon as this leaves AfD this will move to a new name. Regards, Durova 07:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm justp pointing that I think it was a copy-and-paste move, not the proper way to preserve article history for gfdl compliance, so I undid it. I'm not opposing the move per se. And as it was stated above, this debate is about the content not the title. Again, I may have been wrong thinking it was a copy and paste move, if so I'll move it back. I'd just prefer to wait until the afd closes (which determines if the content is suitable or not) and then we can use a proper move to the new title. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gnarly-skull

non-notable band, no sign of meeting WP:MUSIC. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no citations given for notability. Endomion 01:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 00:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lutz

Non-notable. TerraFrost 02:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not laughing. Being a full professor is hardly a reason for having a wikipedia article. None of my professors - many of whom have several books published - have wikipedia articles. Why should this one?
I mean, serriously, the most notable thing about this person is that he's the brother of someone whose notable. Being the sibling of a notable person hardly merits a wikipedia article, and neither does this person.
As for why I didn't give a reason... I thought the non-notability of this article was self-evident. I guess I was wrong.TerraFrost 02:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: First, I think you should write articles on your professors, because we need more articles on academics. Second, I don't know anything about Professor Lutz's brother, but I do know that Lutz's books are sold through Amazon and B&N [2]. That's good enough for me. -- JJay 03:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose every author who has a book for sale at both Amazon and B&N should have a wikipedia entry, too? Even if no articles currently link to them, as is the case with this article? TerraFrost 10:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That there are links to an article may speak in its favour, although not without exception, but the lack of such links may just mean that the area has so far been overlooked. I am sure there ar more links to any random pokemon figure than to Lutz, but that is just a result of some people's obsession with dedication and hard work on such matters, not an indication that the pokemon character in question is more important to the world at large. u p p l a n d 10:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If people are passionate enough about something seemingly benign to frequently edit it [3] and link to it, it seems reasonable to assume that people are going to be passionate enough about it to read it. This is not the case with this article. No edits for months on end. Until this vote for deletion.
One of the explanations I've seen thrown around for the John Seigenthaler debacle [4] is that factually inaccurate information tends to go undetected in low traffic articles, and this article, in case you haven't noticed, is a low traffic article. TerraFrost 10:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is an obvious problem, which at some point (soon I hope) will be remedied by moving new articles, as well as hopefully old articles displaying certain characteristics, into a holding area for fact-checking and cleanup, but it is not really an argument for deletion. Seigenthaler may not be as significant as the whole scandal has made him look, but the reason the article was little edited and the murder allegations went undetected for so long was not his lack of notability. u p p l a n d 11:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Although I suppose it doesn't really, now, I believe the above does constitute cause for deletion because I believe that having no article is better than having a factually inaccurate article, and as I've already attempted to show, an article with as little traffic as this one is ammong the most likely of articles to have factually inaccurate information. It doesn't enrich the experience of most wikipedians (ie. it doesn't add anything), either, due to the low traffic this article garners. So, basically, I don't believe it really adds anything and I believe it actually has the potential to do harm, since it is, as I said, among the most likely of articles to have factually inaccurate information added to it (and since factually inaccurate information can, I believe, be harmful). TerraFrost 23:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should change your reason for nomination from "not notable" to "not enough people edit this article". --Quarl 01:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't "not notable" and "not enough people edit this article" pretty much the same thing? Imho, if and only if an article is notable will it be a hub of activity. This article is not a hub of activity, and thus, pursuant to the previous statement, it isn't notable. Of course, since this guy passes per the "Professor test", I suppose further discussion ought not necessarily take place here, but rather, in the talk page for the "Professor test"... TerraFrost 07:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, "not enough people edit this article" is very often just a result of systemic bias. I also think your argument confuses notability with current fame or celebrity status. A few weeks ago I created a stubby article on the Collège de Montaigu in Paris, a college where Erasmus of Rotterdam, John Calvin, and Ignatius of Loyola were students. Nobody had created that article in the previous five years of Wikipedia's existence, and nobody has edited it after me. Would you say that an educational institution which (at least partly) educated three of the most important individuals of Early Modern European history is non-notable? In a hundred years, Erasmus, Calvin, and Ignatius of Loyola will still be considered among the most important people of European history, while many of the favourite hockey players of today and everything having to do with pokemon is likely to be long forgotten. I'm not saying Mark Lutz is another Erasmus, and I may be wrong about the pokemon, but I think you get my point. While we have a systemic bias favouring Western over non-Western topics, there is also a systemic bias disfavouring many Western classical and academic fields, except in some small areas where we have a few dedicated users. u p p l a n d 09:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
TerraFrost, since you (perhaps still) think the two are the same, but at least some of us don't, I still recommend you change the nomination to avoid the appearance of trying to mislead. —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 00:28Z
Just add it to your watchlist. -- JJay 00:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jaranda wat's sup 00:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free kick (American football)

Should be a redirect to Safety (football). This is probably an unexpandable stub. Mwalcoff 02:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. It's not really funny enough to be worth going to the effort of BJAODN-while-still-complying-with-GFDL. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bovasial contex driven neural response

This article appears to be a complete hoax, filled with an incomprehensible mix of technical jargon from biology. All Google entries for this "Bovasial contex driven neural response" are just copies of this hoax article on Wikipedia. I highly recommend we delete this article, and ideally, even speedying it (should that be warranted). I should also mention that I am beyond embarassed that I inadvertantly played a role in keeping this article - a user attempted to move this to WP:BJAODN, and at the time, I incorrectly interpreted this as vandalism! For those who have read this, let's make this a good reminder that we need to read the article too instead of skipping straight to vandalism control - sometimes the anons and newcomers are the smart ones and are right. HappyCamper 02:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The dog was from Conroe Texas and was known on the set as "Contex". --JWSchmidt 05:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, but not all that quickly. Slow & steady wins the race, eh? Remeber that CSD A1 refers to context, not content. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ABQblogs.com

Non-notable website.. --Mysidia (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy. r3m0t talk 02:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear God the Light Productions

Apparently a "company" created by a couple of college students that has done nothing notable. No google hits. Delete. Catamorphism 03:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All About All

Random wikipedia mirror, doesn't have any original content according to the article. I can't even find any mention of it on google, and allaboutall.com redirects to an advertising site. Delete. Catamorphism 03:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP (early close). gren グレン 22:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asian fetish

A Wikipedia article on "Asian fetish"ism? Please. Blatant racism, and does not belong on Wikipedia. -- Riscybusiness 03:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I read over the article, and while it needs to be normalized and reference scholarly debate on the issue, I don't see this article as being racist. An article on this topic needs to exist, perhaps with a different name, because there is at least a widespread perception of the racist objectification of asian women. If this article is deleted, it will neccessarily be created again, and at least a portion of it is cited and well written. Keep and improve citation would be my vote at this point. I'm curious- what do you think is racist or outside of NPOV in this article?Lotusduck 03:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I myself would be the subject of a purported "Asian fetish" but there is no such thing. A fetish refers to an inanimate object, such as clothing, that is the source of erotic feelings. By claiming that an Asian fetish exists, the author of this article is dehumanizing people from those countries. He provides a number of citations to back up his theory, but it still amounts to a neologism and original research. Endomion 04:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI suggest reading up some more on sexual fetishism. A "fetish" is indeed an inanimate object; however "sexual fetishism" is not a mere sum of the two parts, but has its own distinct meaning. There are plenty of sexual fetishes that are not inanimate objects. Say, there's the amputee fetish, in which people are attracted to a specific mutilated body part; an asian fetish is exactly the same, where people are attracted to specific types of body parts, i.e. those that make asians look distinct from other races. Flyboy Will 04:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, comment some sources are probably overrepresented, I don't think there's been a phenomenon of distaste for the interracial relationship in Harry Potter, but you are antagonizing the issue by calling multiple editors that have overloaded this article "the author". To delete this article is to say that A. There is no sexual stereotyping of asians in American culture or media, B. There is no exploitation or harrassment of Asians because of sexual stereotypes and C. There is no controversy about perversion in men who either seek out or fantacise about Asian women. This article deals with this issue well, and if it is deleted, it will be created again- perhaps with a less careful analyzation of the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotusduck (talk • contribs) 05:11, 25 December 2005
The article is about fetishism, not about love and intermarriage. I don't think that the article charactarizes anything but the debate on the Asian sexual fetish. If the article cited instances as being true cultural understanding not fantasies based on some quintessential hollywood sexy Asian, if it pointed out a couple as being in love and not obsessed with how Asian women are different in bed, then it would not be neutral point of veiw. I do believe the article implies that any man who dates or marries an Asian is accused of being a fetishist, of being shallow and living out a racist fantasy. I'mnot sure how this should be expanded upon Lotusduck 19:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And as such, the article needs to acknowledge that not all such relationships constitute fetishism. This need not be a long statement, but the article is POV by its omission. Durova 21:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've been married to a Japanese lady for 10 years now. Submissive and what again? HA, HA, HA! - no. I liked the article. I thought it was pretty much on the money.
  • Strong keep. A subject generating this much controversy is definitely worth including here. It's a hotly debated topic in race relations today. --Idont Havaname 21:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. There is a debate, which I have read, but it's pretty clear that noone has been persuaded at all from their original position on the article. -Splashtalk 23:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional people known by one name

list of not closely associated fictional characters, with list poorly defined. Lotusduck 03:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article previously survived AfD Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of fictional people known by one name. -- JJay 14:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That was more than a year ago. -- Dalbury(Talk) 15:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, why not add the exact date. -- JJay 15:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some of these entries (like Buffy) are only on the list because it is the nature of fiction that using a character's first or last name alone is a way to keep readers or viewers from getting confused. Endomion 04:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is true. I am known by my first name, say 90% of the time, and I'm sure someone you know is known by their first name most of the time too. Wednesday is almost never called Wednesday Adams, so the list should have her and almost every other character ever concieved of. By other rules, maybe this could be a list of characters that viewers never learn more than one name of. But again, that could be accomplished by adding a category tag to the end of each characters article, much as the "Fictional archaeologists" category works. -And hey, come to think of it, I have a question. Can any list be justified without supporting text, when cateogries will be far more updated and function exactly as well?
I'm confused- used for what? Useful how? If it gave any information about the characters, then it would serve some higher purpose than going onto each characters' page and adding a "Category: Fictional people known by one name" to the end. everyone on it's talk page has suggested deleting this page, and although I've read through the previous article for deletion post and I still don't get how this is encyclopedic or useful. This article is not a study in naming, it's a list of unrelated characters that authors didn't bother to write last/first names for. But accusations on the article aside, what good thing is this article supposed to be?
  • The list gives a short description and steers people to the corresponding pages. It enables anoms to add info, which they can not do with a category. There is no recent discussion on talk page about deleting this. -- JJay 05:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that there are three total entries in the talk page that don't mention that this page is useless, and one of those is me. That out of about eight comments on the talk page total. Please explain how this is a valid topic, because I have no idea what you are talking about.Lotusduck 06:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are above. Please add the link to the previous AfD discussion for this page as per procedure. -- JJay 07:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the previous discussion for deletion: *Previous deletion debate but seriously. How is this an excellent list? Once it has every one-worded god and all of the fictional books and television shows that use that name for a character, how is that better? Your comments are above, but I don't understand them at all. What is going to make this list get better with time? Complements are fine, I just would prefer to hear some justification for a list of fictional people known by one name.Lotusduck 07:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why this is a valid topic, as I have no idea what you mean.Lotusduck 06:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I liked this topic, and put a lot of work into it, and into trying to define it. I suggest supporters of this topic try and edit it, just a little. You may realize how many hairs can be split that can be used to include any character at all in this list, or how no information or enjoyment can be derived from this list. I see both of those as distinct and likely possibilities. Information can be added to lists, but it isn't. The only information added to a one-word name is the other names they are known by, aka why they shouldn't be on the list. Then we can sit down and add every villain on Stargate SG-1, every god from the show Hercules, every third character in any Shakespear play, all the miscellaneous dwarves from the beginning of The Hobbit and contemplate why anyone would want to see their names mixed together in alphabetical order. That's an impossible list even using the most stringent definitions and exclusions ever discussed in the talk page for this article. I helped nurse this baby to health, and I haven't yet heard a good reason not to kill it. I'm not making fun of supporters, I genuinely want somebody to explain it to me how this is useful, encyclopedic or even neat.Lotusduck 07:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are. But how closely associated are they? Any work of fiction whatsoever will have a character whose name is suucint and easy to remember. You could write an article about the significance of such eponymous characters as you think are obviously important, but the issue of contention is that Mr.Spock and Anubis and Gimli contributed in some significant way together to naming conventions, and even that would be better served by an article. I understand that there are characters known by one name, I don't understand how this isn't exactly what Wikipedia is not.Lotusduck 17:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Spock and Bean are fictional characters known by one name. They are therefore on this list. Beyond that, there is nothing to debate. Your views are clear since you nominated the list for deletion. It will be deleted. -- JJay 17:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ideally the majority vote would be a kind of consensus. We have, as I understand it, four days before votes are counted and opinions considered. If you are done debating, I do hope any other people that don't want this article deleted try to discuss reasons for doing so here.Lotusduck 17:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incedentally, Mr. Bean is not on the list. He was removed by persons not me, under the assumption that he was not known without the "Mr."- A minor character in Enders game named Bean is, setting some precident that all minor characters from fiction with unrecallable full names belong on this list. If you want to reverse that precident and fix the article to be somewhat more completable, then perhaps if it survives AfD you should. Lotusduck 19:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to ask that myself. But maybe he means that he thinks you're only supporting this list because you've seen lists that were more useless. I'm curious, what is this list valid for?Lotusduck 04:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • For finding characters that are known by only one name! Does exactly what it says on the tin. As a wheelchair user who watches the paralympics avidly, I strongly resent the insinuation that they are "more useless" than the other games. Jcuk 10:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You've looked at the list. Isn't it also "useful" for finding characters known by their full names, like "James T. Kirk" and others? Not only that, but it can't be edited or fixed because there are no sources with any information on what qualifies as a significant one named character. As such, the article is Original Research, not taken from valid sources but made up to gratify people who edit it like you and me. Wikipedia: No original research Lotusduck 23:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking people to support their keep reccomendation just because I want to have a dialogue about it. The people who say delete have quoted policy and guidelines, so of course people who say keep have some other interpretation of those guidelines. Also, I think I've laid out pretty well how this list really is incompletable, since every theater production and space opera ever made has several eponymous one-word named character. Given that I think I've justified my vote, I feel I can ask people if they can justify theirs.Lotusduck 01:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic listcruft. Lists are great and all but when we start creating them based on fairly arbitrary criteria, we are getting silly. It's about as useful as creating a list of fictional people who hate the colour blue or a list of world leaders who like tea. Arkyan 00:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At least people who hate the color blue is specific. This is similar to a "list of fictional people known by their full name" which is probably a little more doable.Lotusduck 01:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to challange the validity of anyone's opinion, but since this is meant to be a debate, what's your take on the guideline "Wikipedia is not a list repository of loosely related topics"? If this article could be a list of actually closely related topics, then the best way for you to defend it is to edit the article so that it somehow is not a collection of barely related persons.Lotusduck 19:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Arkyan. Observation: so far no-one seems to have responded to Lotusduck's request for a reasonable explanation as to why they are voting "keep", in terms of the policies and guidelines. Is this perhaps because there isn't one? Zunaid 14:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 'useful list, already survived Vfd.' Seems like a reasonable explanation of a vote.....why should Keep voters have to justify themselves any more than delete voters? As for policies and guidelines, I personally have found if I try to justify my vote according to them, someone else comes along and says "Ah but what about this totally contradictory policy" so I dont bother. Jcuk 18:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to do anything. I just want a discussion, because I don't understand what you mean by useful. I've read the previous VfD, and all anyone ever said was that it wasn't the least useful list or that it was useful. Now, delete voters have agreed other deleters that have quoted policy and generally explained, or maybe in my case ranted away exactly what we mean by useless and incompletable. I'm glad that people can be bold, but I'm not ridiculing people by asking them to have some sort of discussion here. What is this list useful for? If you think that the "what this list isn't" section narrows the category enough to make it completable, I have to say that I wrote that section in it's entirety, and I don't think it makes the list completable at all.Lotusduck 18:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is ever complete. -- JJay 19:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but most good articles on wikipedia have at least a possibility of becoming nearly comprehensive in their topic. When I see that most fictional swearwords start with an F, I have some reasonable expectation that this is based on a popular sample of fictional swear-words taken from reputable sources. When I get a sample from "List of fictional people known by one name" I can be sure that it is based on original research that is not verifiable or referencable by outside sources. You and I may agree that Scrooge, Mr. Bean and Spock are fictional characters known by one name, but when someone removed Mr. Bean, there was no criteria, no outside source to verify that he did belong on the list. The only applicable rules are the fairly arbitrary ones I created that allow for honorifics like Mr. That is why Wikipedia is not for original research. Can you cite a source that verifies whether Sideshow Bob is a one named character or a two named one? You could prove it by the ruberic at the beginning of the page that defines one name as literally one word- but that's not a trustworthy source- that's a un-reveiwed unedited tirade by me. So if anyone can site a newspaper or other real source to prove whether acronyms like ALF are really one word names or if The Cat is a one word name or two, then that will certainly make me re-think a few things. If this list could be something other than original research then someone should change it to that to save it, because right now it's original research, which will probably lead to it's deletion, I think.Lotusduck 21:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? Everyone knows that ALF stands for alien life form, but in print is just called ALF. -- JJay 01:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page, people have suggested that ALF does not belong on "List of fictional people known by one name" on the basis that ALF is an acronym, and that this means that it is more than one name in and of itself. What can we reference to determine the validity of Alf or names with "the" in them? Currently, even Sideshow Bob is on the list, (I think that's two names as much as Peter Parker is two names.) what source can we cite to settle whether or not he should be? We could come to a consensus, but that still amounts to original research, which is what wikipedia is not. To be legitimate we must be able to cite a source that comments on the one-named-ness of given characters. Wikipedia:No original research Lotusduck 03:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to do is define the criteria, like you have done, and then use footnotes for those troublesome cases like Sideshow Bob, drawing on the abundance of good sources like newspapers. We need careful documentation of fictional characters' first names. This is the type of question that always comes up, and given the level of misinformation out there, we need to set people straight. Personally, I think the list should have two parts: 1) fictional characters that have no documented second name, such as Spock; 2) fictional characters that have two names but are most commonly known by just one, such as Scrooge. -- JJay 04:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But the topic of the article "fictional people known by one name" itself does not have a source to be cited. There are sources that can tell us that there is a Simpsons' character named sideshow bob, but the actual topic of the article is purely original research. List of fictional Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender people can have an actual source citing the importance of certain characters being on the list, even going into the obscure. For fictional people known by one name, we might be able to find someone, somewhere writing an article on Spock's ubiquity as it relates to the show not using his last name. We're just as likely not to find such an article, even given the widespread discussion of his popularity. So while characters first names and last names can be carefully sourced to ensure accuracy, can the significance of a characters' only having one name be sourced? Can the significance of all of these characters only having one name be sourced?Lotusduck 04:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Questions/Comments: Even within the article there are conflicting/ambiguous descriptions of what qualifies for the list. In the lead to the article, it says the fictional character is to be "known unambigously by one of the following ... first or last name, one word nickname, only known name." Then under the description of what the list is not: "Characters that are usually called by one name but their full name is easily recalled, like Wednesday Adams, are not included in this list...One example of this would be Radar from M*A*S*H, who has a real full name comprised of several words, but that name is very obscure information within the show... This is not a list of people with a one-word nickname, or a one word name that they are often called. Only characters with a one word nickname and an unknown or very obscure full name or other names. So Superman is not on the list because all of his names total three: Superman, Clark and Kent."
— These descriptions are ambiguous. If a character has a title, e.g. "Mr." or "Captain", do they still qualify? Spock or Mr. Spock? Captain Kirk or Kirk? In the case of Radar from M*A*S*H, he is well-known as Radar O'Reilly. Frank Burns most commonly called him "Corporal O'Reilly", so how does he qualify? How does "Holmes", aka Sherlock Holmes, qualify? The "Fonz" — Mr. & Mrs. Cunningham always called him Arthur (his given name). "Neo" from the Matrix — Mr. Smith was always calling him "Mr. Anderson". I'm not an avid fan of any of the shows, but I knew these off the top of my head. — ERcheck @ 05:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree - this is my point. What really qualifies? If Radar qualifies, then Capt Kirk does because he is known unambigously as Capt. Kirk (like "Mr. Spock", the title doesn't seem to count). In the case of the others, there are multiple names that they are well-known by, not all being one word.:
- Kirk = Captain Kirk = James T. Kirk = Jim
- Radar = Radar O'Reilly = Corporal O'Reilly = Walter O'Reilly
- The Fonz = Fonzie = Arthur = Arthur Fonzarelli
- Holmes = Sherlock Holmes (name best known by)
- Neo = Mr. Anderson = Thomas Anderson
— ERcheck @ 05:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ERcheck, I am tending away from arguing that this is a sprawling, unrelated article, and trying to explain that this article is original thought, not a documentation of a real reported phenomenon. But you are right: The names currently on the list set a precedent that all names of all characters ever concieved of should be on this list-

However, if there were some pressing need for a list of fictional people known by one name, it still would need to be a documented concern in newspapers, books or scholarly journals. For instance- there is, I think, a pressing need for a documentation of movies with a dream-self discovery theme, like The Wizard of Oz and The Labrynth- but if I can't find a source that ties these films together as important besides the movies themselves, I should not make such an article, even if I think the connection is clear, sure and important. Because wikipedia is not a lazy persons' publisher. If we say that names with honorifics can be included on this list based on my opinion that is baseless gratification of me, that is me pushing my ideas onto wikipedia with no base in verifiable sources, and that is wrong.Lotusduck 18:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This still amounts to original research, so while my rubric dictates some of what qualifies, my rubric is not a real source. If I were some really strange kind of reporter, and the beginning description about what should and shouldn't apply to a list of fictional people was an article in a real newspaper, and then said article became really popular for no reason and someone thought to make a wiki article on it, then this would all be legitimate. But wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.Lotusduck 13:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Seriously bad listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of random information. Stifle 02:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm going off on too many tangents of the discussion on this page, but what does listcruft stand for? I searched wikipedia for "listcruft" and while I undertand very generally what you mean, I'm still curious. Maybe a definition of listcruft would help people know why they should vote delete, maybe I'm cluttering this article with chatter. Well, time will tell.Lotusduck 05:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short answer: "listcruft" = "an indiscriminate collection of information", which in this case happens to be a list. The same goes for gamecruft, forumcruft, or any other cruft. Zunaid 06:48, 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 DELETE. I'm regarding XxBassPlayerxX and the anon as the same person, (which is more than I have to do: I could just ignore the anon who blanked the whole thing). There's minimal support for doing anything other than deleting the pair of these. -Splashtalk 23:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not My Year and Suicide City

This article is very nn. Only about 276 relevant results on Google. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 03:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • After researching this, comparing it to the standards in WP:MUSIC, and the actions of the author and anon user I have decided to change my vote to redirect. WP:MUSIC sets a standard of notability for bands and allows bands featuring former members of "extremely notable bands" to gain inclusion. It also states that non-notable projects should be redirected. So once again, my new vote is Redirect to Jennifer Arroyo. If this article survives AfD, which does not look likely, I will perform the redirect myself. Movementarian 04:32, 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 SPEEDY KEEP, unfortunately. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

War on Christmas

  • Delete nonsense. paranoid delusions from the circus of right-wing extremism. --Revolución (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - They're extreme right-wing paranoid delusions, I agree. But they're notable extreme right-wing paranoid delusions. FCYTravis 03:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - The article is encyclopedic and well supported by citations. [removed user box as it was interfering with keep border - JOG] Endomion 04:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep NPOV disputes aren't a basis for deletion. - FrancisTyers 04:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article should be modified to be more NPOV but it is an issue that has come to a head in 2005. Supported by citations, provides useful info for those doing research on this. Happy holidays, everyone! Drmandrake 04:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep The argument is very common these days, and there can be plenty room for both sides in the article. To use reductio ad absurdum, there's an article on holocaust denial and the wikipedia is not actually denying the holocaust. (I'm not stating the view that the two are equivalent; I am just making the point that the subject is very relevant, and it's existence does not imply the support of the belief that Christmas is under attack.)
  • The article is a morass of POV garbage - it's initial creation was someone making a point. Nevertheless, it is decidedly notable, so Speedy keep it is. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep* The Anti-Christian groups are trying to hide the facts that they are suing us over Christmas. I received threats to not put up Christmas lights on my house, or else I would be sued. Check court records and see how many lawsuits are filed over Christmas, then you will see that there is a real war on Christmas. Ironic that the vote to delete this article was made on Christmas, when most Christians are busy and not on Wikipedia to defend the article. You can really see the bias there by the Anti-Christians and their hate. --Charles Schram 01:23, 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 speedy deleted by Oberiko. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Sabarese

Delete. Non-notable, vanity page. No Guru 03:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete, and a plea for people to listen to Uncle G's complaints about people throwing around "Wiktionary" without checking. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ostentatious

This page seems mostly to bee a dictionary-type page with a couple of quotes, which is what Wikitionary is for. Delete. Scottmso 03:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Aaron Schwebel. Please do not modify it. The result was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete and, apparently, sheesh (?). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speed 3

Meme about hypothetical sequel to Speed that has been joked about on two television shows. Not notable. tregoweth 04:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say speedy delete to be funny, but I think weak Keep is more appropriate. Endomion 04:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was ehhh, we'll call it a keep. If any of y'all want to merge it now, there's nothing stopping you. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kell Tainer

Star Wars Expanded Universe "character". I highly suspect this is pure fan-fic, but I cannot say for certain that nothing is mergeable, so I bring it here for more eyes to see. Xoloz 04:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment And I'm vehemently opposed to a Kell Tainer ever getting his own article. Fictional characters on the magnitude of Shylock or Raskolnikov deserve their own pages; characters from niche books with minor circulation deserve no more than a section in a list. The only people who ever want information on this are the people who already know everything on them. Most importantly, this all falls under the Original Research label. I don't suppose there have been any legitimate literary studies of Kell Tainer as a character. I know the precedent so far has been in favor of Pokemon characters and video game weapons keeping their articles, and I couldn't disagree with that more. Flyboy Will 05:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was alright, delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WireTracks

Company article that doesn't make a claim of notability and reads like an ad. Xoloz 04:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Interesting issue, eh? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Earl Bates

Delete This is about as boring as a death penalty case could ever hope to be. No sex, children, or race involved. No novel legal issues. If this one doesn't deserve deletion then we may as well add being executed in the United States after 1976 to WP:BIO since I can't image a less notable murderer than Joseph Earl Bates. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - If this was about an execution in China (30,000 executions a year) then maybe you'd be right. Endomion 05:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I object to the notion that executions are notable or non-notable depending on where they're performed. That smacks of Western bias. Durova 18:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The relevant difference is only that China, Saudi Arabia, etc., are relatively secretive, making WP:V information about the executed hard to obtain; also, relatedly, there is less domestic public debate over execution in those nations, given speech restrictions. Otherwise, they would be cataloged fully, as with the US.
  • Keep Boring executed murderers are still executed murderers. I think there is more here than the stub suggests, but the stub is useful on its own. Death penalty is simply too controversial in the US to delete any executed Americans. Xoloz 05:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not really. He confessed to the crime and killed the victim because he thought he had something to do with his house being shot up. The sole point of notability he has is that he was executed in the U.S. after 1976, so this is the perfect test case for whether that is sufficient to warrant a Wikipedia article. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't submitting something as a "test-case" qualify as Disrupting WP to make a point ? Endomion 06:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. He's not illustrating anything. He's testing the ground. Nothing wrong with that, in fact it's a thousand times better than the only alternative, that is nominating every single related article in a giant bulk. Flyboy Will 06:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this isn't WP:POINT. Every executed individual in the US receives ample nationwide press in the US. We don't need to rewrite WP:BIO, since every executed inmate already qualifies on that account. Xoloz 17:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If he were to list every article about someone who was executed in the United States, that would be a violation of WP:POINT, but just testing the waters isn't a problem. Oh, and keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 18:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for info: I know there have been a few executed criminal articles on AfD lately, and there are arguments for and against deletion. Could someone direct me to a discussion on this topic, if it exists? Thank you. --Fang Aili 05:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. -- JJay 05:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a person whose only notability is being executed belongs in a list of executions, and does not deserve his own article. Flyboy Will 06:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If he has any sort of notability beyond being executed, then this article will be recreated with no problem. Alas, it seems he does not. --Apostrophe 08:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Death penalty is never boring. Jakiah 10:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. 400 google hits for "Joseph Earl Bates". media coverage. --Quarl 11:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not-notable, nothing to distinguish this case from other executions. He's already on the List of individuals executed in North Carolina (why do editors think they need to start a separate article for every name on a list?) -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. If editors feel the need to address the death penalty in the United States, then I suggest creating more articles on death row inmates and populating the new category. Durova 18:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand -- you support articles for the thousands on death row, but not for the thousand actually executed in 28 years? Curious position, I feel. Xoloz 19:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe that Durova is arguing that if the notability of a person derives from being subjected to the death penalty in the United States, then in that sense, those that have been setenced to death but not had that sentence carried out are as notable as those who have reached the end of the appeals process without having the sentence reduced. Caerwine Caerwhine 20:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with him. We should have articles for every person on death row + their victims. Every one of those cases is important, just like this case, for the political ramifications. -- JJay 20:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, when we begin talking about every person on death row, my only objection is a number problem. Plenty of folks spend only a little time there, before being commuted, retried, or killed in prison. The advantage to sticking only to the executed is that those cases have proved enduring and compelling enough for the state to go forward with the sentence of death. Xoloz 21:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • What ramifications? Guy kills person, gets killed himself. If you're talking about the controversy over capital punishment, the article does a fine job of showing that without need for articles on every person executed. --Apostrophe 20:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've never really heard of a lengthy capital murder conviction that hasn't had ample state-wide press (at least), prompted commentary on crime and criminal justice from public figures, and motivated legal response through attempted reform. Despite the effort of the nom. to classify Bates as boring, I don't see it here either. Xoloz 21:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • You seem to be arguing that everything that makes the news should end up in Wikipedia and that therefore we had no reason to split off Wikinews. Other than providing an occasion for the pro-DP and anti-DP activists to make their commentary, I find zero evidence of any lasting impact here and this case is far less noteworthy than the December 2005 South Carolina ice storm which does not appear to have an article, nor should it, despite receiving far more press coverage and causing the deaths of more people. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • The difference between a Wikinews only topic and a Wikipedia topic is one of depth, scope, and importance of the topic. Personally, I'd argue that "Sam, the world's ugliest dog" is why Wikinews exists separately -- that is "news of the day"-type story. As it happens, I think Sam is in WP too. Sigh. In any event, serious affairs of law and state (which every US execution is) are exactly why encyclopedias were made in the first place, and they still form the very heart of what I call encyclopedic. Xoloz 21:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sam is an edge case, and I certainly wouldn't complain if his article were merged into the World's Ugliest Dog Contest article. That said, I would definitely consider Sam to be more notable than Mr. Bates who also falls into that "news of the day" category you mentioned. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Well then, I think we have reached an honest, very deep, impasse of meaning. To me, if an encyclopedia exists for anything, it exists for to cover significant topics of philosophy and history, of which state executions (and those so executed) are a chapter. Sincerely, I cannot see how an ugly dog meets notability requirements, where state executed fail. Xoloz 23:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Comment The execution of condemned criminals is encyclopedic. With rare exceptions, the story of each person executed is not encyclopedic. Questions of philosophy and history are best addressed in general articles, not in articles about individuals that do not provide any point on which to hang a unique argument that could not be repeated in every other article about an executed individual. (this seems to be from Dalbury)
                        • There, I also disagree. Each executed individual is a worthy subject of criminological (or, if they are wrongly executed, sociological) study. Researchers who study crime do not develop generalized patterns simply from the Ted Bundys and Charles Mansons of the world. Even the simple facts of their childhood are of scholarly (and, often, macabre popular) interest. Additionally, each capital murder is certain notably to affect its community, region, or state, as discussed above. Xoloz 00:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Perhaps, but this is an encyclopedia not a compendium of all human knowledge. The mission of an encyclopedia is to provide a concise crystalization of the details and pointers to where the detailed information of limited interest can be found for those seeking greater knowledge about a narrow topic. A pointer to the minutiae of Mr. Bates' case in the List of individuals executed in North Carolina article would more than satisfy that requirement. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                            • I don't oppose that idea in theory, but I would wish to see it applied consistently across the 'pedia. As I'm sure you'll agree it isn't, and my concern is that I don't want the executed given less extensive treatment solely on the basis of their "evil". I strongly believe that an encyclopedia should cover the best and worst of human deeds in equal measure. Xoloz 15:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm talking about the political ramifications for the people & States involved. -- JJay 21:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • To clarify my position, I have seen editors contend that executions in the United States are more notable than executions in the Third World. I reject that argument as inherently biased. It is neither possible nor wise to catalog all capital criminals everywhere. If Wikipedia repeats an error about a school, little real harm is done. If we insert the wrong name or remain unaware when a conviction is overturned, then anyone in the world with an Internet connection may read false and damaging information about an innocent person. Even posthumous vindications matter for the sake of the surviving relatives. I find more potential encyclopedic value in death row inmates than in executed prisoners. To judge by the comments of some editors, it appears some people's time would be better spent writing for Amnesty International than for Wikipedia. Durova 22:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'd appreciate it, Durova, if you'd address my comments regarding the reasons US executions are more appropriate for WP, immediately below your original vote. No bias exists in such a selection, only honest, regrettable, WP:V and notability concerns. Xoloz 04:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jcuk 23:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Flyboy Will and Dalbury. Zunaid 14:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Executed convicts in the United States are notable simply because they were executed. There are only a little over 1,000 persons that fit this category in the last 30 years. These individuals are notable as part of the debate surrounding the death penalty in the United States. Nolamgm 00:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Then the purpose could be served equally well by a list of executions iwth brief summaries, and fully fledged articles only for those who achieved notoriety in some or other way. Zunaid 08:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is an area of American society that is currently part of a heated debate. Detailed, accurate, and neutral articles about each case can only serve to help this debate and thus the public in general. I am failing to see what is the concern over a full article on each case. Nolamgm 15:51, 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 category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Johntex\talk 02:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cruelization

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

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anticurro

Neologism, six-bored-teenagers stuff. "Anticurro" yields nine actual google hits, only one of which might be related to this article. Klaw ¡digame! 05:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wyllding

Short dicdef. Xoloz 05:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 23:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A second AFD debate, recorded at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek (2nd nomination), resulted in a "delete". Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John_Bambenek

This seems to be a vanity page. The subject of the article has edited the page several times, and there's been several instances of unverfiable information, such as a gubernatorial run, inserted. perardi 03:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Quite a polymath, my only problem is the category for "politician" at the bottom of the article. Endomion 06:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after removing all the vanity. --Quarl 11:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, nn. The Google hits I checked all seemed to be resumes or profiles on interactive sites. If someone can find any media coverage on him, please point me to it. In any case, a high Google count does not necessarily establish notability (I have about 5000 hits on Google, myself). -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible that this is just taken from the preface of one of his books or something? It reads that way with a strong introductory narrative feel rather than something for an encylopedia article. Because of that reason I would suggest deletion to avoid further troubles but the publications might be noteworthy to keep somewhere. So I think it should be kept for that kind of resource as long as there is no copy vios. Keep--Ari89 12:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Ari89 10:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is an exploratory committee that does meet weekly on Thursdays. Also, yes, it is the same person in that firefox article, and you can find several others if you have Lexis. Also, this nominator was involved with this vandalism [8] in the same article. -- 12.203.38.138 14:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I would not call what User:Perardi did vandalism. He removed a section he believed did not belong in the article, and gave his reasons in the edit summary. I may not agree with the way he did it, but I will not call it vandalism. And someone at the IP address you are using added John Bambenek to the non-existant Category:Jedi Masters -- Dalbury(Talk) 15:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply' I wasn't talking about the paragraph, check the link, I was talking about the brutal anal raping by a priest and crackwhore sister vandalism. That IP was used by him at that time frame and was confirmed by linking his contributions at other forums and the IP used there. -- 12.203.38.138 15:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dalbury. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:50, Dec. 26, 2005
  • Keep. As for media mentions, here are a few. [[9]] [[10]] [[11]]. There is a published paper [here]. The article mentioned above by Ari89 is the same person also. A copyvio'd book is available online at [[12]] if you'd like to see that he in fact wrote on of those books. As an aside, Chris Perardi, the person who nominated this, is a new user who's first order of business when joining wikipedia was hitting John Bambenek's page and it seems to be his only contribution aside of his user page. Someone mentioned above he was involved in vandalism. He is an undergrad at the same University at which Bambenek works and has had several problems with him and campus conservatives in general. (John Bambenek is a columnist for a local paper also). He has in the past threatened violence against such people and has been warned for doing it. You can read his [blog post] here that, among other things, ripped on Bambenek. It's clear that this nomination was done in bad faith based on a personal grudge. -- 130.126.146.94 16:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity --Nick Catalano (Talk) 04:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Article requires a rewrite (I will volunteer), but subject is noteworthy. Given that the article was not written by the subject and that the subject is indeed noteworthy is not vanity. Given that the nominator is also associated with UIUC, I fear this may in fact be a bad faith nomination. TheChief (PowWow) 16:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It appears very likely that it was written by the subject. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise? -Willmcw 22:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Yes, I am personally familiar with Mr. Bambenek and he did not write the article. In fact when the article was first created, I was the one to point it out to him.
  • Comment. Why does it have a link to category: Roman Catholics. Putting that in kind of gives the feel that its a vanity page by including personal stuff as only a category. I still think the other things on it maybe useful to people so im still with keeping it.--Ari89 14:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC) my stupidness[reply]
  • Keep. He is a columnist, a blogger, and is part of the faculty of a well known educational institution. His article belongs here. Although I do believe we can cut off some of the fat of the article, and maybe add a little bit more known facts later. We have a source where it seems Mr. Perardi published an email, cleverly quoting another, but nevertheless using this email to possibly smear the subject:
* John Bambenek, ultra-conservative columnist for the Daily
Illini and OBO member, is going to try to publicize the
event in his column next Friday. Not sure what can be done
about that... They're also going to chalk the Quad in
preparation for the event -- and they're brainstorming for
things to write, so we should have our heads up for that [13]
We know that the nominator clearly has a relationship with the subject, based upon the information we have been given [14], whether it is a legitimate, and positive relationship is for the rest of you to decide, based upon the quotes and statements Mr. Perardi has made regarding Mr. Bambenek. Very High Risk of bad faith, and personal conflicts, that should not be displayed in an encyclopedia. Эйрон Кинни 23:51, 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Harding

Vanity about a guy's quest for Internet fame. Let's not encourage this sort of thing. tregoweth 05:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this guy was on Ellen, which is more than I can see for featured article subject KaDee Strickland. -- MisterHand 06:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you serious? The proverbial Kadee Strickland, goddamn her for being a featured article, received star billing in the crappy Anacondas sequel, and had a bunch of visible supporting parts in A-list movies such as Fever Pitch and Woody Allen's Anything Else. But if Ellen is your criteria, then KaDee was on The Tony Danza Show. Flyboy Will 10:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete. This guy is pretty cool. Obviously someone thought he was interesting enough to write about in the first place. If you actually visit his site, it's interesting and somewhat educational in a very casual since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.171.84 (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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Social Engine

Non-notable "literary writing" [sic], with zero Google results [15]. The one included "source" is a link to a copy of "The Social Engine", showing it to be a total of four paragraphs in length. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 05:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:12, Dec. 25, 2005

Charlie Mansfield

Self-promotion - created by a user with the same name. rossb 06:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus keep. Despite a late charge towards deletion, I don't see that we've got any agreement to delete here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sassan Sanei

Appears to be a vanity article. — TheKMantalk 08:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't think so. He is very well known in Canada for his extensive work on the BlackBerry wireless communication system and solutions that he developed in collaboration with independent software vendors, universities, and carriers. I would like to see mention of new technical standards as well, if an authoritative source can be found for this information, but I do not have this. I fixed some grammar and added mention of the publication of the developer journal to the article, though this may be less significant.216.9.243.104 08:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Virtually every google hit is some comment by this guy on other people's blogs. A Proquest literature search, including the ABI/INFORM database, returns 0 hits. Uucp 14:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support I wrote the original article. I disagree with using the number of google or proquest hits as a basis for notability for this subject. Four reasons: 1. The fine details of much engineering work is not published on the web because of companies' tight control over trade secrets and patents, so most google hits return pages dealing with his personal views and not professional work. Perhaps others can provide more data in this area. 2. Some third-party publications, such as development of technical standards for wireless communication through the IEC (international engineering consortium) to which he is known to have contributed, is published in conference proceedings but not picked up by proquest. I'm pretty sure I have print copies of these proceedings and if I can find them will cite them in an edit to the article. 3. Nor are the contents of print publications, such as Resource magazine and the blackberry developer journal, picked up by google. I am omitted references to these articles until I could find a suitable source for citation. I did however use google as a search for the quotations. 4. Where he has been employed by RIM since 1996 when it was a tiny company means that he was an early and influential player in wireless data communication, as they did not even release the blackberry until 1999, now there are around 4 million users of this device and the historical significance of the subject in this area alone should qualify this as a worthy article, certainly not vanity. This was my first draft of this article and I was hoping other contributors could fill in more information. - Frank R.Fragnal 17:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The subject could very well be notable, but the article in its current form does not prove the importance of the subject. The subject may be connected to the BlackBerry device, but the article fails to explain how. Yes, I agree that Google isn't always the best place to look to prove notability, but the article has no other references or publications posted, so it is my only source. I don't want to imply anything by this but I think it should be mentioned that the only editors to the article were Fragnal and 216.9.243.104, who both posted within 12 hours of each other.[16] I have not voted yet, but plan to when I have made my decision. — TheKMantalk 17:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand what you are suggesting and no offence taken as I have already let several people know that I wrote this article in the hopes that they could add content. Only one person so far though. So I have added some external links that I could find including one on cnn.com from 2001 as well as a J2ME reference to better show HOW the subject is connected to the blackberry as you suggested. I do appreciate your suggestions but take it easy on me as this is my first article and I want to do it right. Thanks. :) - Frank R. Fragnal 18:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, I think I'll give the article some time to develop. — TheKMantalk 18:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have worked in the wireless industry in Canada for several years, and in landline communication before that, and can affirm the importance of Sassan Sanei's contributions to wireless data communication standards including the BlackBerry system. 65.93.23.84 01:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Reasons For: While many of Sassan Sanei's Google hits refer to his blog, he is mentioned in a CNN article from 2001 [17], another article from 2001 [18], and there is a short description of him on a technology conference page [19]. The article is well writen, and might have some importance. Reasons Against: The few significant references to Sanei are from archived/old internet news articles from 2001. The only page linking to the article in question is the University of Waterloo, and the addition was made by the anonymous contributor to this article. I think I should also note that there is a possibility of sock puppetry or meat puppetry. May the "let several people know" comment by Fragnal be noted. This in itself is not a criteria for deletion, but may influence the decision by the administrator to keep or delete (see Sockpuppets are bad). In Closing: I do believe the article was created in good faith, but on a relatively obsure person. If this article is kept, I would recommend only keeping the "BlackBerry" quotation only. I'll leave the final decision to the deciding administrator. — TheKMantalk 17:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. If I find more references I will add them to the article. I included the quotations which came up on various Google searches to give some insight into Sassan Sanei's views on things that have to do with more than just blackberry (personality insight). I have no objections if others want to edit or remove the others as TheKMan suggested and I can see that 65.93.23.84 already deleted one as "irrelevant" which I thought was actually an interesting one but I will not argue over it. Have we reached a consensus on whether to keep or delete?Fragnal 19:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to December 25, 2005. Insert new comments below. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:19, Dec. 25, 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. I was wavering over whether to relist or just close as delete, then I actually read the article. It's a blatant hoax, and even includes some old-time not-very-funny jokes presented as fact. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kasper Amundsen Tuvnes

Non notable, 1 google hit, low alexa traffic rank.--Dakota ? e 06:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the Future Part IV

This article is completely speculative; the links point to articles which clearly show that the idea of a Back to the Future IV is mocked by anyone who is asked about it, including Michael J. Fox — the bit about him "coming back to play Doc" is obviously Fox joking about how he is too old to play his old character now. Wikipedia shouldn't be a repository for articles about movies which have no verifable reason for us to believe will ever exist. —Cleared as filed. 06:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was since all recent votes are deletes and it's time to be done with 2005, I'm closing this as a delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Janzen

A Google search for "Scott Janzen" and Green Party produces 37 hits. Future candidate for a small district. Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisting 31 December 2005. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no notability cited beyond being a (not yet elected) candidate in an election. (As a comment: The article reads like a campaign promo and not a bio.) --GrantNeufeld
  • To help out other admins closing AFDs, delete. Being a mere candidate for public office, unless major publicity is attracted, just doesn't make the cut for notability, IMO. Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there's a damn good reason not to. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:51, Jan. 9, 2006
Note: I've redacted it and formatted it so it should be a (more) neutral articel. 68.39.174.238 10:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:26, Dec. 25, 2005

Catholic Public Domain Version

Delete. Self-described vanity article: "new article written by the translator and editor of the CPDV (see SacredBible.org)" included in history. —A.S. Damick talk contribs 17:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. It looks like a good project, but the vanity issue is a real one. KHM03 18:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I wrote the article and I am working on the translation. However, I argue that the article should remain because it can be edited by others and because it includes a section on disadvantages of the translation. Every translation of the Bible should have an entry of some kind in the Wikipedia. --Ronconte 21:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Every Wikipedia article (except protected ones, of course) can be edited by anyone with a working web browser, but the policy still stands that Wikipedia is not a place to write articles about oneself or one's own work. I'm a published poet with a book available for sale, but there's nothing on Wikipedia about me, because no one has cared to take enough note. I can't start an article with my name or the name of my book, just because others can edit it. I wish you well with your project, and perhaps if it becomes notable enough, someone else will write an article about it. —A.S. Damick talk contribs 22:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conflicted. Sounds like an extraordinarily interesting project, and verifiable, to boot. But I suppose "interesting" isn't enough to establish "notable." An interesting project idea doesn't deserve an article in Wikipedia, but an interesting ongoing project with some discernable progress toward success does. To me it all comes down to the fact that the person who started and runs the project probably does not have standing to judge notability for Wikipedia. So what I'd really like to see is, either the article is deleted and if it is truly notable presumably some other, unrelated Wikipedians will create a new article on it, or else said Wikipedians will rework the article so that it's not written by someone with a vested interest in promoting the project. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 22:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    And on a personal note, Ronconte, all the best to you on your project. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 22:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Having looked at this, I would find it more likely to be considered notable if some of the longer books were completed, such as one of the five books of Moses, or one of the Gospels. As it is, it's difficult to truly answer the question "Will this project still be around in a few years?" and "Will it actually be completed by 2009?" Wikipedia does not need to look like sourceforge.net, full of pages for every incomplete project concept. That's not to discount the value of the work already done; that's just to raise the question of whether or not enough work has been done to justify calling it "notable." If CPDV has enough value to stand on its own without needing Wikipedia to bring attention to it, then it should be in Wikipedia. If it needs Wikipedia in order to attract enough attention that the project will succeed, it does not belong here. Kind of a catch-22, I know. It should be up to the project itself to establish merit with its track record. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 22:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article on the CPDV differs substantially from someone writing an article about themselves or about a book they wrote because it is a version of the Bible. It is 23% completed by a count of the verses. The Book of Psalms is completed; the Psalms is the one book of the Bible that is perhaps most often published on its own. Also, I read somewhere in Wikipedia that some articles are accepted by someone writing about their own work (can't find it now). Therefore, I suggest instead of deleting this article, changing it to a stub, so that other persons can begin a new article from that point. --Ronconte 00:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't a value judgment on the work, which may well be fantastic, on the level of St. Jerome himself. Should anyone who starts his own translation of the Bible get into an encyclopedia? Wikipedia's policy answer to that question is "no." Just as claiming to be God (a much more important sort of claim than making a Bible, don't you think?) isn't enough to get one put into an encyclopedia, making a version of the Bible is not enough, either. Notability has to be established, and it cannot be established by the fiat of the writer/translator/worker in question. Wikipedia records notability. It doesn't create it. It's not a place to get press for one's work. If your work truly is notable, making some sort of verifiable impact on Biblical studies/religion/etc., someone else will start the article. You suggest changing the article to a stub rather than deleting it, but is that because you fear that it wouldn't otherwise see the light of day? If so, then that even more proves the point about the need for notability to be established by someone other than the one with a personal interest. —A.S. Damick talk contribs 14:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with what you are saying but go ahead and delete it. --Ronconte 16:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, I found this article while looking for a public domain Catholic Bible for a software project. The CPDV is exactly what I was looking for. Well, it will be when it's done anyway. :-) But Mr. Conte has more than enough done for me to get started. I'd like the article to stay. Or I would also consider writing a repleacement article once I am more familiar with the project. --LawfulGood 08:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting to December 25, 2005. Insert new comments below. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:08, Dec. 25, 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ambient nights

fails WP:MUSIC, no claim of wide-public knowledge, looks like promontional JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete. This cold have been speedied.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yoda Soda

Non notable. Maybe transwiki (to cookbook) if it wouldn't be a copyvio. gren グレン 07:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Merge to Grinnell College. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 22:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GrinnellPlans

Miniscule forum of a liberal arts college in Iowa. 400K Alexa rank, tiny membership, no incoming wikilinks, no media coverage. -- Perfecto 07:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was deleted. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 14:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

M11 Music

No alexa data; no incoming wikilinks; zero "link:" results in Google; 576 "members". Fails WP:WEB -- Perfecto 07:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 22:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thothica

Nn forum. Nn Alexa rank. Zero "link:" results in Google. "113" members.--  Perfecto 07:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet alert. --Quarl 03:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
a bit of a misleading and gratuitous comment, no? be at least fair about it... BobbyRay 04:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cool, Quarl, please. BobbyRay, I'm sorry I forgot to add a phrase in my nomination above, so it wasn't clear. The phrase is, "Fails WP:WEB". WP:WEB is the guideline that helps us identify which websites are encyclopedic or not. If you can cite reliable sources asserting the site's notability, then this article can be considered positively. Again, sorry. -- Perfecto 04:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for popping in and clarifying a bit, Perfecto. Unfortunately, I can't do that. Asides from the entry in WikiPedia, we've kept a low profile until now intentionally, however we will be posting a new website in the next few days, and perhaps that will help clarify some things for you guys from our side. I think that, from a 'uniqueness' and 'utility' standpoint, Thothica deserves mention, and will likely will soon for other reasons, as well. If I may make a suggestion for a compromise, perhaps removing the notice and putting the article on 'probation' for a few months would be fair - if by then we don't meet guidelines and someone wants to, reconsider deletion then. Thothica IS unique, it's more significant than it currently appears to be, and does serve a very useful purpose to a number of people...and it is an interesting project and informative article, according to those who have contacted us based on the information in the article. and again, as I understand it, the guidelines are just that - ONLY guidelines that editors/moderators can use IF they so choose, but they are not requirements articles are "required" to meet. thanks in advance... BobbyRay 04:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. "Creating or editing an article about yourself, your business, your publications, or any of your own achievements is strongly discouraged (WP:AUTO)." You admitted the conflict of interest and your desire to push this because it gives the site exposure. Go promote your site elsewhere, please, not here. Thank you. -- Perfecto 05:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
sorry u look at it that way. that's not the correct interpretation - i said it was the 'only' exposure we had, not that that was the goal of having the article there. we've not promoted the thing *at all* and i posted it here at the suggestion of someone else who felt that, due to the nature of what we were up to, it would be appropriate. That you choose to interpret my being open into an admission of improper use and conflict of interest, well, sorry. poor choice of words, i guess. Anyway, i can see i'm wasting my time and your time. Do what you will. I can only hope you will reconsider, but i can see which way the wind's blowing on this subject. Anyway, good luck with wikipedia - as i say in my user description, i think this is a great idea, and i'm sorry that for some reason someone's decided we don't belong. but i have to say, i'm perhaps not the only one 'conflicted' - but at least i admitted sensitivity to the issue and tried consciously not to step over the line. peace. BobbyRay 05:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I identified with you what it takes to get websites listed here. AFAICS, someone will rewrite the article a few months later if your site is encyclopedic enough. I hope you will contribute to other articles where you find interest. -- Perfecto 05:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Seems to me Thothica.com has touched on on a very good idea: that the internet be used in a constructive mannor that is conducive to high-content material and civil discussion. I see that numerous "online communities" are listed in Wiki - what's the bias of "Perfecto?" Immunologist 03:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Metacomment: Immunologist's only edits are to this article. --Quarl 03:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Metacomment: Irrelevant comment, Quarl. Anyone, including me starts somewhere - posts a first comment/edit somewhere, probably (as was the case with me) anonymously. The number of contributions to WP of anyone has no bearings on the relevance or right to voice one's opinion. And obviously, if someone feels s/he's been wronged, s/he'll muster support from other community members. That's normal and natural. And if I am not entirely mistaken, this very same principle that you now call sock-puppet was the base of Wikipedia itself, not? Think back a little before applying different measures for the same thing. Helmar 10:06, 27 December 2005 (GMT+0200)
  • thanks for the clarification, however we're not fully 'deployed' so naturally such rankings would be low. However it is influential beyond it's size (you should see the members list, and check out the abilities of many of the members). in any case, we will be launching officially in january and likely will meet many of the standards mentioned above. I've tried to be pretty sensitive to appearances, here, and have (for example) accepted advice/guidance from one of your colleagues when the article was first submitted. -- and please note, i didn't say more "important", I said more "appropriate" BobbyRay 03:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • as far as notability, it seems the policies at the WP WEB link are designed to ensure little guys don't have a shot. to my knowledge, we're the first of our kind of "community environment" - perhaps that's enough in and of itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbyray (talk • contribs)
    • Don't have a shot at what? Having an article in Wikipedia doesn't mean you're cool, and not having one doesn't mean your not cool. It just means your Alexa rank isn't high enough, nothing personal. --Quarl 03:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metacomment to Bobbyray: Please Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block; nor ask your friends to create accounts to support you. --Quarl 03:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metacomment to Quarl - I resent that accusation. it's unfair and if you check the ip's of the user's involved, i suspect you'll find they likely do NOT match mine. I strongly request you rescind that accusation. BobbyRay 04:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quarl, please understand: all i am trying to accomplish here is to prevent what i STRONGLY feel, as a long time wikipedia user, the unfair deletion of the article. I don't think it takes up unnecessary space, i do feel it is informative and appropriate here, and i think it is not necessary to delete it. i do not control what others say. and i do not control what happens here. however the article in question was posted in good faith, and i believe it deserves to be here. the guidelines on the WP WEB page are just that - guidelines, and not policies, so they do NOT need to be interpreted as if they were. Plus, they seem to be more or less arbitrary - certainly not based on any research? i'm not sure i understand why ur so vociferously opposed to it, however for me, it seems quite an inoffensive article at worst, and at least interesting to a certain subset of users. BobbyRay 04:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greetings, all! I am one of the co-founders of Sonork, the IM Thothica is based on. I'm new to WP (except for one anonymous change some months ago). As one of its pilot phase members I am not new to Thothica, though. I find the discussion here utterly irrelevant if not downright absurd. If WP aims to be a representative and relevant source of information, entries like these IMO form the very backbone. The entry may not be encyclopedic at this very moment, but it's also a Catch-22, because it never may attain this goal if it gets deleted here. Given that the search engines don't yet list the site itself, most of the members have come via the WP listing itself - at least according to my ad-hoc 'survey' among the Thothica members on my list, while doing some research about online communities. Also as a result of the notice on the Thothica page and the subsequent mud-fight on this page, I have taken the liberty to edit the entry, removing spelling mistakes, restructuring the content, thus making it more readable. I have also removed those parts that may be 'self-promoting'. That said, from what I have read above, it seems it's not entirely clear to the editors themselves which rule (?) the entry violated. I at least hope to have removed any remaining issues other than that the entry on Dec 27th, 2005 is not encyclopedic. If this is the KO criterion, then remove the entry, otherwise keep it up and monitor its hits, plus the continuous editing and extension of the entry itself. I certainly advocate the latter option, hence my editing of the entry itself. As the entry doesn't violate any rule other than possibly being a little premature (official launch happening in a few weeks), why not keep it for now and revisit it at the end of January - I am sure the Wiki has a feature for this, not? - Helmar Rudolph, Cape Town,RSA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmar org (talk • contribs)
  • Helmar's point is rather spurious. Wikipedia is WP:NOT not an advertising venue. Period. End of discussion. Down that path lies madness and spam. Re-list the site if and when it becomes notable for itself; in the interim delete. 24.71.91.173 08:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The I'd say that in the interests of fairness, other similar articles should be deleted. "Notability" is not a fair criterion, IMHO - it's just an indicator of longevity and/or size, and as guideline, the 'Notability' criterion is itself under review for deletion. Our project is interesting for other reasons, and it wasn't posted here for promotional purposes, period. It was posted because it was different, unique, and interesting - and possibly significant. You should look at this with a Big Picture view, too - what does it say when large, established corporate sites and services are included, but small, unknown private ones are excluded, regardless of their uniqueness or utility? But I've stated the case in case for keeping the article too much already. It goes or stays based on a decision made by whoever will make that decision. Maybe it gets reposted later, maybe not. I'm just sorry it's been such a big issue. Partly my fault, but I think largely not. In any case, I propose ending the discussion here. I've had my say. Regardless of how this comes out, wikipedia is still one of the best resources on the internet for information of any kind, and my opinion in that sense won't change. And in case someone wishes to twist THAT comment into having some self-serving, unintended, intent, please don't - it's just an honest and sincere comment I felt compelled to make...as all the rest of mine have been, regardless of the editorializing that has accompanied them. peace... BobbyRay 09:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:WEB and that's the end of it. If/when the site becomes famous in its own right, then re-create it. Comment: BobbyRay, if you can't provide external verification of the site's importance, it HAS to go (as per 24.71.91.173's comments). You are more than welcome to nominate other, similar articles for deletion (be careful not to violate WP:POINT in doing so though). ...what does it say when large, established corporate sites and services are included, but small, unknown private ones are excluded... . It says that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, which means all information must be verifiable and that articles must, in some loose sense, be "encyclopedic" or "important". WP:WEB is one of the main guidelines used for determining the "importance" or "encyclopedicness" of websites. Zunaid 15:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • go for it. Nice to see that 'voluntary' guidelines with arbitrary conditions (themselves under re-evaluation) are now written stone and 'must' be adhered to. Yeah, sour grapes, and I know it. But just so you know, I'm not about to go running around nominating other articles for deletion. It's not worth the effort, really, and I'm sure would enamour me even less to those In Charge here. I also won't repost the Thothica article, as - despite the stated 'reasoning' used here to the contrary - I'm certain that the motivation for removing it, if not at least 99% percent of the reason for the antipathy towards it, is because i happen to be both the article's author as well as the project's founder. Lack of foresight on my part, I guess, and I'm guessing some here have long memories. Perhaps someone else one day may deem it worthy of inclusion post something, but I'm not going to hold my breath - it's not our goal to become "famous" or a "household name" outside of the limited subset of people who'd find it interesting. Perhaps it may, eventually, become large enough by some of your 'guidelines' for inclusion - ironically enough, guidelines that I now (and likely will then, too, if they're not changed in the meantime (which at least in the case of notability appears likely)) object to. Anyway, I hope YOUR 2006 goes well... ciao BobbyRay 16:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB and the contributor seems to think wikipedia is an advertising vehicle. Bobbyray, that Wikipedia is the ONLY place you've advertised doesn't make it any better; it makes it much worse. I don't go to Encyclopedia Britannica to look for something that has never been published anywhere else. That's what the Yellow Pages are for. Longwinded responses aren't going to help your article, it's doomed. Perhaps you need to refresh yourself what wikipedia is, rather than attacking everything it is. The reason for removing it has nothing to do with you being the founder, and here's a tip: Martyrdom never works here. You're just digging your own grave deeper with every comment you write. --Golbez 15:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • golbez, as you eloquently demonstrated, i've come to realize that no matter what I say, it will be misinterpreted and used against keeping the article. I know what wikipedia is and what it's for. My intent wasn't to advertise. My objections are related to fairness, mainly related to the standards being applied and how. But due to me being the author and being the founder of the project that's the subject of it, my position as defender of the article is untenable - nothing I can say can help, and anything I say can be turned around to appear self-serving. There are also bigger issues, but I won't go into them here. The most frustrating thing is my integrity being called into question and being unable to defend myself. Anyway, I accept the decision - that doesn't make me a martyr, just a realist. As you said, 'it's doomed', and I see that. Delete it. Have a good one. BobbyRay 18:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nominator, per sockmeatpuppet issues. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • does the concept 'piling on' mean anything to you guys? geez. BobbyRay 16:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does the concept of "stop filling up Wikipedia with your nonsense!" mean aything to you? DreamGuy 22:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanityspamityegocruft. 22:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete ("per nom"). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roughneck BBS

Nn BBS in Arizona. Nn alexa rank. No incoming wikilinks. Zero "link:" results in Google. No media coverage. Neglected since anon creation in October 2004.--  Perfecto 07:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. And let's all just pretend we didn't read that bit about "having the right" to remove autobiographies, for the sake of the phrase's writer. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Florian Segginger

Vanity page, as per User:TrashLock. Claims to be "most famous" for "Trash's Adventures" (which only gets just over one page of Google hits} and for being a game developer, which isn't really grounds for notability IMO. Delete CLW 00:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, and I also think the user who posted it should be banned from wikipedia because [quote] It was more of a joke than anything. [/quote] Jporcaro 19:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article is decently written and mostly factual. (I removed POV statements like "egocentric").--Aleron235 20:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, after some thought, I don't think you people have the right to delete this article. If you read up a bit on the site, you will find that autobiographies are usually tolerated. It owuld be unfair to delete my article. Everything on this article is factual (now) and this article is not even linked anywhere. It's not self propaganda, it's just that some people might want a bit of info on myself and have the great idea of looking me up on wikipedia. --TrashLock 09:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The guidelines for biographies are at WP:BIO. (My vote is unchanged, he has actually done something of note.)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. More tag than actual article.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable BBS. 13 results in Google; no incoming wikilinks; neglected article submitted by anon editor in October 2005.--  Perfecto 07:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisting 31 December 2005. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:16, 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 keep. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monochrome BBS

Nn BBS. Nn Alexa rank. No reputed media coverage. "link:http://www.mono.org/ site:mono.org" gives zero results. Had a couple of recent edits, though, but fails WP:WEB -- Perfecto 07:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect, albeit more slowly than usual. Well done, RasputinAXP. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poem to remember monarchs

Poem with no source information, no copyright information, and in any case, Wikipedia is not a repository for poetry. —Cleared as filed. 08:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also it could be moved to Mnemonic verses which needs to be bigger anyway. Endomion 08:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SickthingsUK

Appears to fail WP:WEB completely. No Alexa ranking, forum needs to grow by a factor of 10 (if the article is correct)), and I couldn't find evidence of major media attention. The most this deserves right now would be a link in the Alice Cooper article, in my opinion. Delete. Joel7687 08:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 00:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Gardner

Okay, an elderly gentelman, no claim of notability at all. Says that he is one of the last surviving veterans of WWI - except he never fought, in fact not even going to basic training (if he went at all) until after the armistice. No other info on this guy, and zero claim of actual notability, aside from his somewhat interesting story of dodging the bullet. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is already a link in that article, there are others who have no articles in WP. There is a news story here Endomion 08:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Groove

Vanity Page Ajsegal 08:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I'm going to list it for transwiki, after which this debate can be revisited; replacing transwiki by delete in this debate produces a borderline debate that ins't enough on its own. There are very plain OR problems, and people should stop being soft o those. -Splashtalk 23:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Overview of Class Roles in World of Warcraft

A lot of work has gone into this page but it is fancruft and reeks of original research. Reyk 09:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sorry, I posted it in its present state just to see if I had the formatting correct so far. Needs improvement, I haven’t figured out how to do internal or external links yet. Thanks for catching the Rouge/Rogue error, I never have been able to figure out how to spell French words (they seem to relate to vowels in a way entirely alien to me) and I did run it through a spell checker (though not for God's sake). FYI, I went out of my way to leave out any POV, I hated playing warrior and enjoy playing Warlock, so looking at he article now I can see accidentally put a reverse bias in instead. Expected to have time to develop the article as I learned how Wiki articles are formatted (was just happy to figure out to use three equals signs for subheadings on this go), and wasn’t expecting such a strong ire, nor such an immediate reaction. I use Wiki all the time and figured the first article I wrote should be about something fairly innocuous and uncontroversial (like a silly video game) and one that I am relatively familiar with from all the articles/post I’ve read on the subject. Had no Idea that I would be befouling such sacrosanct and hallowed ground with my “fancruft.” Much thanks for so swiftly pointing out the error of my ways. Wiping article now, you guys have fun. Churchofmau 11:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC) ChurchofMauPOTATOgmail.com[reply]
  • Delete per  RasputinAXP . -feydey 14:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with main Warcraft article. Endomion 16:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks. It doesn't fit here, but it deserves to survive and would fit perfectly over there. karmafist 16:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per karmafist. A lot of actual work went into this. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I suggest other voters look into this more carefully before discussing what to do. Believe it or not, World of Warcraft is a category at Wikipedia with three subcategories. Obviously it's impossible to merge all of that with the main article. If some of it belongs at Wikibooks then it ought to be studied systematically, not done piecemeal. Most of these articles have an active base of contributors. This isn't the mad project of one individual. There are issues to be addressed, such as the overuse of screen shots. However since none of the rest of this material is under challenge and this particular article fits within a framework that's being accepted, my opinion is to let it stay. Durova 19:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOR. --Apostrophe 20:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 22:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm a hopeless addict of the game and still I can say without any hesitation that this kind of thing does not belong on Wikipedia in any form. As stated above there are numerous forums and the like where this kind of work would be appreciated and useful, but here is not one of them. Arkyan 00:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not encyclopedic. Pavel Vozenilek 05:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Transwiki not encyclopedic material.  Grue  17:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki as per karmafist. Scoo 12:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clean-up and Rename to List of character classes in World of Warcraft Chanlord 04:38, 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 delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evet Socrates

appears to be a vanity page, some google hits but all apear to be to this fellows webpage or to mirrors of wikipedia; no hits on amazon.com and article's subject is purportedly a singer/songwriter Fuhghettaboutit 09:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. The article was already moved to Classified (rapper). Mindmatrix 20:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Classified (Rap Artist)

Non-notable musician. Delete --Quarl 10:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Already deleted my a admin anyway.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reed College Freethinkers

Delete Almost no info, not notable enough VegaDark 10:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. --Quarl 10:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Original article erased by online troll; new version written up; a very worthy organization. --member of national Secular Student Alliance
While you added a lot more info, and while it sounds like it very well may be a worthy organization, I still don't feel this qualifies as notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Also, I don't believe votes in these matters count unless they are by a registered user. You should consider registering so your vote will count. VegaDark 10:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Elberg

Must be a hoax. To my knowledge, no Markus Elberg ever coached any Russian team. The claim that he won the Spanish League and European Champions League 8 times in a row sounds ridicoulus. The Google search does not show that such a coach exists. Delete. Conscious 11:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 14:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PVF Anubis

-- Search4Lancer 11:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was deleted. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 14:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Goliard

nn humor site, Alexa ranking 1.3 million, All Google turns up for this site are self-referential links. Delete.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 11:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Gonda

Requested delete. Page moved Sleepyhead 11:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine science high school alumni

No useful content at this time. No edits for 2 months. Can be easily recreated once an editor contributes some useful content. novacatz 11:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SuperCoolNothing - Art Journalism Website

Not notable web-page with no alexa ranking. feydey 14:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mariann from Brooklyn

Non-notable semi-anonymous caller to a Howard Stern radio-show (which doesn't even have its own article, apparently). Delete. Marcika 14:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus:Keep. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William De Ow

I don't believe that being a cousin to a king of England makes someone instantly notable, especially not when all what he seems to have done is having owned a manor, which wasn't even all that spectacular ("grade two"). SoothingR(pour) 14:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We Are The Music Makers

It is hard to verify any information about this band and there are concerns that it does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. QQ 14:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian

WP:ISNOT GameFAQs. A Non-Returning character in Beyblade. feydey 15:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GTC Fenris

Can't discern what it's really about-- Search4Lancer 15:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GVCv Sobek

No idea what game this is for, appears to even be a strategy guide, no less-- Search4Lancer 15:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider the content in the GTVA Colossus, which is another Freespace ship if you doubt potential for expansion. - Ferret 09:58, 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 DELETE, copyvio, afd, whichever. -Splashtalk 23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zviad Pochkhua

Poorly written blatant vanity-- Search4Lancer 15:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commander Davis

A google search for "Commander Davis" "Clone trooper" gets only one hit, a fanfic message board post. Delete as non-notable vanity. --InShaneee 23:44, 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. This is a marginal subtopic article that has very little information in it.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Execution tracing

This is spam-ish for an external article, but contains some apparently useful info that should be merged somewhere. Expert help please?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Thryduulf 21:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Pettit

Jim Pettit

Delete - self promotion, non notable. --Oscarthecat 20:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless self-advertising user produces a notable CV... --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:40, 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 Mind transfer. -Splashtalk 23:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mind enema

As a huge Red Dwarf fan, I can personally vouch for this article's lack of relevancy either to Wikipedia, the world's knowledge or any Red Dwarf category. The Mind Enema was a minor and passing reference in one episode of the TV Sitcom. Rob 01:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Baret

This seems to be a vanity article. Austrian 16:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Aritcles for deletion/Barney Live! The Let's Go Tour

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_25&oldid=32687771"