Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 3

< March 2	>

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

March 3

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dasound

From Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, untranslated. Entry from there follows. No vote. Kusma (討論) 00:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese (from CAT:PNT); about a Brasilian band. - Introvert ^~? 06:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. The article requires translation. Following that, users should clarify with Wikipedia:Notability to see if it meets the guidelines. Vote will proceed from there. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Text would appear to be from here: [1] Very rough translation courtesy of Google Language Tools: [2] Not many Google results; predominately in Portuguese: [3] [4]. -- Krash (Talk) 05:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless translated and verified to show notability. -- Krash (Talk) 05:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about a band. It's a portuguese article about an english neologism about a Brazilian musical style. Delete this garbage. Grandmasterka 09:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Grandmasterka. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:36, 3 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Plumb

Confirmed hoax. See message board discussion of the "hilarious wikipedia article about my friend mike" --CoolArrow, 01:14, 4 March 2006

Possible hoax. Article is about a set of phrases or sayings that have reached the point of being "folkloric" in nature. The article goes on to explain that this folklore "begin around late 2002" and provides the primary source of the folklore as a single student at Washington and Jefferson College. Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims of the article. --Allen3 ^talk 00:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete, per nom. -- McDaddy | Talk 08:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC) This "confirmation" is unsubstantiated.[reply]
Delete per nom. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SailorfromNH 01:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. dbtfz ^talk 03:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. -- Vary | Talk 03:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as pure rubbish. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If [5] would have turned up anything, I would have voted keep, but it didn't. --CrypticBacon 07:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity. Grandmasterka 10:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity, unverifiable nonsense. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverified, probable {{hoax}} unless academic sources can be cited to confirm assertions in the text. (aeropagitica) 11:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-03 13:34Z
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No concensus (defaults to Keep). There was some talk of merge/redirect/move, those issues can be thrashed out on the talk page or by applying WP:BOLD. kingboyk 03:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HTML Comic

slang entry Grocer 00:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn-web comic. --light darkness^(talk) 00:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spamvertising. Royboy crashfan 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Keep per rewrite. Royboy crashfan 18:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This isn't an article about a single web comic, but a stub about a genre of web comic, at least ostensibly. It needs cleanup, (I've done some already) and I would think that ASCII comic or ASCII web comic would be a better title, but I won't bother moving it until the AFD is complete. Or maybe it should be merged to web comic? -- Vary | Talk 04:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the new version. Are there any notable members of the genre other than Nerd Boy? In any case, neither ASCII art nor Web comic are that great as merge targets, so keeping this one at ASCII comic might be the best solution. Kusma (討論) 05:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kusma. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an entire notable genre. Grandmasterka 10:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep --Ter e nc e Ong 10:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 14:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Weak delete or alternatively move to a better name, possibly ASCII comic. There are only a trivial handful of Google hits for the phrase "HTML comic". (The raw search, with quotes, shows 40,000 hits, but essentially all of them are references to pages with a URL ending in ".html" followed by the text word "comic". The very few hits that feature the phrase as such are from blogs and forums.) I would assert that the phrase is not at all a widely used phrase, leading to doubts about the notabily of the genre. MCB 20:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please genre is notable Yuckfoo 00:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolute delete. Seriously, this thing should be redirected to ASCII art. - Hahnchen 15:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable terms for a classification with only one notable member. -- Mithent 00:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need to merge as Nerd Boy already linked to in ASCII art. -- Dragonfiend 00:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ascii art or move to ASCII comic. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the name to webcomic and possibly merge the contents into ASCII art. I've never heard the term "HTML comic" used in that way before, though someone might use it to describe webcomics in general. There's really not a lot to the article, so there's not much to merge, but it might serve as a footnote in the ASCII art article. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 20:29, 5 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Allen Williamson

Delete - no reason given for subject noteworthiness, rank not even listed, awards not listed Nobunaga24 00:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real assertion of notability. Royboy crashfan 02:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not an obituary. dbtfz ^talk 03:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Dbtfz. -- Vary | Talk 04:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable bio. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability. VegaDark 07:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, ordinary soldiers are not notable. Grandmasterka 10:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-03 13:35Z
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To User:Maintenance, I am sorry for loss but I agree with the others that wikipedia is an unsuitable place for a memorial. To closing admin, you might want to review some of the other pages started by this user for notability. Ewlyahoocom 12:16, 5 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whalallapa

Probable hoax with only 80 google hits which are largely wikipedia and mirrors or other sites that are open to public editing. Cool3 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless strong sources provided. All the elements of a hoax, and we can't take chances. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this is not a serious entry, then it is a terribly-planned hoax. Such a country does not exist within the fictional catalogues of Canadian libraries, and if it does, its presence would be limited. If not a waste of space, clean-up is required. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Whalallapa only exist in word of mouth" is another way of saying it's unverifiable and/or original research and/or a unverifiable, possible hoax, and either way it's just plain silly. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. It's not necessarily a hoax, but it's unencyclopedic anyway. Royboy crashfan 02:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete bollocks Nonsense, made up, and/or, as above, just plain silly. Fan1967 02:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this folderol ASAP. dbtfz ^talk 03:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Vary | Talk 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What nonsense! Funny though. Eivind 05:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable, probably a hoax. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax and nonsense. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Complete bollocks. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-03 13:36Z
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Word of mouth. Not worthy for Wiki. --Krashlandon (e) 21:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 02:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Shemonia

Clear political soapboxing of questionably notable activist. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson -' 'Shazaam! - <*> 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: The term "Soapbox" would apply had the writer been writing about himself, but in this situation the article was written by a third party about another person.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.68.225.15 (talk • contribs) .
Delete per nom. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: It's interesting that you cannot provide a valid reason.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.68.225.15 (talk • contribs) .
Would be somewhat notable if claims made on the article all panned out, but as it is now, it's just one guy's unverified grudges. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Each claim is backed up with links to verified media articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.68.225.15 (talk • contribs) .

Sorry, but I only count two links to actual media outlets, both going to the same local paper. Did I miss something? Thanks in advance for clarification. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Royboycrashfan 02:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: The term "Soapbox" would apply had the writer been writing about himself, but in this situation the article was written by a third party about another person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.68.225.15 (talk • contribs) .
Delete per above. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 03:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: It's interesting that you cannot provide a valid reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.68.225.15 (talk • contribs) .

What exactly does that mean? Anyway, we get the idea. You might want to look at m:How_to_win_an_argument for a light-hearted take on what works and what doesn't in evangelizing your POV/cause/whatever on Wikipedia. Thanks for taking the time to explain your opinion in re. this article! :) — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN. -- Vary | Talk 04:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Soapbox. -- Ch'marr 06:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NPOV non-notable bio. Would need cleanup and demonstration of notability before I'd even consider a keep. - CorbinSimpson 08:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn-bio. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-03 13:37Z
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:NOT.--Isotope23 16:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 02:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also here. AndyJones 21:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cavachon

Repeat of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yorkiepoo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maltipoo and, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schnoodle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boggle (dog), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borderjack, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puggle (dog). Might be just another one of the mixed breed. From the first set of RfD -

There are 500 breeds of dogs. Any of them can be mixed and anyone can name the mixes anything they want. (E.g., see American hybrid "registry" and Poodle hybrid and Dog hybrids and crossbreeds#Casual crossbreeds.) I realize that WP is not paper, but mostly what can be said about mixed-breed dogs is that they might have some characteristics of either parent, or not (if you also look at Maltipoo and Schnoodle you'll see what I mean). We've discussed this within the dog breed project before and feel that all these do is create multiple mixed-breed-dog articles. We're leaving in Cockapoo because it's been around long enough to be the only mixed-breed name to make it into the dictionary, and Labradoodles are so common as to be found in just about every puppies-for-sale list everywhere, with Goldendoodles getting pretty close, but I'm hesitant to open the floodgates for articles about everyone's mixed-breed dog with an invented name (written by Elf)

I am having more concerns over time as some of these articles keep reappearing (as did Puggle (dog)). This article is a stub but a google search shows it to be used all over the place. It seems to me that we might be better off leaving some of the more common ones, which this seems to be, with all the warnings inherent that you don't really know what you're going to get. The other issue is that it's going to keep reappearing because the names ARE being used and the dogs ARE being sold and people WILL come looking for the name.

So if this seems inside out, I'm listing it because we've been trying to keep these invented combined-breed-name mixed breed dogs out, and I think this will come up for deletion eventually if I don't nom it.

- Elf | Talk 00:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Elf | Talk 00:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. Royboy crashfan 02:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. -- Vary | Talk 04:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These articles should be verifiably sourced like any other, though. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ikkyu. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is actually sourced. Elf gets my award for "2nd most unusual AfD nomination I've ever seen", just behind this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grandmasterka (talk • contribs) .
- Yeah, this article's sourced, but the nom is intending to refer to this discussion as setting some kind of precedent, so it's good to be clear. I particularly would desire that "all the warnings inherent that you don't really know what you're going to get" be sourced, especially if such assertions are controversial. -ikkyu2 (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ter e nc e Ong 10:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grandmasterka. --Krashlandon (e) 21:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this breed is important Yuckfoo 00:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myson of Chen

non-notable substiturion in the list of the Seven Sages. [6]. (The OCD calls him, even in antiquity "famous for his obscurity"; and that's from their article on the Sages; he doesn't have one of his own. ) If this is rewritten, it should be done from standard sources, and without reference to Wikinfo; WP and Wikinfo are happiest apart.

Delete Nominator vote. Septentrionalis 00:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 02:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but move to Myson of Chenae, preferably). Being mentioned by Pausanias and Plato, and being in the OCD, makes him notable enough for me. Of course the article should actually state that he is only a minor candidate for 7-sages status. I have no opinion about the Wikinfo vs. Wikipedia thing. Lukas ^(T.|@) 08:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LukasPietsch. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delte per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this information can be found in the Seven Sages of Greece article. Also, this title is incorrect. Whichever administrator closes this vote needs to understand that it's "Myson of Chenae." This is a useless, redundant little stub, and even though I'm a classicist, I think this ought to go. Harry Bagatestes 15:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually found more hits for the spelling Chenai. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-3 22:29

Comment: Shouldn't we at least keep him as a search term? And I really do like the detailed list of actual classical attestations, which is one piece of info that's not in the other article now. So, I think a merge and redirect (from the correct title, of course) is the least we should do, if not a keep and move. Lukas ^(T.|@) 16:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added above that Myson doesn't even have a separate article in OCD. The redirect from Myson of Chenae will be done now. Septentrionalis 18:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes my Karen Importance Test. There is a lot of information that can be added to this article. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-3 19:29
Comment: The Oracle of Delphi called Myson of Chen the wisest of all men. Now isn't that enough of your subjective quantity of "notability" to warrant its own article? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-3 20:49
Keep per LukasPietsch.--Andrew c 00:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't believe this. The article is good and informative. Our purpose is to educate. The "voting" is B.S.WHEELER 14:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article Seven Sages of Greece is already very long. It doesn't have space to talk specifically about one person. There is already seperate articles on the seven sages, Myson of Chen deserves one by itself and a description of his philosophy. I have already learned much about Myson of Chen and I commend the person who improved the article greatly. Thanks a billion. WHEELER 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough here to warrant inclusion. However, WikiInfo is unnacceptable as a reference. older ≠ wiser
Keep: Not all characters named in Plato deserve names, but being part of a named set makes deletion particularly questionable. It's difficult to see how to merge all of the Sages into the Seven Sages article. --Nema Fakei 22:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Canid hybrid. Mailer Diablo 01:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huskal

Looks bogus to me. Elf | Talk 00:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Elf | Talk 00:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Canid_hybrid -- may have sounded bogus, but it's verifiable and real, and adequately covered elsewhere. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above. Royboy crashfan 02:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Merged & redirected. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely verifiable. Redirect seems to work fine. Fightindaman 05:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Fightindaman. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Canid hybrid. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Process drama

No references. I'm not sure if it meets Wikipedia:Notability with its lack of information. It is also an awkward topic and the article fails to clearly intrepert its basis, in my opinion. Delete. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks referenced to me; may have potential, let's give it some time. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like a legitimate topic (see e.g. [7]); article is extremely raw, but like Tom Harrison says, give it some time. dbtfz ^talk 05:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs work, but it's not OR. -- Vary | Talk 05:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with cleanup. -- Krash (Talk) 05:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Krashlandon (e) 21:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please the research is not original Yuckfoo 00:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ["process drama" AND education] returns over 14,000 hits on google. This is definitely a legitimate and notable topic. Should be categorized as category:pedagogy. Needs reference list and wikification. Nesbit 13:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy A7 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:11, 3 March 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 Speedy --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Dinner Party

Non-notable, stub, apparent vanity. Bladeswin 00:54, 3 March 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 A7 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The New ARA

Blatant copy-paste, vanity, not NPOV, and "lol" doesn't seem very encyclopedic. Bladeswin 01:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okey dokie, I'm going to read up on the Speedy delete criteria. I'm just perusing the newest articles. Will read up before posting more. - Bladeswin 01:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've speedied this, too. New Page Patrol rocks, by the way, so keep up the good work! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep as nomination withdrawn and no delete votes. -- JLaTondre 01:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Joaquín, Carabobo

This is apparently about a place, though the only thing in the article is about a footballer... and the facts there are, to say the least, dubious, and more likely than no0t somewhat exaggerated. A soccer player scoring 10,000 goals? Even the great Pele only got about 1200. And playing 10,000 matches, even at one a day, every day, 365 days per year would still take over 25 years. Pure unadulterated dingoes in the current form then. Even if this is turned into a proper article what's currently there needs removing Grutness...wha? 01:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the rewrite - good work Carioca. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if some will completely rewrite it. Otherwise, delete. Royboy crashfan 02:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Real places are notable. I completely rewrote the article. Carioca 03:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Carioca's rewrite. Real place with real communities of interest. Capitalistroadster 04:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well done, Carioca. -- Krash (Talk) 05:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all real places are notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please these real places are notable Yuckfoo 00:03, 4 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idiosyncratic symbol

Seems that this is just a discrete example of the definition of "idiosyncratic". Recommend that this article be merged or deleted, since you could theoretically create a host of redundant articles explaining how virtually any noun may be represented idiosyncratically. Apologies to the author. Gregwmay 01:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing more than a dicdef. Royboy crashfan 02:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Somewhere between original research and dicdef. -- Krash (Talk) 05:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Krash. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Krash. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Krash. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Krash. Entirely subjective dictdef. (aeropagitica) 11:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dictionary. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-03 13:39Z
Delete per Krash. *waves* --Krashlandon (e) 21:46, 3 March 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. Vote count is something like 17d-6k. The best argument for inclusion was VegaDark's evidence, but it appears to have been adequately addressed by Kinu. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary M. Seward

non-notable biography Grocer 01:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep Notable college journalist. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete writer for college newspaper. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: College newspapers with circulations of 5000+ are still notable publications. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind. Royboy crashfan 02:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notableWickethewok 05:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The average reporter in your local daily paper (which most likely has a circulation greater than 5,000) is non-notable, even though the newspaper is, and the same goes for college paper journalists, even if they did manage to get lucky and score a byline in the WSJ. (IIRC, the Summers resignation wasn't really a shock as of the date of the article, anyway.) --Kinu ^t/_c 05:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. dbtfz ^talk 05:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If we have issues with the 5000+ circulation guideline for writers, we should reconsider it. I've always thought it's a bit low, but it's purportedly consensus. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - 528 google hits, even including his middle initial. That's a lot more than the average college journalist is going to get. Some fairly interesting claims to notability, and Wikipedia policy says 5000+ whether we like it or not. Also written several articles for forbes.com. I don't particularly agree with the 5000+ guideline either but until we change that policy we should probably adhere to it. VegaDark 07:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All the Forbes articles were from the online edition of forbes.com only, not the print magazine. Also, they were written in June to August 2005, which leads me to believe that it was a part of their summer internship program, the duties of which would include writing a few articles for web release anyway. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu. I can't find evidence that the subject's college newspaper has a circulation over 5,000. (It claims a readership in excess of that, but roommates would share a copy.) --Metropolitan90 08:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Adrian Lamo. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 10:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metropolitan90 Cursive 13:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Notable college journalist" is an oxymoron. GWO
Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 14:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Adrian. The Harvard Crimson's coverage of the Summers controversies played a significant role in Summers' resignation; therefore, subject of article is also clearly notable as participant in newsworthy event. Monicasdude 14:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu.--Isotope23 17:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Adrian Lamo Jcuk 20:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt, he is a talented young journalist and may well merit an article one day. However, for mine he isn't notable enough to warrant an article as yet. Delete.
Delete He was the writer of a major event but I think it would be best to mention his name in the Summers controveries rather than give him a seperate article. Delete as NN. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 02:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Most college-paper reporters -- indeed, most newspaper reporters -- are not notable, if they have no prominence or recognition other than the fact that they report on notable stories. However, in Seward's case, his reporting was in itself part of the Summers story, which I think raises his profile above the usual. MCB 02:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hear what y'all are saying, but I don't see individual reporters at this level of notability as warranting separate articles. Give him a couple years to get some real bylines. Herostratus 06:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's a college journalist, nowhere near notable, and I refuse to let blind adherence to a guideline trump common sense. --Calton | Talk 01:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Calton, Avalon 23:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Steadman

vanity article Crusading composer 01:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A search for "Robert Steadman" yields 234 unique hits, but the article suggests he's sufficiently notable. Royboy crashfan 02:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough, considering that the BBC covers his work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep. This article was nominated for AfD in October 2005 and easily survived. This nomination, like that one, is made in bad faith. The nominator has engaged in a series of POV edits on the article, has relentlessly attacked and criticized the subject, and in fact, his user name itself -- Crusading composer -- is a direct reference to Steadman (who has been called that due to his political activism). Take a look at his contributions, and the vast majority are to this article, its talk page and related pages. I don't know if he and Bakewell Tart (the user who made the original nomination) are sockpuppets of each other or not, but the nomination and comments are pretty much congruent. As for the substantive matter, please see the original AfD; there is no question at all of Steadman's notability and the encyclopedic nature of the article. It has been edited by many editors; it is clearly not authored by the subject or on his behalf. This AfD, like the last one, is simply the escalation of an edit war by one of Steadman's dedicated wiki-enemies. This is a repeated waste of our time and I think an RfC against Crusading composer for edit warring and abuse of AfD is appropriate here. MCB 03:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The non-autobio assertion is very questionable: two of the protagonists on this article's talk page have lately been established as R. Steadman sockpuppets by checkuser, and indefinitely blocked as such (despite their denials at the time of any personal involvement). So let's keep speculation as to whether BT and CC are the same person in perspective. (My personal guess is not -- as CC implied, if s/he's made two AFD nominations, s/he's getting worse with practice at the technical details; Though equally that they have similar TES-messageboard-inspired motivations.) Most of the article itself was written from anon IP addresses. (My personal guess is, belonging to one Robert Steadman, or some closely involved person.) Actual notability seems to me marginal, but not non-existent, though hardly as clearly established as the above claims. Alai 03:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you going to be WP:BOLD re WP:RFC or are you just expressing an opinion? Garglebutt / (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Well known in musical circles especially for his choral work; first AfD bore this out. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 03:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur the nomination appears to be in bad faith; prompted by edit warring with the associated WP editor. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable enough for me. VegaDark 07:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, as noted above there are enough "non wikipedia echo" hits from google to justify an article. SOPHIA 08:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination. (aeropagitica) 11:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 13:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep; bad-faith/vandalous nomination. Monicasdude 14:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, as per above - bad-faith nomination, like the first time. (Though I personally do agree with Alai's suspicions above that much of the article was written by Mr. Steadman himself, the article shouldn't be deleted.) --Oscillate 15:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Robert Steadman is notable, therefore this is not a vanity article. His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete

I cannot see how this can be classed as a bad faith nomination and I am amazed that someone has asked for me to be blocked because I have attempted to draw attention to a blatant abuse of Wiki's policies. I also find it surprising that I have been accused of edit wars. If the editor who thinks that was to actually look at the history of the Robert Steadman website, they'd find that I have been accomodating to others’ views, have compromised and have refrained from reverting the same points. Some editors have referred to the previous attempt to delete this article. This was nothing to do with me. I voted to delete it but so what? That attempt failed. Yes Mr Steadman has a presence on the internet, most of it self initiated. Regardless of whether Mr Steadman is notable or not, that is NOT the issue here. This deletion is not about notability but about Wiki policies.

- Reasons for deletion:

If (and I mean IF) Mr Steadman has beenn guilty of using sock puppets and multiple identities – particularly vhjh then there is good reason for deleting this article: 1. This is clearly a vanity article. It was created mainly by the subject. Two of the contributors have been revealed as sock puppets and have been permanently blocked. At least 2 more have made enough mistakes to be suspected of having clear links to the subject. This article was created for one purpose only - shameless self publicity and perhaps even as a way of increasing the subject's business. 2. The truthfulness of the article is in doubt. Much of the material comes from the subject's own website. The subject himself has shown himself to be less than honest over the last few months and this casts a strong doubt over whether the content can be trusted. 3. The subject clearly feels that he has ownership of the article. Attempts to edit the article have been constantly reverted. Sock puppets have been used to bully other editors, to smear and insult them. The subject's behaviour on the Jesus article shows that he is inflexible and totally unwilling to compromise. It is obvious that there can be no neutral POV when the subject himself takes such a strong interest in his own article and will use deceit to ensure that it remains a shrine to his own ego. If indeed these editors are sock puppets of Mr Steadman (and the administrators are the ones who have decided that – I have not seen the evidence) there can be no real doubt as to whether this article has to be deleted. It is not a case of NOTABILITY. It is a matter of a breakdown of trust and good faith and repeated abuses of Wiki guidelines and p;oicies. This article, regardless of content, cannot be allowed to remain. I suggest that this article be deleted and if any of the editors who voted to keep this article really feel that the subject warrants an article then THEY could create one that does not breach wiki guidelines. It seems fair to me.Crusading composer 19:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... if indeed this is a WP:AUTO, Mr. Steadman deserves a smack upside the head for being a jackass, but it doesn't make him less notable as a subject. Meets WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 21:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not mentioned in the New Grove, but does seem sufficiently notable. AnnH ♫ 21:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep this article please Yuckfoo 00:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sockpuppeting oneself's article, no matter how much of a rulebreaking endeavor that may be, does not automatically warrent page deletion. Homestarmy 00:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is kept, we may need a disambiguation page as there is a notable composer of the same name. [8]. The BBC material is verifiable evidence that he is an active British composer whose music is being performed so I will vote Keep. It doesn't meet the criterion for a speedy keep in my book. Capitalistroadster 00:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah... you mean a "notable cinematographer of the same name", yes? :-) MCB 02:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Yes this article violates WP:AUTO as much of the content has been added by confirmed sockpuppets of Mr. Steadman himself, but the article is on a reasonably known British composer whom readers may want to read about. —Aiden 02:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough. If there's a POV issue in here, be bold and fix it. 23skidoo 15:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per previous AfD. This is a grudge thing. AndyJones 21:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or speedy keep, the nominator's edits are solely related to Robert Steadman and are sure to raise some eyebrows. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete*. Robert Steadman is not notable. The verifiable performances are unexceptional. More evidence is needed of his work. The is a lack of secondary source - reviews etc Kotuku. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotuku (talk • contribs) User's only two contributions have been to this deletion discussion — _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 13:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject of article is of the minimal range of notability.--MONGO 11:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to Evelyn Glennie (Order of the British Empire)'s web page she commissioned three pieces by this composer in 1989-90. [9]

His publisher listed on that page, Vanderbeek & Imrie Ltd, is listed as a member of the Music Publishers Association of the UK [http://www.mpaonline.org.uk/dist/v.html. There's an email there to verify what else is in their catalogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beth Wellington (talk • contribs) 2006-03-07 09:35:53

Thanks for adding the signature, was about to do so, as I omitted it in my hurry to save the page before the library computer logged off.--Beth Wellington 22:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and Speedy Delete. Robert Steadman is not notable. This fact is irrefutable --User:Njd123 22:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has 13 total edits, 2 to the Article namespace — _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 23:41, 7 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual Sex Acts

Nonencyclopedic, addmittedly unverifiable. Nominated for prod then removed. Thatcher131 01:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. This article is the wikipedia equivilant to smearing poo on the walls. The tone and expalanotory thesis are very unencyclopedianc and downright atrocious.-Zero^Talk 01:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Collection of slang terms for various sex acts. The title and choice is inherently POV (what makes a certain sex act "unusual"?). Plus, I am pretty sure this was deleted before, because it is contained in BJAODN: Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Sexual Slang. Therefore delete. Kusma (討論) 01:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unusual place names couldn't get a consensus to delete, and this isn't all that different. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not sourced. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, but that can be fixed. My vote stands. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your analogy doesn't, though. :) -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless referenced to show some of these things are (1) actually discussed by notable people, and (2) considered "unusual". Otherwise inherently POV. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This Article might be ok if it was Cleaned Up, and had the Slang Cut out.--Z.Spy 02:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic, unverifiable and pointless. Fan1967 01:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, low encyclopedical value except as honeypot for high school vandals. Pavel Vozenilek 02:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Speedy delete CSD G4 if proven to be a recreation. Schizombie 02:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the editor already has given the reason in his own (poor) defense against speedy deletion-- this isn't a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia, and there's nothing that ties these "defintions" (as poorly worded as they are) together into anything that approaches being an "article" about unusual sex acts, their history, their development in world or western culture, or how these terms came to be, or where they came from (i.e., there are no citations). It's a matter of being offended by the poor quality of the material and its presentation, not the subject matter. Blondlieut 23:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Blondlieut
Merge verifiable content into the appropriate sections of Sexual Slang (where other sex acts lists have gone). Some of these terms are already there. However, I do not oppose plain deletion here. PJM 03:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Reasons already stated. This article has no redeemable value and whoever actually took the time to write it should be in therapy.Misunderestimated 03:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Came from nowhere, no real edits, possible sock puppet?? Oarias 21:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blondlieut and CanadianCaesar Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's conceivable that this could be turned into a decent (perhaps that's not the right word!) encyclopedia article, but right now it's garbage, and it's not the sort of thing that should be given the benefit of the doubt. dbtfz ^talk 05:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencylopedic. Phoenix2 05:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic, unverifiable, indiscriminate. Wikipedia:Listcruft. -- Krash (Talk) 06:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Largely unencylopedic; perhaps a few verifiable entries could be merged into Sexual slang per PJM. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. No sources, fails WP:V, no way to prove it's not original research. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So, why is the asian fetish article allowed to stay but this is going to get deleted? Apparently Asian fetishism is "encyclopedic" since it documents a real Western phenomenon, yet unusual sex acts are not real Western phenomenon. That article also has neither sources nor scientific evidence. Double standard, anyone? 70.106.143.128
- If you think asian fetish should be deleted then you are as entitled to anyone to list it for deletion --PopUpPirate 09:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Adrian Lamo. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between this article and a list of unusal place names is that the names can be verified by looking at a map. How is one to tell from this article which terms have independent existence in the culture (if any) and which were made up in high school (if any).Thatcher131 14:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This most important article alive! There are many LIST categories on Wikipedia, why not this one? Oarias 12:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, likely unverifiable. MLA 13:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOV violation - by what criteria is a sexual act deemed unusual? Reading through the list, it is impossible to distinguish between those in which people do participate and those that are merely dreamed up and written about as sexual folklore. WP:NFT refers. In addition, no citations or references make this list useless for research in to cultural practises. (aeropagitica) 18:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and condemn author(s) to the sixth circle of Wiki-Hell. —Charles P._(Mirv) 19:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this rambling list of musings on sexual torture and assault. This is one of the most worthless and offensive articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and I suspect that anyone voting to keep it is either casting his vote as an ironic statement or is completely oblivious to what good content is. Harry Bagatestes 00:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for pretty much every reason that makes up "unencyclopedic": listcruft, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary, original research, unverifiablility... MCB 02:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per PJM. Who's to say what's unusual, I don't know, but there are may lists like this on Wikipedia. How is this one any different? (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 02:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fork or something. Golfcam 03:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. --Fire Star 04:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quick before my girlfriend reads it - I've been telling her that this stuff is not unusual. Seriously.... Feeding The Elephant? Alabama Pillow? Donkey Punch Balcony Throw? Trolling. Herostratus 04:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable weirdness-cruft. --InShaneee 04:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Angry Pirate: When one is about to ejaculate during a blowjob, shoots semen in one of the female's eyes, kicking one of her legs, and running away. The result is an angry girl who cannot see out of one eye (the eyepatch) and has trouble walking on one of her legs (the pegleg)." Please - Wikipedia is not for things you make up whilst drunk. Strong delete. Tito

xd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or whilst mentally 12 years old. PJM 14:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Tito. Jude(talk,contribs) 05:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Titoxd. Wikipedia is only for things I make up while drunk! -- SCZenz 05:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sheesh you people are such prudes! Anyhow.... Oarias 07:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly made up during a slow day at school--Porturology 12:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title of the article is arbitrary, since "unusual" is not defined. A small (I believe) portion of the material describes genuine practices, urban legends, or slang, but none of the material is referenced. A substantial (I believe) portion of the material was obviously made up as a lark by illiterate buffoons. In summary, the small amount of material covering genuine practices, urban legends, slang terms, etc. belongs elsewhere, properly referenced. However, the generally poor quality of the entire page would make a merge impractical. --D.L. Hughes 15:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Guess this article is going down in flames... Oh well... I'll make major changes to it off-line (fix grammar/spelling/remove slang/etc) and resubmit with a different/more appropriate title. Any suggestions? Oarias 18:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Cite your sources, and review Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Manual of style, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You might note in particular that Unusual place names now only has place names referred to as "unusual" in other sources, since Wikipedia is not a primary source or a place for original research. -- SCZenz 19:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very sound advice above. I really think, however, it'd be better if you added such items to Sexual Slang than trying the make a new article. PJM 20:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Most of this is clearly fictional, not to mention stupid. Mwongozi 18:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to severe lack of verifiability. -- Mithent 00:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I must apologise for listing it for Speedy deletion, which was harsh, but nonetheless, it should go. I'm no prude, but if you want muck, read Viz or Razzle ffs! --PopUpPirate 02:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep There is no need to delete this, if it offends you then don't look at it. It's a bunch of urban deffinitons that have been mentioned on shows such as Howard Stern, Saturday Night Live, and many other movies/shows. I strongly am against deleting this because someone is too simple minded just to turn away from it.

alexblainlater 14:17, 5 March 2006 (EST) User's first edit. Kusma (討論) 17:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it for sure. If you don't like this stuff...Just don't look at it. Its very funny to some people and it should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.126.203 (talk • contribs)

Keep Clearly the list needs to be cut down to remove uncited or possibly original material, but there is no reason why it should not continue to exist as a list of known outlandish sex acts described in popular culture; at a minimum, of those that already have their own wikipedia articles. Sammy1339 04:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has only 40 edits. -Zero^Talk 04:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. 71.244.86.178 18:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, as per nomination. --Puzzlet Chung 09:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arbitrary list of obscenitites, most of them bound to be completely bogus and non-notable unless we waste precious manhours patrolling it. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from its slang and uncited content, this article contains in the definiton of "Combat Jack" the words "The poor bastards in Iraq", referrng to the tortured and sexually harassed Iraqi prisoners.
Delete with maximum prejudice. This is a compendium of all the ludicrous made-up "sex acts" which have ever been deleted or BJAODNed from Wikipedia, with some more made up just to pad it out. This is like Beavis and Butthead without the subtlety, humour, charm or dialogue. Just zis Guy you know? 21:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but delete the made up ones --Sweetie Petie 00:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naturist Christians

OM(We shalt not use the lord's name in vain, especially during Lent :) delete! -a helpful pre-summary suggested by Adrian. —WAvegetarian•_{_{CONTRIBUTIONS}}^{^TALK}• ^{^EMAIL}• 05:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is n to the fourth: non-neutral, non-notable. I {{prod}}ded this earlier, but an IP, possibly the creator (I haven't checked), removed the tag. The article currently doesn't prove notability under the guidelines at WP:WEB. Even if the membership claim is true, I'm not sure that that makes it "one of the largest." WP:WEB requires proof through inlined links, reference, or EL section. I looked over their site and could find no mention of membership numbers and no awards, just that I would have to pay money to see all of their pictures of naked people. So that was a rather long and comprehensive nomination but it should allow for "per nom" to work rather well. —WAvegetarian•_{_{CONTRIBUTIONS}}^{^TALK}• ^{^EMAIL}• 01:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think your dedication to detail scared all the readers away :x "omg delete!" might have been better received ... ever so slightly sarcastic. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Vary | Talk 05:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OM(WSNUTLNIVEDL) delete! per nomination ; ). — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless cleaned up. [10] -- Krash (Talk) 06:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. 362,593 traffic ranking on Alexa. "Naturist Christians" (Christians advocating nudism generally, not the website specifically) are mentioned in Body Freedom Day: When a Clothed-Minded World Unraveled (2004) by Stuart Ward, per amazon.com search. News coverage of the website and Xtian nudism generally at http://www.azcentral.com/ent/pop/articles/1207nudists1207-CR.html There's also a video of Fox News coverage here http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:gx3JOa_KmZgJ:www.isabelifontana.com/ though it looks like maybe a local affiliate. The article could possibly be generalized so it is not specifically about the website. Schizombie 07:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per Schizombie. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Alexa ranking too low -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep maybe rewrite to talk about the general concept rather than one website Jcuk 21:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep and please this up like jcuk says Yuckfoo 00:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting either WP:WEB or common-sense notability. MCB 02:35, 4 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gil-e-Firdaws

It's a recipe...Wikipedia is not a recipe book methinks... Bladeswin 01:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although there's nothing saying Wikipedia can't include recipes, there is no reason to have one for such an obscure dish, because there are millions of recipes out there and where do we draw the line. Edrigu 01:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible typo of Gil-e-Firdaus, and still unencyclopedic. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: wow, Gil-e-Firdaus wasn't redlinked. figured it would be. It's a duplicate of this article, and up for transwiki to wikibooks, so there's no reason not to delete this one. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT 1.7.8 (Wikipedia is not an instruction manual) Royboy crashfan 02:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a cookbook (or any other subset of instruction manual). OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ohnoitsjamie. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, try Wikibooks cooking instead. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 02:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert_Jovicic

This person has been making the news in Australia for the past few weeks because of a deportation dispute. That hardly makes him worthy of his own article in Wikipedia. A year from now no one will remember him. Edrigu 01:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 02:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is an important political issue in Australia. If it truly is forgotten in a year, we can delete it then. --Bduke 03:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is that accepted practice, to delete an article when the subject is no longer making news? Schizombie 11:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ideally, an article should not be created in the first place unless there is reason to believe that the news event is significant enough to be notable even in the future when it's no longer a news event. At least that's my understanding of it, someone correct me if I'm wrong. Edrigu 02:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course no-one will remember him if there is no written record. - Borofkin 03:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable controversy . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bduke. -- Vary | Talk 05:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bduke. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as of WP:BIO, "People still alive", "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". --Royal Blue 07:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Royal Blue. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm sure there are some people who would like us to forget about him. Cnwb 00:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A search of an Australian and New Zealand shows 149 newspaper and magazine articles mentioning this case. There has been a great deal of publicity about this and similar cases placing pressure on the minister Amanda Vanstone and her department. Capitalistroadster 00:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may be very convienient for one politician if everyone were to forget about him. And, if you delete it, they may just. But Wikipedia is not here to do Amanda Vanstone's dirty work. This is an encyclopedia, not a political organ. Other persons who have been mishandled by politicians in the past have not been forgotten (Sacco and Vanzetti, Willy Horton, Stanley "Tookie" Williams). They are still listed with their own pages, despite the acute embarrassment felt by those who have been embarrassed by them. These articles have historical and social value, and they should not be erased just because someone realised too late that they live in the public eye, and are accountable to the public they serve. Wandering Star 20:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I fear that the majority of people voting here are Australians, specifically Australians with the same POV about Australian immigration politics, and therefore the vote result will not be an accurate reflection of all of Wikipedia but rather just a certain Australian POV. I would like to see more non-Australians vote, because they can look at it from an unbiased perspective. Edrigu 21:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I fear that you have mistaken me for an Australian. May I suggest that you look at the user profile, where you will find it plainly stated that I am American. Perhaps you could do the same for the other users as well, and thus become better able to formulate a theory on what the origin of the opinions posted here may be. Perhaps it has nothing at all to do with a national bias. Perhaps you simply hold the minority opinion. Wandering Star 23:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- My comment wasn't directed at you, but was just a general observation, so I haven't mistaken you for anything. Also, I couldn't check your user profile as you suggest because your username isn't a link. And a brief check through the profiles of other voters confirms that most of them are Australians. In any case, I would still be happier if more non-Australians voted. If most Wikipedians (not just Australians with a specific POV about immigration politics) do think that this article shouldn't be deleted, then that's fine with me. Edrigu 02:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Comment. I am Australian and I do have a POV about immigration politics, but I keep it out of Wikipedia. Whatever your POV the politics around the subject is important. I agree it is more important in Australia than elsewhere, but so what. There are thousands of articles that are important in the USA but are not really that important elsewhere. I therefore respect the judgement of Australian wikipedians on this article more than I do that of non-Australians. I think they are making a judgement to keep it because it is important. To suggest it arises from their POV is close to insulting. --Bduke 03:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notable now (for media, but not for WP), but in a few months (or a month) definitely not notable for media also (references will blow into the wind). We should omit political opinions in WP. I'm not Australian, look what we did in WP (Slovenia - The erased), that's the thema for media and the article in WP will be the target for different opinions day by day. This should also be protected against recreation. --Mane 15:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scheels All Sports

non-notable Grocer 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a prominent chain in the Midwest. The store that is being built in Fargo, North Dakota will be the largest sporting goods store in the country when completed. Also, the company is expanding to Sparks, Nevada with an even larger store than the Fargo one coming in a couple of years. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable store chain with over 100 years of history. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Matthew. Royboy crashfan 02:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. PJM 02:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable sports chain. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a great sports chain based in the Midwest, the company keeps expanding. It could even use more information if anyone has it. If the Midwest convenience store Kum & Go has an article, why can't Scheels? --Leopold Samsonite
Strong Keep per above. --Krashlandon (e) 21:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-established household name in the American midwest. Bjsiders 22:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Dwain 21:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Trippe

a nobody Grocer 02:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real assertion of notability. Royboy crashfan 02:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I think the nom's assertion that this is "a nobody" is pretty harsh, I grudgingly agree that the subject doesn't seem to meet our biography guidelines at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although I might be predisposed for this as one of the page's authors, it fulfills the biography guidelines for being published in a book in excess of 5000 copies. ChrisArrant 09:59, 2 March 2006 (CST)

Which book? (I didn't find either on Amazon). 5000 printed or 5000 sold? OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

technical keep per User:ChrisArrant. If we have issues with the 5000+ distro guideline, we should reconsider it. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please provide evidence of notability.[11] Then I'll reconsider. -- Krash (Talk) 06:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Adrian Lamo. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Adrian. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No claims as to notability in article. Can a notable achievement be added in order to vote keep? (aeropagitica) 11:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, viewed as notable in field. Recent feature interview at Newsarama.com (already linked in article), which might not sound like much, but that site is pretty much the newssite of record in its field, regularly given access by major publishers and for some years sponsored/hosted by Kevin Smith. Monicasdude 14:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. If someone can give me a source for the book sales, I'd be more inclined to change my mind. For example, the article mentions "You Ain't No Dancer" published by the New Reliable Press. What it doesn't mention, is that the You Ain't No Dancer, is a collection of a lot of different works, Dean Trippe is just one of the many contributors. I doubt many people bought the book due to Dean Trippe's contribution. The New Reliable website [12] describes it as a collection of stories from established an up and coming (which I'm translating as unknown) artists. I'm putting Dean Trippe into the latter category. - Hahnchen 15:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can someone enlighten me to what the Fluke Anthology is? The only relevent thing I seem to find is a reference to the FLUKE mini-comics festival, a collection of small indie comic book artists? Is this correct? - Hahnchen 15:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I believe the relevant part of the guidelines here to be "... or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more" -- one writer doesn't prop up a good magazine, but the guidelines recognize their involvement just the same. Since your point isn't otherwise directly addressed in WP:BIO, as WP:BIO apparently didn't anticipate this particular scenario for books, I believe this to be a reasonable reading. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Personal feelings aside on Dean (i'm familiar with his work and I like it), he's not notable enough. RasputinAXP c 15:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please as lamo says Yuckfoo 00:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Hahnchen and RasputinAXP. MCB 02:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. I think there is some jealousy going on here by User:Grocer! Dwain 21:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This user has been trolling my nominations, because I nominated Sideshow Cinema. --Grocer 18:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - No, this is a user who thinks you have a lousy idea of what is notable and what isn't. Dwain 17:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Hahnchen and RasputinAXP. WP:BIO is a guideline and as such I feel that a technical keep goes against the spirit of it. Regardless, there's still no reliable sources (unless I'm blind) regarding the book sales. I might be inclined to think again if those turn up. Cursive 22:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. -R. fiend 22:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough for me FloNight 13:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crumber

By the same people that brought you the Chimney starter and the Beurre mixer here is the Crumber. I just don't believe these common "appliances/tools" deserve their own articles. James084 02:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopedic. Royboy crashfan 02:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the article right now is terrible, but it has some potential. Somewhere. joturner 03:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per joturner. (Shouldn't it be called a de-crumber?) dbtfz ^talk 05:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joturner. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joturner. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is important in the restaurant business really erasing it makes no sense Yuckfoo 00:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've never heard this called a "crumber"; around here it's universally a "crumb rake". I suppose if we keep it I can propose a page move. MCB 02:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Common tool. Just because an article will never be lengthy doesn't mean that it should be a dictionary definition. But I admit that with this article it is hard to tell which it will wind up. Crypticfirefly 06:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary then delete. Unencyclopedic dicdef. -ikkyu2 (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep - see below. — sjorford (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 1, 2003, January 2, 2003, et al.

This information is already covered in January 2003. There are presumably hundreds of other articles that fall under this rationale for deletion since there are many days between 2003 and 2005 that have separate articles. joturner 03:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. joturner 03:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When Joturner nominated these articles for deletion, the AfD notice showed up on January 2003. Somehow (I don't know how), these pages are interconnected. If the day articles can be deleted without interfering with the month article, then delete them. Otherwise, keep them. -- Grev 03:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 03:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Keep per Lightdarkness. Royboy crashfan 04:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Recently, an admin created all of the individual pages, for upkeep on the page linked to by Grev, there was recently another afd regarding this, and IIRC, it's result was Keep. --light darkness^(talk) 03:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Here is a link to the previous discussion regarding February 12, 2003. The closing admin decided no concensus, however the admin who created the pages states that deletion of them would cause errors in the current month pages. --light darkness^(talk) 04:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 11:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm closing this as a speedy keep, as there is obviously some confusion about these pages. They are not duplicates of the month pages, they are the month pages. Several months (although not yet all) from the last few years have been split up into separate pages for each day, which are now included as templates on the month pages - see the source code for January 2003 for example. So this is not a deletion issue - possibly there could be a debate about whether the month pages should be constructed in this way, but that's a matter for general discussion on talk pages, not AFD. — sjorford (talk) 11:05, 3 March 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. I discounted 6 keep votes and 1 delete vote. In the interests of civility, I won't explicitly mention who they are, but they're all fairly new editors whose edits were restricted to their user pages, Thardferr, or AfDs. This leaves 8 deletes and 2 keeps (one of the keep votes being weak). D e athphoenix ʕ 14:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thardferr

Keep This wasnt even created a month time (no reason for speedydeletion), if you use Google/Alexia search for MMORPG you will get mainly FFXI, Warcraft,Lineage, Everquest mainly... all pay games with very very high player base due to you pay for it.. a free game which does almost zero advertising will not be able to compete... which is most games btw. As for Non-Notable comments note why its NN at least say why its Non-Notable, aside from the google/alexia all of the article is revelant and much played then some games listing on the Wikipedia MMORPG Category:Massively multiplayer online games and a more constant player base then most games.. dont know about the player ammount.. but im shure you guys are wrong, its more then 1000-2000 players (cant check due to round restart) Eijun

Delete Fancruft. Non-notable. Misunderestimated 03:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Alexa rank is 802,300, and it has 173 unique Google hits. Very poor indeed for an online web-based game. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Royboy crashfan 03:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to Alexa and Google stats. (aeropagitica) 11:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-03 13:41Z
Keep A 3 month long game of Thardferr attracts over 1000 active players--which is larger than the active players of some corporate games that are listed in Wikipedia. It is a non-profit game and has been around for years. It obviously has its own well-established community. Wikipedia readers would benefit from the ability to know about the possibility for a non-profit game such as this to succeed. It is not nationally famous, but as the Vanity Page says, "There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia." However I would also say that Thardferr is part of a larger subculture of online fantasy gaming in the D&D tradition. Perhaps a larger article dealing with this gaming subculture would be more appropriate. Mango Smoothy 14:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

There seems to be precedence for pages like this in Category:Massively multiplayer online games. Perhaps there needs to be a general summary page on non-profit MMOGs? Weak keep — RJH 18:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A major reason this game currently is not as popular as many other famous MMORPG's is simply because unlike other games it does not Advertise in any way. The only way new players come to this game is by random chance or word of mouth by other users. That stated, the fact that between 1 and 2 thousand players from all over the globe (USA, Canada, Mexico, England, Turkey,Pakistan, Netherlands, India, Portugal, Philippines, and i am sure countless more) come to this game based on word of mouth advertising is quite impressive. Not only that but it continues to draw back the players round after round, as some people who originally found it when it started in 1999 are still among the current players base. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jrb225 (talk • contribs) . Only edits are here and Thardferr Cursive 22:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same as above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.123.54.217 (talk • contribs) . 4 edits, one here, two at Thardferr Cursive 22:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As stated above games with a more narrow player base are sustained, and simply because the game does not advertise it comes up with fewer hits. While using a wiki for this information is perhaps not the most preferable way, displaying it as such should not be something that is any less worth of display than something else. If the purpose of Wikipedia is to expand the possible topics people can search for, then by keeping it it has just done so by one more topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.217.250.109 (talk • contribs) . 2 edits, one here, one at Thardferr Cursive 22:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. MCB 02:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same as above. Andymc 18:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Added unsigned templates here as I was bored and to help closing admin. Cursive 22:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See Eijun's post, I agree with him Penguins

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charity project

As much as I hate to do this.... nn organization, advertising. Granted, it's for a charity, but the charity itself only gains 348 hits on Google. As for its parent organization (which does not have an article), SpookyART only gets 800 hits or so, and an Alexa rating of 1.5M. み使い Mitsukai 03:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 03:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the promotion of non-notable charities (or notable ones, for that matter). dbtfz ^talk 05:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:48, 3 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Burgess

Seems to be a nn bio created by User:Mrburgess whose other contributions are all vandalism. I prod'd it but the prod was removed by author. Googling Stefan + Burgess + beatbox yields nothing. Nothing on allmusic. Played with Beck, but otherwise fails WP:MUSIC in my opinion. Delete -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 03:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 03:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inspiration explanation. We need more than that. Royboy crashfan 03:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be kept. It is quite an addition to the Wikipedia community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrvonhallberg (talk • contribs) .

Above user has only 5 edits, 4 of which have involved this AfD. Royboy crashfan

04:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Search yields scant results, none of which are about this subject anyway; fails WP:V. Likely fails WP:BIO regardless. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-03 13:42Z
Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Whatever his beatboxing skills, User:Mrburgess will surely get his comeuppance for vandalizing God. dbtfz ^talk 19:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom nn bio User:Mrburgess continues to vandalize.--Dakota ~ ° 05:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone's cruising for a blocking. Daniel Case 05:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 519 Church St. Community Centre - Toronto, Canada

nn organization, advertisement. Based on the wording, I strongly suspect the full text is copyvio'd from somewhere, but have not been able to find the location as of yet; there are some sections that are clearly lifted from the organization's website. み使い Mitsukai 04:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clubcruft. Royboy crashfan 04:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The mission statement is copied from http://www.the519.org/about/mission.shtml. Worthy as it is, the organisation still looks non-notable. (aeropagitica) 11:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and merge if there's another article on Toronto's gay community where this may fit. The institution itself certainly is notable within the local community, but content needs to be something more than just a copy of some other website. --carlb 12:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, this has been a redlink for months on both Church and Wellesley and Kyle Rae, and a differently-worded redlink on List of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community centers. Its practical importance is purely local, but IIRC it's the largest and oldest community centre in Canada targeted specifically to an LGBT community. I'd either keep or merge into Church and Wellesley, but realistically I can't say I really have a strong personal opinion either way. Bearcat 18:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I asked for expansion on the (easily notable) 519 in an edit to Church and Wellesley all the way back in November 2004. Keep non-copyvio'ed information, either in an article (in the first instance) or a merge/redirect to said gay village. Samaritan 01:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Created in 1975, it is one of the oldest surviving LGBT community centers. LGBT centers are rare, and thus far more notable than schools, for example. There are at least nine LGBT community centers with articles in Wikipedia. Wuzzy 13:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wuzzy. Ardenn 01:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's of local importance -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 01:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite. It is notable here in Toronto. Skeezix1000 19:34, 7 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TZ Corporation

Not notable, not a real "corporation". Just looks like some kind of collaborative project, but their software doesn't appear notable. E lkman - ^(talk) 04:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, smells of WP:VSCA. Royboy crashfan 04:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VSCA and WP:CORP. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn company. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do not meet WP:CORP. Not notable. --MaNeMeBasat 15:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to List of countries by date of independence. This merge requires a fair bit of work and research, so I'm just going to apply the merge tags instead. D e athphoenix ʕ 14:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative List of countries by date of independence

We shouldn't have "alternative" articles. Its already covered by List of countries by date of independence. Maybe it could be moved to List of present countries by date of independence or something similar. But bringing it to AfD anyway -- Astrokey44|talk 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of countries by date of independence if there is anything worth merging. Otherwise, delete. I completely agree that there should not be "alternative" articles. NoIdeaNick 05:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The list doesn't seem to be so bad. Actually, compared to the eternally-disputed List of countries by date of nationhood and List of countries by date of independence, it seems to be somewhat better defined. Just the title is really bad. Maybe it should be moved to List of countries by most recent day of independence or unification? Kusma (討論) 05:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename List of present countries by date of independence per nom. Royboy crashfan 05:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can't see the need for this list. -- Krash (Talk) 06:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. If there is something wrong with List of countries by date of independence, fix it. Don't create a Bizarro version of it. dbtfz ^talk 06:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Come to think of it, no reason to merge. Who's going to link to this or look it up? dbtfz ^talk 06:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per NoIdeaNick. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per NoideaNick Cursive 13:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I read the guidlines about deletion and there is nothing wrong with this article according to the list. Those who wants deletion, just pick your reason from this list: Wikipedia:Deletion policy. I think that only merging is debatable.--Daanschr 22:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom and Dbtfz. It's a fork that should have never happened. Seems to be only making unecessary work for editors. Fix problems with the original article, don't fork it. Metta Bubble 02:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am wondering about the jurisdiction here. Is the Wikipedia:Deletion policy important, or is everything decided with a majority vote and can anything be deleted just like that? This is better then earlier experiences in which an article of mine was deleted by one person and i had lost all data even on My Contributions.--Daanschr 08:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a wiki, not a courtroom. Are you suggesting there are no possibilities for merging the content of this article with the other list? Metta Bubble 00:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I am new with this. Merging is possible, but then i should join the politics of the other articles. My first remark would be that a country is mentioned only once.
Delete we shouldn't be supporting "alternative" versions of articles; there is no stopping the tendency once indulged. Carlossuarez46 18:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you put it this way, then i agree with you. I don't like viewpoints. There is only one reality. It was not my meaning to start a long range of alternative articles.--Daanschr 21:46, 8 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most Liberal Law School

Delete. Article specifically very POV. Wickethewok 04:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article seems POV by it's very nature. Fightindaman 04:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There is little hope of this article ever being NPOV, but it is not based on a single article. -Harmil 04:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean the articles cited are hoaxes? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inherently pov.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What possible purpose could this list serve in an encyclopedia. Eivind 05:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Royboy crashfan 05:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. -- Krash (Talk) 06:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inherently POV. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV article. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pov. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-03 13:43Z
Weak delete. Something like Political tendencies of U.S. law schools might be appropriate. Though referenced, this is op-ed advocacy. Would like to find some way to keep the information, but it needs counterbalanced and put at an appropriate title. Smerdis of Tlön 16:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV pushing.--Isotope23 17:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently biased and non-encyclopedic. dbtfz ^talk 19:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no hope of this article ever being NPOV. Fan1967 20:32, 3 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jolt (TV show)

Non-notable, Vanity. A Google search for Jolt and the string "Girard Studios" gets 217 hits. However, only 2 are found when filtering out hits from the official site; both hits are from Wikipedia, and one is a redirect anyway. I prod tagged this about 5 days ago. Back then, there was also the statement "Formed by teenagers this movie studio is very up and coming". Crystal ball, anyone? An IP user recently removed the prod tag, that "up and coming" statement, as well as the following OR statement: " The number of movies that have come form them in the last little while has finally slowed to a halt because most of the cast, being teenagers, have finally gotten jobs.", but has not addressed the point that this does not seem to be known about at all outside the group itself. Drat (Talk) 04:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable indeed.Wickethewok 04:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just kids playing with a camera. Eivind 05:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above and WP:VSCA. Royboy crashfan 05:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Changed to Keep. Let us give busted1der a chance to improve this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contact the writer, give him a chance to make it relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.170.184 (talk • contribs)

Above user has only 3 edits, all of which have involved this article. Royboy crashfan

18:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, probably WP:NFT, likely WP:VSCA. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a chance to show that we are notable: The website and subsequent article are not WP:NFT, the information about the cast is from the videos. This is not self-promotion either. The page is lacking concrete proof and also a neutral point of view. Let me fix that and then we'll see, could anyone make any suggestions?--busted1der 22:25 3 March 2006

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lag breach

This article is senseless — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njaard (talk • contribs) 2006-03-02 20:38:07

Support I don't even know what this is about! njaard 04:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only two Google hits. Not notable, whatever it is.Wickethewok 04:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately I understand it. NN gaming neologism. Draeco 05:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, impossible to understand and unencyclopedic Eivind 05:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as gobbledygook. dbtfz ^talk 05:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism, fancruft, you name it. Royboy crashfan 05:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it were a better-known term, it'd be a plausible candidate for redirection to Race hazard, 'cos that's basically what the article describes. As it is though, I can't see anybody using it. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gamecruft. I feel the author's pain, but it's not encyclopedic. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ikkyu2. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would have tried to speedy delete it as patent nonsense. Grandmasterka 10:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-03 13:45Z

Strong delete speedy delete would suit fine. --Francisco Valverde 20:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- it makes sense if you concentrate long enough, but it's gamecruft, unlikely to make a useful article. Haikupoet 01:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless gamecruft. -- Mithent 00:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted. KnowledgeOfSelf 14:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Stevens

Delete All material on this page is taken directly from the website www.erickstevens.net. Wickethewok 04:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No shit??? I didn't realize that. we tryin to spread the word thats all. now go back to your cave and jerk it to some more anime porn dorkboy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torque33 (talk • contribs)

While a popular option, personal attacks against AfD participants are an inefficient way of getting your article kept on Wikipedia. Please remember that everyone here is just trying to keep Wikipedia tidy and useful. We don't have anything personal against your article. If you have any questions, please leave me a note in my cave :) — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Please also see 'No personal attacks'. - Longhair 05:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, vanity. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN vanity Eivind 05:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, copyvio. Royboy crashfan 05:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, CSDs A7/A8. Second WP:NPA for User:Torque33. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable biography and copyvio. WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 11:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-03 13:46Z
Delete or speedy as A7, nn-bio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tetka

Flash amination, no evidence for notability. Unencyclopedic, delete--nixie 04:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I've seen this animation around the web in many different contexts as an example of ragdoll physics.Wickethewok 05:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Only 711 unique Google hits, but notability established by contents of reskinned version linked to in the EL section (#2 at the time of this posting) —WAvegetarian•_{_{CONTRIBUTIONS}}^{^TALK}• ^{^EMAIL}• 05:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. Royboy crashfan 06:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've seen this around as well and had wondered about its origin. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ter e nc e Ong 11:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please as above Yuckfoo 00:09, 4 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph McTaggart

lack of notability, imposible to identify using google Eivind 04:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google search points towards non-notability.Wickethewok 05:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Royboy crashfan 05:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; for a "notable" author, doesn't do very well on a search as far as passing WP:BIO is concerned. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-03 13:47Z
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any books/whatever Kapphat 21:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:50, 3 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob's Ladder (Huey Lewis

Lyrics. Move them to Wikisource if it's truly notable, but delete from Wikipedia. Draeco 04:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posting the complete song lyrics is a copyright violation. I tagged the article {{copyvio}} and it should be speedy deleted under A8. To meet Fair Use, quoted lyrics would have to be a small portion of a longer scholarly article and even then only partial quotations could be used. If such an article were written about this song, would probably fail notability anyway. Thatcher131 05:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if you don't like this, you won't like Jacob's Ladder (song) either. dbtfz ^talk 05:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~It's slightly memorable in a bland sort of way.~~ Thatcher131 05:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean the article. Thatcher131 05:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Four words: Song lyrics are copyrighted. Royboy crashfan 05:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Thatcher131 Schizombie 07:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Thatcher131. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio. (aeropagitica) 11:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Light Speed Delete For a copyvio, empty, and broken title. --Krashlandon (e) 21:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. Given that Jacob's Ladder topped the US charts, [13], a good article could be written about it. However, it is currently a one-line stub with a mistake in it - namely, the claim that the album was released in 1990 when Allmusic.com says that it was released in 1986. The problems with the title mean it is not even suitable for a redirect. Capitalistroadster 02:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio though I too would support an article about the song itself. 23skidoo 15:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. This debate isn't conclusive enough in the delete direction for me; the final comment is correct since Alexa headlines 3month moving averages, whilst this site's daily/weekly rank is better 1,000th. Since the debate rests mainly on unexplicated "nn" or "low alexa" I don't think the deletion case is made at present. -Splash^talk 22:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexadex.com

Not notable website abakharev 07:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Currently features on the front page of www.alexa.com zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete This site is certainly gaining in popularity, and what's the harm of having it in Wikipedia, anyway? Thekohser 15:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. I'm always suspicious of "don't delete" votes. Stifle 00:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Even if Merge is not a category, I feel that is should be merged or redirected to Alexadex or just deleted. TheTallOne 17:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough votes to interpret; relisting. Chick Bowen 05:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Royboy crashfan 06:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting concept, but no evidence of satisfying WP:WEB, low Alexa rankings. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 07:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thekohser. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn website. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Daily reach of almost 600 per million and 844 rank at Alexa.com. Gaining popularity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AAAAA (talk • contribs) .
Weak Delete or Merge - Simply merge this site with Alexadex or delete it, in which case Alexadex should also be deleted.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redux (2nd nomination)

Nominated without comment and with accidental transinclusion of first AfD from last month, by User:Elmer Clark. Re-listing, no vote.

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No proof of notability.Wickethewok 05:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems like a vanity piece. Royboy crashfan 06:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verified, notability shown. -- Krash (Talk) 06:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, failure to assert notability, likely reason: non-notability -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ikkyu2's logic. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not verified, vanity article. -- Tachyon01 (Tachyon01) 07:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tachyon01. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 10:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable, vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see why the last nom failed. --Krashlandon (e) 21:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Hm. Obvious delete, result of last AfD was delete, why wasn't it deleted? Reyk 23:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the lack of notability. For the record, this appears to be unrelated to the previous "Redux" article which was deleted (see the current article's talk), although lack of notability was the problem in both cases. And my apologies about listing this wrong, I wasn't sure of the procedure in this kind of unusual case. -Elmer Clark 23:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to dexfenfluramine. Haikupoet 02:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree in theory with this redirect, but there is currently no article there. The med's off the market and will probably not be manufactured again. -ikkyu2 (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Imbros and Tenedos. D e athphoenix ʕ 14:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Greeks of Imbros and Tenedos

The article was thoroughly edited and re written by me and improved. I also attempted to wikify it. The article is on a separate subject to Imbros and Tenedos and it would be a shame to merge it, or worse, delete, just because it is on a controversial topic.Citations are available at Talk:The Greeks of Imbros and Tenedos.Globo 11:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved article to The Greeks of Imbros and Tenedos Globo 04:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be titled to be an inherently POV essay. It is an essay, anyway.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Royboy crashfan 06:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Imbros and Tenedos, and clean up for NPOV. Sources can easily be added. Lukas ^(T.|@) 08:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Lukas. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and cleanup as per Lukas. (aeropagitica) 11:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete This article was meant to elaborate on the subject of the Greeks of Imbros and Tenedos and only describes factual events, especially Imbros and Tenedos in the light of Treaty of Lausanne and how the treaties terms were later treated. Merging the article is not neccesary as it was meant to be a separate article, elaborating on a subject. Deleting it would be a loss of information, cleaning for structure could be helpful. Citations on the subject are available on Talk:Imbros and Tenedos.Globo 00:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Lukas, but wikification & citations will be needed. Carlossuarez46 18:06, 8 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desk Rabbit

Delete. Non-encyclopedic, just a one-off joke from a TV show. Arteitle 05:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed as above.Wickethewok 05:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. dbtfz ^talk 05:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn neologism from a TV show (without elaborate explanation). Royboy crashfan 06:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yet another article about a TV-created neologism that people will forget once the next one comes around. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all of the above --hooverbag 09:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see above Jakemcmahon 21:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. violet/riga (t) 21:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. Heck, even Moss said he made it up and doesn't know what it means. --Mayrel 22:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete - Merge with IT Crowd article - no need for absolute deletion rglc (t) 21:51, 3 March 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. Kirill Lokshin 22:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Space Dogged/Feud for Sale

This strange entry lists two different episodes (or perhaps shorts) from the Ren and Stimpy cartoon. I would say non-notable, I don't think every episode should be kept from every TV show (merge it all together). Ifnord 18:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 21:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 20:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Carlos Campos

Possibly vanity page; in any case, person has no visibility whatsover in English language documents on the Web John Broughton 06:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is the English Wikipedia. Royboy crashfan 06:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep We absolutely keep articles in English about topics that are primarily notable in other cultures. Notable journalist, for notable publications, including Cambio 16, and let's not give in to linguistic systemic bias . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 07:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Adrian Lamo. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the international English language Wikipedia, not English-centric. A very important difference. Grandmasterka 10:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per Adrian Lamo and Grandmasterka. Schizombie 11:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep claims to notability require further verification (e.g. authorship of book appears established, extent of readership and best-selling status need more info). Schizombie 22:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO. To quote from the notability criteria: "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." The subject of the article clearly meets this standard. NoIdeaNick 11:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - like it all made sense until I Googled FAEC and found it was Argentinian Foundation for a Scientific Ecology. Is this some sort of crackpot science? How much books did he sell anyway?? How big is Cambio 16??? Defunkier 13:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hes not even on Spanish wiki - you just get what looks like a create article box. Defunkier 13:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whether he's on the Spanish or the English or the Klingon wiki is irrelevant. He's here, and I'm pretty sure he's notable. The Spanish wiki is rather underdeveloped (a tenth of our size) and lacks articles even for important Spanish-oriented subjects. Grandmasterka 13:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe he is notable. But nobody is saying how many books he sold are they. Hes not on Amazon. Cambio 16 is a weekly mag that kept in some libraries - I suppose it has 5K copies but as far as I can see hes only been interviewed by them - has anyone seen an article he wrote for them. Defunkier 16:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - [14] the publisher and title get 17 Googles. That cant have sold well. Defunkier 17:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Adrian, Grandmasterka. Cambio 16 is well-known and well-established magazine often held in US research libraries, for those to indolent to Google [15]. Monicasdude 15:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- thats too for those to indolent to spell Defunkier 16:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Leaving an "o" off of "too" could also be a typo, like failing to capitalize the first word in a sentence, leaving out an apostrophe from a contraction, or failing to end a sentence with punctuation such as a period. Here's another mizztake so you can pick on me too. Schizombie 22:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment hey he started it and hes bigger than me anyway. An I can rite real good when I needs :-). Incidentally, thanks for adding the citation request into the article, it's good to see someone taking the very real verifiability issue seriously. Defunkier 13:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please the person is notable Yuckfoo 00:11, 4 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salty Earth Pictures, Inc.

Delete - not notable, as per WP:CORP Xorkl000 06:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most entitites that pass WP:CORP get more than 8 relevant Google results. Seems like WP:VSCA for their website and blog. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn company. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CORP violation. Non-notable company. (aeropagitica) 11:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising. Metamagician3000 11:29, 3 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batgirl LiveJournal Meme

Somebody posted a picture in their Livejournal. Then so did some other people. Then someone came to Wikipedia and wrote an article about it. Then I submitted it for deletion because it wasn't encyclopedic. Delete. Gamaliel 07:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blogcruft. Hardly notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I use LJ sometimes, but wasn't aware of this meme of (predominantly androgynous) batgirls. If it got notable media coverage, or a collection is published, then it would qualify. Schizombie 08:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC) A merge to Andi Watson might be OK. Schizombie 01:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, it might be worth a line or two over there. Gamaliel 01:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Schizombie -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 10:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --kingboyk 10:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was well aware of this phenomenon, and I still think it's too NN for inclusion. - Rynne 17:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't need its own article. --Mr. Vernon 21:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn --Grocer 18:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Die my darling

Tagged as CSD A7, but contains assertion of notability, listing here for discussion. No vote. Chick Bowen 03:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Joe Byrd (Cherokee Chief). psch e mp | talk 06:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge per Pschemp. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to March 3, 2006. Insert new comments below. — Mar. 3, '06 [07:19] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Comment I do not think this article relates to Joe Byrd (Cherokee Chief) at all, and that there is some confusion involved in the comments above, no vote. — Mar. 3, '06 [07:24] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
Keep. Because I was obviously smoking crack the first time I voted? Hmm. I have no idea why I said that. Must have mixed up my Afd, but even more curious, why did someone agree with me? Oh well. Thanks for the heads up FON. psch e mp | talk 09:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pschemp. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Got a song on a console game soundtrack; seems notable enough. Smerdis of Tlön 16:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I also moved the page to Die My Darling. The online press seems to use standard caps, [16] and they were so linked on the Vampire: Bloodlines page. Smerdis of Tlön 16:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please as the above says Yuckfoo 00:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Huh? No way do these people meet WP:MUSIC. One self-released EP, no entry on All Music Guide, and just one song on a commercial anthology/game cartridge? I think not. MCB 02:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:MUSIC is one way to evaluate music-related articles. It doesn't apply in every case. FloNight 13:33, 8 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Coast Music Scene

Non-noatable defunct website. I created the article by removing the content from a disambiguation GCMS CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -Drdisque 08:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 02:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that it was ever notable. MCB 02:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep and cleanup. D e athphoenix ʕ 14:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Cusack

Relisted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brady Finta (et. al), no vote. — Mar. 3, '06 [07:56] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Delete as not notable. No context/importance outside Survivor. Spurious factoids about a person do not an article make. -- Krash (Talk) 15:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Survivor: Vanuatu. -- Krash (Talk) 19:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This content doesn't even belong in the article for her season of Survivor. -- Vary | Talk 15:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup for reasons as per previous AfD created by me and cited by freakofnurture -- Arnzy | Talk 16:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO. Involvement in hit national TV show, and substantial media attention, easily qualify this person. There is a regular precedent to keep comparable contestants on national hit reality TV shows (with substubs being merged). Instead of randomly deleting contestants, based on who shows up for AFD, a simpler solution would be to mege/redirect where appropriate. We shouldn't delete articles, because we don't like a particular genre of entertainment. Wikipedia should determine who others have found notable, not decide for ourselves (with our personal bias) who should be notable. --Rob 18:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has said anything about not liking a particular genre of entertainment. I think the concerns of notability and importance that have been raised are quite valid. I certainly don't think the subject of this article would pass the 100 year test from WP:BIO. -- Krash (Talk) 18:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this was an actor in a TV drama, same air-time, same success of show, same media attention, there would be no AFD. The *only* reason this AFD exists, is because this is reality TV. Normally, whenever a national TV show becomes a hit, all the stars of the show are deemed worth of an article. Also, the 100 year test, was a proposal, not accepted. Also, WP:BIO is a list ways which somebody may qualify. Nobody needs to pass each test, but rather just one. Let's use the non-crystal-ball 100-year rule: if somebody from a hundred years ago was writte about internationally, as much as this person was (on paper), would they qualify for an article today? Obviously, yes. If you can show the same international media coverage from a 100-year old entertainment personality, who had their article deleted, you'll prove your point. Otherwise, you'll prove mine. --Rob 18:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll prove nothing until I'm good and ready to. But the real issue here is that I don't think being a contestant on a gameshow is tantamount to being a notable actor. You're welcome to disagree. I simply take offense that you assume that this is about not liking a particular genre of entertainment. -- Krash (Talk) 19:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Maybe "not like" is bad wording. But it does seem you "don't respect" the genre. How do explain not treating a reality contestant the same as an actor, on a show, with comparable success and attention? This seems no different than denying a comedic actor an article, when you'ld let in an equivilent dramatic actor. Also, Survivor is not simply a gameshow. Are you basing your vote on the assumption this is game show like Price is Right, or Jeopardy? The show is about the about contestants personally. Jeopardy is about the questions/answers, not about the contestants. The Price is Right is about the prizes. Actually, contestants on a reality show, are probably more notable than many comparable actors. Often actors on certain shows (especially some daytime soaps) are not considered very important (by fans, the show, or the media). Often little info is available on them, beyond what they or their employers release. Rather the characters they play are what's followed, and written about (of course, this is true, only some of the time). On a reality show like Survivor (or BB) the contestant is the equivilent of the actor and character, combined into one. --Rob 21:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we keep articles on Big Brother contestants, why not this show? Jcuk 21:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now, until a concrete policy is reached about ALL articles of this nature. Deckiller 00:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- first openly lesbian ex-Playboy model with a grudge against men contestant on Survivor. The problem with reality show contestants is that they turn over every season -- only those who achieve significant media notoriety (Omarosa from the Apprentice, for example) or winners are really notable. Ami Cusack is a borderline case. Haikupoet 02:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- She's a contestant of a hit reality tv show and she's one of the stars of Survivor Vanuatu--hottie 15:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only was she a notable villain in her season, she was also (as mentioned above) a Playboy model and one of the first openly lesbian players on Survivor. --JamesB3 16:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my reasoning in the last AFD for this article. -Colin Kimbrell 18:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: unlike, say, Dirk Been, someone has actually taken the time to dig up information. Useful as a guide to the show, eliminates red links in main article. Calwatch 09:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:I absolutely think this article should be kept. She is one of the most notorious participants in one of the most popular reality shows out there. Agrippina Minor

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. D e athphoenix ʕ 14:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Mullen

Relisted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brady Finta (et. al), no vote. — Mar. 3, '06 [07:56] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Delete as not notable. Unverifiable speculation. No context/importance outside Survivor. -- Krash (Talk) 15:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Survivor: Palau. Comments above remain applicable. -- Krash (Talk) 19:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Krash -- Vary | Talk 15:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So she was a former Miss USA contestant, but considering she's not a winner, runner up or not even being in the top rankings. I'm not sure if that warrants her own article. Alternatively, re-direct without merge if thats the general consenus -- Arnzy | Talk 15:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent and WP:BIO. --Rob 18:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What precedent are you referring to? Outcome of the previous AfD was delete (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brady Finta). -- Krash (Talk) 18:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look at precedents over several months. Also, I include Big Brother precedents, as the show shares enough relevant characteristics with Survivor. The AFD you cited was going against precedent, and going against the spirit of BIO. Also, I'm just waiting for somebody to explain what these AFDs accomplish, that sensible merge/redirects (where appropriate) don't. It's foolish to destroy information, when we can, on on-going basis, make an editorial decision about whether info goes in the main article, or the individual bio article. Deleting this today, just means somebody has to make a fresh one, from scratch, in the future (as this AFD doesn't apply to new, original, creations). --Rob 18:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral for now, until a concrete policy is reached about ALL articles of this nature. Deckiller 00:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep She was miss Ohio. Eivind 02:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for pageant title, per the last AFD. -Colin Kimbrell 18:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... local paper has written biography of her, accomplishments outside of Suvivor noted, prominent in local community. Calwatch 09:54, 6 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freak Hall

A group of students who hang out in a school corridor does not make encyclopedic material. Delete. enochlau (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:N not notable outside of Hunter College High School and unverifiable WP:V. Schizombie 11:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable student dorm. (aeropagitica) 11:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable college student vanity. It's not just school where things are made up one day. MLA 13:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFT. -- Krash (Talk) 15:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you freaks. It warms my heart as a Hunter (and freak hall) grad to see the freaks advertising on wiki. Still, vanity is vanity. --Mmx1 18:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic and madeupinschooloneday nonsense. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made up in school... Eivind 02:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The couple of us that have been editing this page have tried to keep it from being "advertising," or "made up." It's documenting a social group with some (vaguely) notable alumni and a particular culture, one that has been around for 15 years or more. The Stuyvesant High School equivalent has been the subject of a recent New York Magazine article . I'd be glad to change any parts of the page that seem particularly un-encyclopedic, though. Mcfrank 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not yet. It certaintly isn't made up. I went to Hunter years ago and the Freak Hallway was a particularly notable feature of Hunter College High School with a unique culture that it has maintained for quite some time. However, it is not yet worthy of being the subject of its own wikipedia article. If and when the alumni of the freak hallway (including myself) become noteworthy in their own right, the creation of such an article will be more appropriate. Bjoel5785 6 March 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 keep. After this was relisted, a clear majority of contributors wanted this kept. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Marcinkowski

I notice that this has a deletion notice but no comments why. A quick glance at the article doesn't make it clear to me why this article was nominated for deletion; the person seems notable if the information in the article is correct. In the absence of any reason why the delete tag was placed here, my tendency is to remove the delete tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deville (talk • contribs)

I think this article contains valuable information and wikipedia should not allow people to pirate articles by considering them for deletion just because they are envious or because they don't like the nose of the scholar introduced on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adul (talk • contribs)

The nominator was 85.182.15.4, who gave the following justifications in his/her edit summaries:

AfD - Autobiographical articles are against Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. [17]

marked article "Christoph Marcinkowski" as blatantly self-advertisingly autobiographical. He even linked his own name to several topics of general interest. [18]

The lack of text here seems to be due to 85.182.15.4 having run into some trouble with AfD, as he/she explains here. --Saforrest 10:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with revisions to make it less of a vanity article.

First off, autobiographical articles are not forbidden; they are just discouraged. And, unless a great deal of the objective facts on the page are false, this person seems sufficiently important to warrant a Wikipedia article. That said, there are problems with the article:

it's is long and excessively detailed. It's densely packed with information, but much of this is not necessary or encyclopaedic.
it's too praiseworthy of its subject. For example, regarding his books, it quotes positive reviews of books at great length, and describes them in superlative terms, e.g.

"The magnum opus of Marcinkowski is his award-winning dissertation [...] Dastur al-Muluk (Regulations of the Kings) provides invaluable information on political and religious administration, biographies of eminent personalities, economics, as well as culture and geography, during the early 1720s."

It seems that the article has been written almost exclusively by User:Adul, who is Christoph Marcinkowski, its subject. This isn't a problem per se, but it does lead to a general unencyclopaedic tone to the article at times, e.g.

"In March 1995, Marcinkowski left Germany, first for Singapore, a city for which he has since then maintained always the deepest admiration,"

I don't have much experience with how to deal with autobiographical Wikipedia entires. My current, somewhat uninformed, opinion is to keep it, and improve it in the ways described. --Saforrest 10:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I suggest that the author set up a homepage for the content of this article. Wikipedia is not a website for posting resume. In addition, publicising the autobiography article by adding links in other articles such as [19] [20] (and dozens other articles) is quite unacceptable, IMO. --Vsion (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find the debate around this entry quite surprizing (following the 'nomination' of this article for deletion by someone who does not identify himself for obvious reasons...). Once we start to nominate for deletion articles written by people who we don't like we can close down as well the whole wikipedia project. I can only hope that there is consensus on this... But anyway, lets be less ideological or driven away be personal motivations... I suggest to keep it...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.69.4.223 (talk • contribs) .

The preceding anon user delinked this AFD from the daily log, it has been re-added - cohesion★talk 08:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (if an anon has any say in this) or make it look like a real neutral encyclopedia entry and less like a self-advertising homepage. The wikipedian to make the final decision should note that all but one 'keep' votes were unsigned or anonymous. (Quite an irony considering how they (mostly Adul/Mr Marcinkowski himself) rant against the initial proponent's (my) anonymity.)

I first noticed a link to his page in the article about Samarra after the news report about the destroyed Al Askari Mosque, and asked myself why the name of any private person should relate to an Iraqi town. I think that this is something Wikipedia should avoid to become or we would soon have endless lists of remotely relevant consultants in topics of general interest.

If deletion doesn't apply here something should at least be done about his irrelevant linking all over the place. 85.182.13.210 08:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The issue of anonymouy 'requests' applies also to those in favour of deletion. Anyway, I would like to agree with regard to some of the linking but I think some of those in favour of deletion appear to be driven by some rather personal motives (envy among scholars or personal animosities? who the hell knows and why should that play any part here?...). So, do keep it but decide perhaps with regard to the extensive linking. I guess that should do it. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.69.4.223 (talk • contribs) .
Delete. Self promotional article. The pictures are nice, however what do many of them even have to do with the article. I also love the contact info included at the bottom. Sheesh, a lot of hard work for nothing. mmeinhart 02:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A word of constructive advise: It could be edited further by a careful hand. But I think deleting it altogether would be an act of vandalism in itself, especially since some of those who are so keen to delete it seem not to be free from selfish motives themselves. Perhaps the linkings could be reduced somehow. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.69.4.223 (talk • contribs) .

Question: Exactly who or what do you mean regarding 'selfish motives' of deletion proponents? This has been ominously hinted at several times now. I don't get it.

...and hey! You voted 'keep' three times already, 155.69.4.223, without being a registered Wikipedia member and also attempted to erase this whole AfD process. 85.182.4.113 08:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's that bad (which I don't think it is) or whatever then just delete it for Christ's sake, especially since there seems to be such an "urge" and "serious interest" to do so... Quite tiring all this sissy talk.... I can only hope that wikipedia will be able to deal with this in a professional, less injurious, manner with it. I still think revision would be the best way in dealing with articles which have academic matters as subject. This is just the irrelevant opinion of a non-American. Have a good day. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.69.4.223 (talk • contribs) .

This is a bit difficult. This should probably be relisted; there's a certain shortage of.....(how best to put this)...known users contributing to this discussion. Abstaining from this discussion until someone knowledgable about his field of study could come forward. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Known Users?? That's very comical. --Mmeinhart 12:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to March 3, 2006. Insert new comments below. — Mar. 3, '06 [09:22] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Keep by virtue of WP:BIO. To quote from the notability criteria: "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." It seems pretty clear that the subject of this article meets that criteria. If there are POV issues with the article, they ought to be handled on the talk page of that article and not on AfD. NoIdeaNick 11:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick; trim the crap out of it (especially the really odd pictures) and it could be a halfway decent article. RasputinAXP c 15:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That article for this guy!?! Weak keep pivotal on removing the unremarkable rambling POV praise, the excessive overlinking, and the irrelevant pictures. -- Krash (Talk) 15:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Krash. I'm not quite sure he meets Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics, but I'll err on the side of letting it stay. The article doesn't need a full bibliography; why not ask [User:Adul|Marcinkowski] to choose the most important works for a selected biblography? - Rynne 18:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per NoIdeaNick. Subject of the article seems to satisfy notability criteria. If he wants to look foolish by creating and editing an article about himself, let him do it. dbtfz ^talk 23:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please as noideanick says Yuckfoo 00:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep Needs a pretty big rewrite, but seems notable. A second poll after the rewrite is probably a good idea. Eivind 03:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending any evidence of notability. I have serious doubts about these books having sufficient readership to meet out notablility tests for a writer: they are academic texts on rather isoteric topics. I'd be prepared to change this vote if some evidence is available. Even then, the article is very bad (per everybody above) and must be vigorously stripped of unencyclopedic content. AndyJones 22:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Academic texts on esoteric topics are perfectly good content, as titles. Are they something someone might want to refer to? Yes. Charles Matthews 12:37, 7 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Bestsellers 252

This was a contested {{prod}} (the objection came after the article had been deleted so I reinstated it and I'm bringing it here for consensus). RobertG ♬ talk 09:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree whole-heartedly with the editor who nominated it for {{prod}} - "if there is a notable porn compilation, this isn't it." --RobertG ♬ talk 09:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Rob 09:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 10:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see from the article how the compilation is notable. (aeropagitica) 13:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original nom for {{prod}}. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tove Jensen is a well known pornographic actrice and this compilation video is one of the few with her on the cover. Also this video was discussed on the discussion page of Tiny Tove because of the appearance of her and somone with the artist name Horny Rob. This guy has claimed he introduced Tove into the porn industry. The image of the video was no recovered but I will upload it again so the article is more complete. Ik.pas.aan 23:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- About the image, please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 March 3 where I nominated Image:Teenage Bestsellers 252.jpg for deletion, with reasons explained there. It should be deleted *regardless* of the outcome of this AFD. --Rob 23:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ik, that might make an actual copy of the video a collector's item, but I doubt it would make the video itself an encyclopedically notable work. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you say the video might be a collector's item that in itself means its worthy enough to be described on Wikipedia in my opinion. Does it really harm Wikipedia to let this article exist? Ik.pas.aan 11:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, that's exactly what I said it didn't do. Elvis Presley is at least five thousand times better-known than Tove Jensen, and a TV Guide with Presley on the cover might be a collector's item. Does this make that issue of TV Guide encyclopedically notable? No it does not. And yes it harms Wikipedia to let this article exist, because it becomes a precedent for future articles. "Well, Rear-Rammed Sluts 47 may just be one of a hundred porn videos that came out this month, but if this video which is nothing but a compilation of porn loops is notable, RRS47 must be too!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I do not see whats wrong with having articles about less known movies, videos or compilations, porn or otherwise. If the article is written according to the rules commonly accepted on Wikipedia it is an addition to the encyclopedia. The article is there for people who are interested in reading about it. Since there is just a link to it from the article of Tove Jensen and the categories in the article itself I do think mostly people who are interested in seeing this article will read this. Whats wrong with that? Ik.pas.aan 20:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Because Wikipedia is not a garbage dump for random useless information. --Calton | Talk 01:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tove Jensen is notable; this random compilation of porn loops (#252 in a series of...?) is definitely not. MCB 03:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per MCB. Eivind 03:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per MCB. JeremyA 17:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per MCB. --Calton | Talk 01:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy redirect to cow dung. Aaron 21:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cow Dung

This should probably redirect somewhere, but I'm not sure. CrypticBacon 10:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge with manure. Bobby1011 10:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with manure. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hold your nose and Redirect per above. PJM 12:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect. Suggest nom withdraw. -- Krash (Talk) 16:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to cow dung, not manure. zafiroblue05 | Talk 19:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Has been redirected to cow dung. -- Krash (Talk) 20:18, 3 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikible

Another non notable wikisite. Their About page has logged 114 visits, 2 of which were me. Delete. kingboyk 10:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 16:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's not a small wiki, look at the statistics. Give me time (I'm the creator), to improve the article. If it gets deleted right away, after I put it up, I can't really improve it can I? --Tom 17:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, we have standards of inclusion here based on notability - see WP:WEB. I wish you well with your project, I really do (as a lazy would be Mediawiki developer myself I can see you've done a good job) but the link you've provided only strengthens my case. You have 13 registered users. To get a Wikipedia article you need to have thousands of users, preferably tens of thousands, or be very notable in some other way. You're not. Good luck with your project, but please understand that if we had an article on every web site (all of which are important to their creators) we would have millions of articles to manage. --kingboyk 18:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. There's a place on meta where you can announce new Mediawiki sites. --kingboyk 18:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn web site. MCB 03:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Dritter is very new and also Heyjohngreen has a fairly low number of edits. But the arguments presented to keep have not been rebutted and the only argument given to delete is an assertion of non-notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Savvica

does not meet WP:CORP. 500 google hits. Sleepyhead 11:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn company. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Terrance Ong Cursive 23:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Terrance Ong Ardenn 01:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Savvica's first product Nuvvo, launched in December, is a significant Web 2.0 application with thousands of users from almost 100 countries. A Google search for Nuvvo has over 80,000 hits. Savvica has been covered on ComputerWorld, eWeek, TechCrunch, InfoTech, MacNN, and hundreds of blogs all in the last 3 months.--User:Heyjohngreen
Keep per Heyjohngreen--Dritter 14:50, 6 March 2006 (EST) - This user has only made contributions to the Nuvvo article - a product by Savvica.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Website network management platform

A Website Network Mangement Platform is a new category of software. There are very few listings because it is a new invention. If anyone can think of a better term for a system which manages a large group of websites and concurrently takes care of CMS, analytics, marketing and integration then speak up now. I'm the inventor of this category and its a bit disturbing that after five years of hard work on this new type of system, people are so happy to call it "Close to patent nonsense", without doing accurate research. Global companies have been using this Software as a Service offering for a number of years now. If you don't like the copy in the entry, then edit away. To delete the whole article is what I would call "patent nonsense", and ill-informed. I will be very happy indeed to debate the virtues of this term. Here is my email address: juz@bigfoot.com. Please do not delete my entry!

Unknown term. Close to none google results. Sleepyhead 11:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps speedy. Strongly suspect advertising or Google farming. Close to patent nonsense: "A Website Network Management Platform is an on-demand multi-website centric web based application for organizing, analysing, marketing and integrating a series of separate websites, typically for the Multinational corporation." - Smerdis of Tlön 16:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strong ad/spam suspicions. Cursive 23:05, 4 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hawkins

A high school football player who has yet to be drafted by a professional team, let alone graduate. Therefore, no notability at this point (similar to the recent Adrian Khoo case), and no need for an article. Once he is playing AFL football, by all means write an article. I propse a redirect to Wanda Tinasky, who used the name as her psuedonym. NB. This article has been subject to a bit of a revert war/argument involving myself, Rogerthat, and Boomtish (the original author). Harr o5 11:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn-bio. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The Adrian Khoo case is much different since Khoo did not play in the TAC Cup, and was simply a schoolkid. The TAC Cup is a competition that is on the same level as the school competitions that athletes such as Rudy Gay compete in. Gay passed an AfD nomination so it would be a case of double standards if Hawkins wasn't kept. R o gerthat ^Talk 12:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction must be made in terms of notability. Google has 0 results for "Tom Harkins" + "TAC Cup"; for "Rudy Gay" + "Connecticut" there are 118,000. As for the competitions, "NCAA basketball" nets 8,910,000 responses; "TAC Cup" gets 22,900. This is a grossly misleading comparison. Harr o5 12:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, again there is an American bias with Google results. Try a search for "Kate Fischer", compared with another B-grade actress "Moira Kelly" for example..there'd probably be more results for Kelly because she's American. Also "Robert Walls" gets just 17,000 results - and he is a deadset legend of the AFL. Google results are fairly irrelevant in terms of Australian stuff. See also "Wijnand Ott" who is a legend in Dutch music, gets 50 results. R o gerthat ^Talk 00:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, Moira Kelly has been working for the last 15 years, stars (as in, gets her name on the poster) in at least one (internationally distributed) movie I can recall, stars in the 1st season of a popular (and internationally distributed) television drama series, and apparently appears in a current TV series. Nope, can't imagine why she gets so many Google hits: must be solely due to her being an American, clearly. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TAC cup is a schoolkid competition, same as the Australian Mathematics Competition.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO's sportspeople guideline. PJM 12:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete it's not 0 on google for "Tom Hawkins" "TAC Cup" but it is only 8 which is less than I was expecting if this is a hot property up and coming sportsperson. I was expecting to want to keep this article as it's true that US basketballing school kids get a lot of coverage but there just doesn't appear to be a similar level of coverage of the AFL. Also there are no sources in this article. I think that the problem lies in that this player is likely to become notable fairly soon with Geelong but there isn't the evidence for notability at the moment. MLA 13:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Terence Ong. -- Krash (Talk) 16:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he comes into an important club. --Tone 16:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO; the comparison to Rudy Gay is apples and oranges as stated above. I hardly consider an under-18 high school competition to be on the same level as the collegiate basketball powerhouses that consistently churn out top NBA draft picks, which Gay is almost guaranteed to be, if/when he declares. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm Mike Beckham 20:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give an example of what you mean by the "norm? It just helps balance up both sides of the debate for everyone. Thanks. Harr o5 21:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable thats per norm Mike Beckham 21:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Mike for further clarrification, I believe from his comments he might have meant to vote Delete. --Martyman-(talk) 23:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope I meant delete it is not a notable person which does not warrant an article. Mike Beckham 05:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT Change my vote I meant delete and I still believe delete Mike Beckham 07:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per all above Jcuk 21:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Harr o5 22:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please as above says Yuckfoo 00:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Martyman-(talk) 00:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nnbio - Hahnchen 02:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once he suits up and draws a paycheck, we'll talk. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - gold medal winners at competitions like the International Mathematics Olympiad aren't allowed articles, despite having to compete against Chinese and Soviet students who have been recruited to maths and science academies for 6+ years and surrounded by professors, a la Communist sports regimes: Why should a junior STATE LEVEL competitor have an article when an INTERNATIONAL WINNER against 70+ countries does not??Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:59, 8 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Applied_Risk_Management

Delete. This page should be deleted or rewritten, since as it stands, it is clearly an advertisement. Joe Walker 12:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.This is clearly an advertisement. Apart from that it is written in the first person plural. --Francisco Valverde 13:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, perhaps speedy. Advertising, and close to patent nonsense: "We work with each client to develop actionable short and long-term implementation plans that make the most efficient and effective use of their financial resources." - Smerdis of Tlön 17:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: corporate vanity/advert. MCB 03:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is an ad, not an article. Eivind 03:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The ARM advantage is to get your article deleted off Wikipedia. Cursive 23:11, 4 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan translation scene history (video game)

This page seems to be original research, and is unencyclopedic. Srleffler 12:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. PJM 12:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom MLA 14:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fan translation of video games, much like fan subtitling of movies and fan fiction, is not something a general-interest encyclopedia can reasonably cover. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems more suited to a games fanzine/website rather than a research encylopædia such as WP, especially as it is vague on details - how many (date unknowns) are there in the article? (aeropagitica) 17:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fan Translation covers the same subject. Eivind 03:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete as hoax. D e athphoenix ʕ 14:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hayes Robertson

Appears to be a hoax. This guy is a Chicago investment banker? Check [21] and look at the first result. --CrypticBacon 12:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also check out a Google search for "Atlantic Strategies Group" with which he is alleged to have been involved. The second result is ~~this article~~ the Wikipedia article from which this information was, "extracted"? I can't tell, give it a look. Confusing edit history here... --CrypticBacon 12:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly Speedily an article tagged for cleanup and as a hoax while referred for deletion that doesn't have any sources and is in any case non-notable MLA 13:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Profit

ATLANTIC STRATEGIES GROUP, INC.

PRINCIPAL ADDRESS 4521 PGA BLVD. #246 PALM BEACH GARDENS FL 33418

MAILING ADDRESS 2901 CLINT MOORE ROAD SUITE 181 BOCA RATON FL 33496 google hayes robertson, gop or republican or strategist

Changed 04/30/2005

Document Number P04000070523 FEI Number 371494837 Date Filed 04/29/1996 State FL Status ACTIVE Effective Date NONE

Registered Agent Name & Address ROBERTSON, HAYES 2901 CLINT MOORE ROAD SUITE 181 BOCA RATON FL 33496 Address Changed: 04/30/2005

Commment What is the source of this information? Why, if you enter "Atlantic Strategies Group" into Google does it only return one result that says this "group" is based in New Jersey (not Florida)? Is it because the group isn't notable, maybe? --CrypticBacon 23:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So, this guy is a "GOP political strategist and a member of the Campbell County Republican Executive Committee."? Not notable, sorry. --CrypticBacon 23:43, 8 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Integer Research

Doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP; I can't find any nontrivial sources that didn't originate with the company itself or its founders. —Cryptic (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems an advertisement. No importance. --Francisco Valverde 13:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as ad, nn company. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any article that starts with something like "____ is a leading consulting firm" is pretty much guaranteed to be a WP:CORP failure and WP:VSCA. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: vanity/advert. MCB 03:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. Eivind 03:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Lex and Terry. No extra content to merge. D e athphoenix ʕ 15:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lex and terry

Delete: Incorrect title Niels Ø 13:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Note: Nearly the same article is found here: Lex and Terry. I have copied the contents of Lex and terry to talk:Lex and Terry, so anyone can incorporate missing detail into the correctly named article.--Niels Ø 13:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect and merge on the assumption that the correctly spellt article is notable MLA 13:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge per MLA. Seem notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect. Suggest withdraw nomination. -- Krash (Talk) 16:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep and cleanup. D e athphoenix ʕ 15:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta Phi Rho

I nominate this article for deletion because I believe it lacks the importance to be a wikipedia article, in any case, if it is rewritten, perhaps it could be kept. Anyway this article has had many POV problems and disputes in its short history and I would like everyone to have an opinion. Francisco Valverde 13:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup, as much as I dislike frats they are notable, and this article is more than just a stub, although I don't think the listing of the original members needs to be there. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 14:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Talk:Zeta Phi Rho, ΣΧ, ΣΝ, ΑΦΑ, etc., all list their founders by name. (This is a big deal to frats apparently.) This page is a good deal shorter and to the point than those are. I don't know what Francisco's problem is. He's not weighed in once on the talk page and the "disputes" basically boil down to his slapping "Totally Disputed" and "Not Verified" templates on it repeatedly when all of this stuff shows up on the various chapter web sites at their respective universities. There's even discussion on POV on the talk page that Fransisco never expressed an opinion on. MARussellPESE 15:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's been consensus in the past to delete local greek organizations; this one is on the cusp. It's not a national organization, but it's slightly more than a local. All of its chapters are in California, which is a large state. The Loyla Marymount chapter is either underground or inactive and isn't mentioned on the website. I find no mention on the USC student orgs site, UC-Riverside, or UC-Irvine. I'm of the mind that they're making a good attempt at starting a national fraternity but haven't quite reached a state of notability yet. Delete. RasputinAXP c 15:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RasputinAXP. Unless notability can be shown. -- Krash (Talk) 16:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is a consensus to delete individual chapters of national organizations but there has never been consensus to delete local organizations. Many local organizations have articles on Wiki (e.g. Alpha Chi Alpha, The William Penn Society, Kappa Kappa Kappa) I actually tried to nominate several of them for deletion but they have all survived AfD therefore the consensus in past AfD noms usually falls on the side of keeping these articles when they are local. Zeta Phi Rho technically isn't local but it is not national either. It is what's called a "regional" fraternity. I personally know members of this organization. MARussellPESE is correct in that Francisco Valverde should've used the talk page and dealt with issues there before putting this article on AfD. I've worked on many fraternity and sorority articles and I honestly can't see how the present article is POV. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: All of the local greek org articles I've seen on AfD the last 4-6 months have been clear deletes. The three you've mentioned are notable for several reasons: Alpha Chi Alpha and Kappa Kappa Kappa are some of the oldest independent fraternities in the country (and AXA's former affiliation with my own organization is interesting, and probably contributed to some of the changes in it in the 60s, but I digress) and The Penn society's age makes it notable as well. I'm not arguing POV on this AfD, just lack of notability. RasputinAXP c 18:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree. Perhaps actually the POV is correct, but I do not find the article notable enought and apart of that; what does the article tell us? Not a lot. Philosophy and History section are not saying much...

--Francisco Valverde 19:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment Interesting. Thanks for bringing up those past AfDs. At best then it can be said that there is no consensus about whether to keep or delete locals (I wish there was either way). I argue notability because I've known this organization to be well known among the Southern California greek community. Aside from the usual "fraternity stuff" I recall they have initiated several important philanthropies concerning the Asian-American community. I heard of them even before I was even in college. From personal experience, they are a lot more notable and a far more dynamic organization than many locals I've come across. Having several chapters denotes notability IMHO. I'm just having a hard time understanding how a regional fraternity with 8 chapters in some of the most well known schools in California lacks notability. Unfortunately though I can't and will not add info to the article because it would come under the scrutinity of verifiability and original research so take what I said with a grain of salt. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. There is nothing wrong with articles on frats and other school groups. -- JJay 19:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this org is notable Yuckfoo 00:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add a futher observation. The only source at the External link section, which is the Zeta Phi Rho homepage (no independant sources), has to be access through a username and password. Therefore no external link for most of us. --Francisco Valverde 20:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Check out some of the chapter webpages, they're not as draconian about security -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:14, 6 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burikutonu

Article appears to be a hoax or someone's original creation. Nnh (who is Japanese) says that the name doesn't even sound Japanese (see Talk:Burikutonu), and the name gets no hit on Google.ja. BrianSmithson 13:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — BrianSmithson 13:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Concur with Nnh (the name sounds much like "Brick-ton"). Furthermore, as far as I can tell, it doesn't pan out in the Otakusphere (videogames/anime/manga/dojin). Strongly suspect this is someone's fanfic character.--み使い Mitsukai 14:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and because neither I nor my girlfriend (who is Japanese) has heard of it. MikeDockery 14:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (blanked by author). — Mar. 6, '06 [14:02] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Danny!

vanity page, doesn't pass WP:BAND Grocer 14:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanity band. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one site is allmusic and the main one is only yahoo in disguise. He doesnt Google and cant afford a site??? Defunkier 17:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete? I don't understand the "Yahoo" in disguise remark. I pay a monthly fee like everyone else. If this page DOES indeed fall under "vanity page", however, EVEN with verifiable information, then by all means please delete. Danny! 15:11, 3 March 2006
- Comment Hey, no offense meant. What I meant was that the site was hosted on Yahoo - no probs. Defunkier 13:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Royboy crashfan 20:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Dwain 21:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This user has been trolling my nominations, because I nominated Sideshow Cinema. --Grocer 18:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. However, this is perhaps the best vanity-band page I've ever seen, and I'm keeping a copy on my user pages for posterity. --FuriousFreddy 03:41, 5 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asylum51

This article about a group of gaming clans is full of original research. Normally that's a reason to edit, not delete, but given the nature of the subject matter I doubt there exist any reliable sources covering this topic. I tried making it into a redirect to the Freelancer game article (assuming the folks there would be able to put in as much or as little info about this as is appropriate), but it was reverted. I don't see that this article should exist by itself, since the subject matter is important only to those who play the game. Friday (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Friday. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mod for a game on a server used by eight clans? WP:SOFTWARE refers. (aeropagitica) 17:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn clancruft. MCB 03:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ^. Eivind 03:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if this is not the appropriate place for commentary. The redirect to your Freelancer game article was not deemed appropriate because A51 hosts and participates in more than only Freelancer, as my recent edit attempted to illustrate. In addition to games, members of A51 share tips about many other programs, such as photoshop, milkshape, and lightwave.

I added the web address of A51 for verification, but perhaps I do not understand what you mean by that. Lancer's Reacor (www.lancersreator.com) also has information about A51.

I understand this article may seem self-promotional, but it was added by members not staff. Staff only became involved in an effort to add a complete picture of the community and hopefully save the article from deletion. If I can be of further assistence, please contact me at aurora@asylum51.com. Thank you for your time. ~Aurora

1 peice of information - the current size of the member base is 1257. I know it does not meet the spec of 5000, but its still quite high.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Burke

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable non-notable vanity. Weregerbil 15:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Weregerbil. (I'm awfully suspicious of this one, since there's also a Danny Burke on AfD, also with outrageous and unverifiable (but totally different) claims, though that one's UK, while this one's Canadian. Maybe someone just like seeing his own name in Wiki?) Fan1967 20:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. most likely a hoax. Eivind 23:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article's undeniable crap, but there actually is a concert promoter in Toronto named Dan Burke, who has been associated with the El Mocambo. Ref here, frex. (And for what it's worth, he didn't kill the ElMo, either: new owners killed it by booting him.) I'm not convinced that local band bookers really deserve their own articles, but this isn't a hoax — it's just a bad article about a real person who may not make it over the notability line. No vote yet; I gotta think about it for a day or two. But even if I come to the conclusion that he's keepable, this will definitely need cleanup, there's no doubt about that. Bearcat 07:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- After some thought, I'm going to stick with the conclusion that local promoters aren't notable enough for Wikipedia articles. Delete. Bearcat 18:46, 7 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dating software

Delete the article does nothing more than say what is already stated in the name dating software and has little potential for expansion. Possibly, the article could be merged into something. Also, dating website isn't even an article. Cool3 22:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't merit a separate article and no material worth merging anywhere. JonHarder 22:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 14:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 19:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dating sim. This sounds like a neologism that doesn't really work. Haikupoet 02:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial, self-evident dicdef. MCB 03:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is just air, and the subject matter is irrelevant. Eivind 03:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. I'm going to apply {{npov}} as well. D e athphoenix ʕ 15:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic origins of the Kurds

Article does not seem to be of any real use, I think the very few 'nationalist' Kurds contributing to this are carrying out research in a biased way, e.g. User:Heja helweda just mentioned in a dispute here an article of a recent study which claims that Kurds are Iranian people who settled in to the West of Iran, however he has focused on the non-Iranian 'studies' he finds to contribute here, perhaps to continue the Anti-Iranian attacks reported here by 'Kurd nationalists' Kash 10:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No vote, but expert attention tag: this could be original research, but I'm not sure. The topic is borderline encyclopaedic and should probably be merged into Kurds, which has a subheading of its own on this. But AfD is not for solving POV/content disputes. Sandstein 21:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems informative, and does have a few sources, though it needs cleanup, and I'm really not sure if this is the place for it. --InShaneee 23:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It includes several academic sources, and as time goes on more sources will be added.Heja Helweda 01:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete It's based on an original research and was originally published by Kurdish ultra-nationalists, such papers have no place on wikipedia. --ManiF 01:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Encyclopedia Britannica and other authoritative sources [do not] recognize such a genetic test, in fact, they all state the origins of the Kurds are unkonwn. It's "original reaserach" and can't be backed by any of athoritative, or scholary sources'. I have extensively researched this, and all scholars agree [britannica.com/ebc/article-9369506].Zmmz 02:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Encyclopedias are LESS authoritative than current research. They are inevitably several years or more out of date -- except WP, of course. Zora 06:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very informative.D iyako Talk + 02:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Appears to be sourced from reliable published material (which I am not competent to evaluate technically). I don't think this is pseudoscience; I do know that similar mDNA studies regarding the historical genetics of the Jewish people have received wide publication and academic and media attention. MCB 03:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per MCB Golfcam 03:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Far from being "original research" by "Kurdish ultra-nationalists", the articles cited are peer-reviewed articles, written by authors from many nations (France, US, UK, and Spain are prominent), and published in prestigious journals. Those trying to suppress this information should be ashamed of themselves. That said, I feel that the article itself is a bit unmoored -- I don't know anything about how "Kurd" was defined by the writers of the WP article OR by the writers of the scientific articles cited. I'd prefer the article to have more context, and in particular have more links to the WP articles on population genetics and on the wider genetic history of the Middle East and Central Asia. Questions of labeling and boundaries are all-important here. Zora 03:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please don't make personal attacks, telling editors opposing your views, to "be ashamed of themselves". --ManiF 18:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The article is not supported by any legitimate scientic evidence. It is also racist and in violation of Wikepedia's Neutral Point of View policy. --Houshyar 05:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong DeleteIranian Patriot 05:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To understand the POV warring going on, it's probably necessary to note that proponents of the Kurdish national cause (see Kurdistan) seek to maximise claims of a distinct Kurdish ethnic/cultural/etc. identity, while opponents of that cause (mostly people describing themselves as patriots or nationalists from Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria) seek to minimise such claims. Judging from their userpages, most users seeking to delete the article hail from Iran. In wikipedia terms, we should establish whether this article is sufficiently non-original research to warrant inclusion, in which case it's probably an encyclopaedic topic, as noted above. Right now it's a keep and cleanup per Zora and MCB for me. Sandstein 08:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are judging our opposition to this unscientific paper, based on our nationality. Please note that it is a Wikipedia guideline to assume good faith and not use "someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views", my opposition is based on the fact that this article is original research without any credible references. The article is not encyclopedic and does not conform with NPOV. --ManiF 09:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Clean up and merge) Complete rewrite and integrate to Kurdihs people article. Because :

1. It is not supported by any legitimate scientic sources. (Just a handful of external links are not considered to be credible specially in these type of articles) 2. Article is a mere original research rather than being an encyclopedic article. 3. Article may not conform with NPOV. 4. These kind of articles needs an expert in its field. Amir85 08:44, Saturday 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Zora. Legitimate topic, and the article references papers in academic journals from reputable publishers. Any NPOVing that may be needed should be done using similar references. u p p l a n d 09:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Wikipedia needs credible article.

Strong Delete The article is a very interesting example of pseudo-science, research which is done with the sole purpose of finding out what you already had decided was true. Such things should have no place in Wikipedia. Shervink 12:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)shervink[reply]

Comment The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA is pseudo-science? The American Journal of Human Genetics is pseudo-science? Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza is considered to be the most influential population geneticist working today, and all the articles mentioned are based on his work. See also Human Genome Diversity Project and Genealogical DNA test. Zora 14:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the articles are scientific peer-reviewed articles in academic journals. But taking selected excerpts out of them to promote anti-Iranian hatred and Kurdish separatism is wrong. Taking scientific articles out of context in order to prove one's prejudice is pseudo-science, or mis-using science, whatever you name it. You can likewise make pages on genetic origins of a lot of people, all of which would result in virtually the same thing: The people over there are mixed beyond recognition, which is what makes the whole point of this article ridiculous. There are artices relating Kurds to most other groups of people in the region. So, what is your conclusion? My conclusion is that the genetics of the people in the region is mixed, and singling out Kurds in such an article is thus irrelevant. Even if this is to be discussed, it does not need a separate page. There are people here who propose deleting every mention of the word Iran from Wikipedia, but those same people go to this extent in describing Kurds. Why?Shervink 16:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)shervink[reply]

Move to wikispecies or delete. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What oher ethnic minority/race has genetic origin articles? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Such articles could be written. Studies on Mongolian and Jewish men, and on Lebanese, have been recently published. Hmm, also a study of genetic differences between Rajputs and Rajasthani tribals. Note that these studies never, EVER, show that some groups have a genetic trait that is not shared by other groups. There is always intermarriage, always a gradual blending of populations, and local populations are best characterized in terms of percentages, not absolutes. This goes for every single human group on the planet. HOWEVER, it is still possible to distinguish some populations as relatively homogenous, and others as relatively mixed. Kurds are genetically heterogeneous, as are most Iranians. A map would show this better than words. Zora 16:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NOT a place for such material. Treatng ethnicity based on genetics can be viewed as racism. This article establishes who is kurd and who isn't. What percentage of match makes someone a kurd? Who is to question User:Diyako's (assuming he is a kurd) or some other persons ethnicity based on his genes?
    - Historic origins is fine (migration paths from historic documents etc (such as jews migrating to most of the world from middle east) which can be expressed in a sngle line or paragraph on Jewish people), genetic is not. Kurds are an ethnic group that is not "geneticaly distinct" unless we talk about pure races, then it can easily get nasty.
    - --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry But as your POV you even do not know the difference between racism and science. Among many Middle Eastern people such as Turks (for ex. Cool cat), Iranians (for ex. Shervinak) every thing is redefined in another way. race, ethnicity, linguistic family, DNA test, Human rights, Wikipedia policies! When I show them by credible sources they reject and reply with nonsense. Currently there is a Turkish-Iranian movement against any Kurdish-related article even if it is well-cited. D iyako Talk + 17:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not a Turk, please be more creative in name calling that one was just boring. There is no Turkish-Iranian movement against any Kurdish-related articles, there is no cabal. I know the difference between racism and science. In the name of science, racism is still racism. Such articles should not be tolerated on wikipedia. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - It's Shervink, not Shervinak! And I totally agree that ethnicities should not be categorized by genes. It is simply impossible, and additionally has a racist connotation. Shervink 15:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)shervink[reply]

You are a Turk and genetically quite similar to people from Mongolia. It is not a bad thing. But unfortunately many people from Middle East due to their society structure have very strange standpoints to life. I think Everybody from outside of the region can understand the feelings of a Turk or Iranian who exteremely love their country which by itself occupies homlelands of other ethnic groups against Kurdish people who never accepted assimilation. Let's others judge. Thanks.

D iyako Talk + 18:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I do not use the word cabal but movement, are not these constantly actions deliberately?!! Deleteing an article on Kurdish history Deleting another aticle Disputing a well-cited article for no good reason and hundreds other Kurdish related article which everyday suffer this actions.D iyako Talk + 19:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is paralel with the mass number of article creations regarding kurds (quite biased too). Such as on Kingdom of Kurdistan (The Kingdom of Kurdistan did not last long, thanks to the British Royal Air Force acting on behalf of a puppet government in Baghdad. The British were not much kinder to the Kurds. It is wrongly preserved that the first regime that used poison gases against Kurds was Saddam Hussein’s government. This is wrong. British were the first regime to gas Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan) ^[22] --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and make it more neutral. --Khoikhoi 22:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and merge selected (neutralized) information elsewhere.--Zereshk 22:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: No need for it. We can not categorize people based on genes. It would be impossible. Articles such as these can get extremely confusing and irrelevant.--Gol 05:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge with Kurds and neutralize either way. These studies, as with most genetic samplings of populations, were severely limited in their scope and cannot be used to generalize or make assumptions about an entire ethnic group which numbers in the millions, spread out over a large area. SouthernComfort 07:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But genetic sampling IS used to generalize, and the people doing the generalizing publish in many prestigious journals. Could it perhaps be that the scientists who do peer reviews for PNAS, Human Molecular Genetics, and the British Medical Journal know more about this subject than you do? Zora 14:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Including the scientific POV is one thing, but like everything else in this world, science isn't perfect, and neither are scientists, and their theories don't always prove right in the end. Particularly in the area of genetic analysis, which is still very much a young field and results often remain subjective due to limitations in how broadly they can study populations. And this is to say nothing of the issue of bioethics, which is a strong topic right now in the medical and scientific communities (as well as amongst theologians and thinkers), and the various ethical and moral issues surrounding the studies of genetic relationships and "race." SouthernComfort 15:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep claims of OR don't seem valid. This article needs input from broad WP community to keep WP:NPOV. Encourage others to add to watchlist. FloNight 13:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the general issue: Coolcat says that "Treatng ethnicity based on genetics can be viewed as racism" and that WP shouldn't discuss this. I don't think that there's anything that WP shouldn't discuss. Genetic differences between local populations are fair game for scientific study, and help us learn about our past.

If science shows that all the peoples of the Middle East and Central Asia are genetically all-mixed-up (chop suey, as we say in Hawai'i), then that's a fact. If people have based their beliefs re ethnicity, and who is REALLY an X, or a Y, on supposed descent, and the descent turns out to be a myth, well then, that's a fact. It doesn't mean you can't have a group -- it just means that group membership has to based on criteria other than genetic. Which seems healthier to me. Surely group identity should be based on willingness to take responsibility for each other, to love, and not on "blood".

How about broadening the article and using it to discuss recent linguistic, archaeological, and mDNA research on Middle Eastern/Central Asian population history? Zora 01:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If science shows that all the peoples of the Middle East and Central Asia are genetically all-mixed-up (chop suey, as we say in Hawai'i), then that's a fact. More racist vitriol. SouthernComfort 07:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep does anyone care that there are lots of AfDs of Kurd & Kurdish related articles and categories? Is WP going to take a stand that Kurds and related topics are unworthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia? Carlossuarez46 18:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but wikipedia is not a collection of random information. Some of the recent articles such as this one does not belong to wikipedia. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. D e athphoenix ʕ 15:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zing Technologies

About 500 Googles, many referring to something else. No evidence of market significance. A short list of schools using it, no sign of any real significance per WP:SOFTWARE. Just zis Guy you know? 22:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We use it the classroom. Most of the other bits of commercial software vendors that we use have pages on Wikipedia, dont see why Zing shouldnt or why it is being singled out here. Article reads vendor neutral. I hope that this doesnt mean we start voting Microsoft, Novell, Sun for deletion or worse still, jump all over all the smaller software vendors. From memory, one of the pages that I wrote was about the worlds first online game called Snipes. The company was a small, insignificant startup but in the cool light of history, their contribution is now more significant. I vote for keep. --RolandG 07:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google shows 9k hits. Looks fairly widespread on colleges so it probably has 5000 user requirement per WP:SOFTWARE. Monkeyman^(talk) 22:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The second Google hit is for "Data Zing Technologies" and the third Google hit is for "e-Zing Technologies". '"Zing Technologies" -"data zing" -"e-Zing"' brings back less than 600 hits, most of them redundant. Delete, not notable. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I did the same search - I should have said so in the nom. My bad. Just zis Guy you know? 00:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Probably has 5000 users'? Probably means nothing, I'm afraid. Articles must pass WP:V, this does not. Non-notable, delete. Proto||type 11:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Using Google as sole means of verification seems a bit weak. It's an interesting example of group support systems. The article needs more detail, rather than deletion. 59.167.78.4 05:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JzG. Stifle 09:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the original author of the article I'm obviously biased, but I would like to try and make it conform to wikipedia's policies than see the article deleted. Zing is about more than either the company that produces it, or the software itself. It is also a process for team meeting and learning that gets a group thinking together in parallel, and allows them to record their contributions in their own words using a keyboard. I propose changing the article title to 'Zing Technology' and putting the focus on the technology, process, and facilitation skills rather than the company or the software and incorporate more academic material from the research that's been done. CatS 21:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e ath phoenix 14:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JzG and Zoe. RasputinAXP c 15:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JzG. Jabencarsey 22:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. MCB 03:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eivind 03:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
further comment I will rework it to better conform to wikipolicy. Zing is much more widely used than a google search would suggest. A conference on activity theory and action research is being held in Australia in October, and zing is a powerful tool for these areas of research. I feel frustrated by it being marked for deletion and am not clear on how to dispute it. I am possibly the only wikipedian in the zing community, so getting a whole lot of zing people here to defend the page would result in an accusation of sock puppetry, so I really don't know what I should do. I'm happy to work on and improve the article, but I don't feel I can do that while it is marked for deletion. Some constructive criticism has been left on the talk page, and I would like to address and improve the article.--CatS 01:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate "vote", further commentary is of course perfectly acceptable Just zis Guy you know? 12:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

changed ~~Keep~~ to comment --CatS 02:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:Software requires at least 5k users for general use software. While specialized software may have less then that, best would be if it fulfilled any other criteria. Returning to the numbers of users-issue: According to the publisher, they have the following customers "

Universities: Sydney, RMIT, Macquarie, Curtin, Central Queensland, UNSW, Monash for teaching and learning and business studies.
Consultants: Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, Managed Innovation and BizKit for BPR, quality, strategy and innovation.
Government: in Australia: Defence, Queensland Departments of Treasury, Primary Industry and Rail; National Crime Authority, Centrelink for strategy and project teams. Business: Boeing, Pearl, for strategy and innovation.
Schools: in 100 schools in Australia and the UK for learning, professional development, community activities and education reform." Although we must asume, that this is probably the very max of possible users, it _does_ substantiate the significance case. If your google for "anyzing pdf -wikipedia" you will stumble across several uses of anyzing during workshops and such, mostly in Australia, from 2001 up to 2005 ([23]). Catscracht supplied some links he found at the talk page that do not clearly match the criteria but come close. I don't know about the journals the publications have been printed, but the Alar Jornal seems to be active with an international conference held every 2-3yrs. [24] To summarize my opinion, it seems that the software's notability is indeed limited, but as far as I can see, rather regionally than anything else. In Australia, there seems to be quite frequent use of the software. Since it is not personal software, but rather software for insitutions, it seems explainable that there are not a huge number of google hits. --Johnnyw 15:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Zing software system and its associated facilitation processes seem to be a significant instance of group support/team learning. I agree that Google results are unlikely to demonstrate its user base, use or significance. As Zing is specialised software (not personal software) the 5k WP:Software requirement does not apply. The article needs to be cleaned up and I recommend it is re-worked. --Beraht (talk · contribs) 12:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC) User's sole edit[reply]
Since this is a tough call regarding the criteria, I let my vote be directed by second thoughts. The first one being Ignore all rules, or citing a statement that expresses this guideline: "We have a set of rules and standards and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart those newcomers who take that invitation (be bold!) at face value." CatS may not be a newcomer at all, but a less frequent then well spirited contributor whose one effort at Wikipedia is the Zing article. Rremoving an article that is or at least comes fairly close to being notable which has a good minded editor and maintainer as a patron seems rather destructive to me; in comparison to keeping an ill-maintained uninformational and badly written article which hardly meets the criteria (even after cleanup). The other thought is: "When in doubt, don't delete." Keep it is. --Johnnyw 20:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE ALL --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarge (Doom)

Trivia:very little context, very little content, not notable. Tenebrous 15:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages to be deleted, Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia:

Delete the lot. Not only is it cruft, it's badly formatted cruft. Sarge's mission is ... to do whatever it takes to achieve his mission. Who'd have guessed? Just zis Guy you know? 15:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not only that, but most of the information in these articles is duplicated in Doom (film). I'd say that makes these articles pretty useless. Tenebrous 15:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and put potentially useful info in the movie article. --Tone 16:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. -- Krash (Talk) 16:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information is already contained in Doom (film). The seperate articles add nothing to WP. (aeropagitica) 17:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Defunkier 17:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as cruft which adds nothing of value. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all adds nothing to the encyclopedia. Eivind 23:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (all) as subtrivial doomcruft. MCB 03:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy redirect to Protestantism. Aaron 21:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant

The article fails to assert notability; however, the article has been on the site since Feb. 2002. Therefore, I do feel comfortable deleting it without community consent. The only reference for the band is their MySpace account. The only Yahoo hit I found was for a Milwaukee festival which is where the band is based. Psy guy ^Talk 15:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until yesterday, it was a proper redirect to Protestantism. Speedy redirect. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 15:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect which has already been done. AfD'd band indeed was {{db-band}} material. Weregerbil 15:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the page to its prior state, a redirect to Protestantism. IF the band is worthy of a Wikipedia article, then that article needs to be at Protestant (band) instead. (Also, this is a strong case for prod'ing instead of AFD'ing.) - jredmond 15:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect. {{db-band}} is a sure fit for the band. No sense in needing to move this AfD to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protestant (band) Can we close this discussion per WP:SNOW? -- Krash (Talk) 17:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. D e athphoenix ʕ 15:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24SevenOffice

Previously deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24SevenOffice (second nomination), now re-creatd by Eggen (talk · contribs) with no edit history outside this article save the one null edit required to start the counter for article creation and being edited by Sleepyhead81 (talk · contribs), an employee of the company who made some difficulties last time round and, since deletion, has spent many hours purging redlinks and weblinks from software lists (no bad thing). So: this is almost certainly an example of gaming the system. On the other hand, there is some additional information in the article - it seems they have amassed a little bit of attention in the months since deletion. Much as I hate to reward vanity editors, it is probable that this now rises above the vanispamcruftisement threshold. I am, however, profoundly unhappy about Sleepyhead's apparent deviousness, since not only does he know that it could have been taken to DRV with a reasonable chance of success, but he's also been told that he should not be editing articles on subjects where he has a vested interest. I for one would have been happy to help Sleepyhead to get the article re-created, and so I am sure would Tony Sidaway. Hell, Tony would probably just have undeleted it. I'm bringing it here so we can have a formal endorsement for keep or delete; as it is it could be tagged as a re-creation by any passing editor with a memory. Just zis Guy you know? 15:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have 24SevenOffice on my watch-list here on Wikipedia and was surprised to see the article re-appear today. I have no knowledge of Eggen (talk · contribs) and I have no involvement in re-creating the article. I am an employee of 24SevenOffice and have made edits to the article - mostly to correct mistakes and add information from new events. I understand that JzG (talk · contribs) suspects vanity and advertising given the previous deletion and my involvement in the article. I would like to note that my contributions to Wikipedia continued after the deletion and has been fairly significant. So I am not on Wikipedia to advertise for 24SevenOffice.

I am biased so I wont add my vote but I think 24SevenOffice meets the criteria for notability for software:

- Media coverage. See the references as examples of media coverage in English. I can also provide an extensive list of media coverage in the Norwegian press (including the major financial and IT publications). The Publish.com article lists 24SevenOffice as one of five enterprise-ready web 2.0 apps. In Sydney Morning Herald (the largest newspaper in Australia) mentions 24SevenOffice and NetSuite as succesfull SaaS providers.

- The system have won several awards including 'Seal of Excellence' at CeBIT.

- The system is innovative as it is the first Ajax based ERP/CRM solution. 24SevenOffice used Ajax before the term was coined. NetSuite for example started using Ajax about six months ago.

- There exists wikipedia articles about 24SevenOffice in other languages: Norwegian (bokmål), Norwegian (nynorsk) and Swedish.

--Sleepyhead 16:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kudos to Sleepyhead for not "voting" (yes, yes, it's not a vote). And I accept of course the assurance that Eggen is not a sock. However this turns out I sincerely hope Sleepyhead will continue the valuable work of pruning cruft from the lists, which is a never-ending task. Just zis Guy you know? 17:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unique search term.[25] Thank you for the concise nomination. :) -- Krash (Talk) 17:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. this article should never have been deleted previously. This is a public company with unique products. -- JJay 19:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems notable. Eivind 23:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep this nomination is very good but topic is notable Yuckfoo 00:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - It needs reworking by other editors. Google Hits [26], article in 'Norsk' - same author, but notable (award). --Mane 17:11, 7 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

On second look, and after being noted, this is really a No Concensus. Deletion reversed. Apologies. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isidor

Delete nn band. Proposed a delete with {{prod}} but it was objected to. Only released 1 album. A Google on Isidor "Arnar Ingi Viðarson" -wikipedia yields 2 hits. --Bruce1ee 15:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The album title, "Betty Takes A Ride," gets many more hits, most relevant, and a reasonable Google search turns up a significant array of references/commentary, well beyond the band's native Iceland. English language Google searches for non-English phrases are notoriously underperforming, and Wikipedia is not simply a tool for promoting corporate music. Monicasdude 15:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~ Neutral heres like 26 Googles (1 in wiki and 25 in Icleandic) and I dont think theyll be playing in Peoria real soon. [27] Defunkier 17:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not assert that subject meets any one criterion in WP:MUSIC. android 79 17:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)d[reply]
Delete: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Monicasdude, they seem to have third party-interest [28]. Kappa 11:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment like they claim, music critic from local newspaper Fréttablaðið, Árni Viðar Þórarinsson, one of Iceland´s most respected indie-music speculant, Eriko Murikami,japanese author with 0 other Googles. Thought stuff was supposed to be verifiable? Me bites tongue. Defunkier 13:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I have the feeling it's much more verifiable in Icelandic, but I'll abstain. Kappa 13:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Going back to keep per Stefán Ingi's evidence. Kappa 17:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah thats diferent now that somebody Iceleandic has verified it. Defunkier 13:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stefán Ingi - not vanity, Iceland should be the exception to "small" country noterity in WP:MUSIC, as the music scene is that of a medium country. ~~I did ask if any of their songs have been played on the radio [29]. Maybe we'll get an answer in time? heh --Grocer 21:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)~~ [reply]
- ~~Hm, there is a Bosnian wiki article on this too. Not sure what to make of that. --Grocer 21:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
Comment Their album did get reviewed in one [30] and probably both of the main Icelandic newspapers. They also played at a concert related to the Icelandic airwaves [31] and also at some other concerts that have been mentioned on national media [32]. But I don't feel able to offer an opinion on whether they are noteable enough to have an article here. Stefán Ingi 15:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scalix

Software product, scores <400 unique Googles. No evidence of significant user base, innovative features or notable customers. Just zis Guy you know? 22:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I get about 400k hits on google. Many reviews including ones on pcmag, desktoplinux, zdnet. Likely have userbase >5000. I think this one is ok. Monkeyman^(talk) 22:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are less than 400 unique hits out of those 300,000 + hits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe is correct. I checked, there are some forums, a lot of ads and press releases, but not much of substance that I could find. It doesn't seem to be publicly quoted, I coldn't find verifiable detail on the financial size of the company and I didn't see a list of notable customers, or a figure for the number of employees. Obviously I was going through a list, knocking out redlinks and looking for spam. When you look for spam you tend to find it - I am always happy to be proved wrong. Just zis Guy you know? 10:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Guy/Zoe, please reconsider your vote. There are tons of press releases on this software[33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]. This would meet WP:SOFTWARE Criteria 1. Monkeyman^(talk) 15:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So we can decide on the notability of a corporation by the number of press releases it generates? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFTWARE Criteria 1 says, "The software has been verifiably the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software developer itself." How does this software not meet this criteria? I'm not affiliated with this software in any way whatsoever but I hate to see an article that deserves to be here get deleted. Monkeyman^(talk) 23:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases are generated by the company, therefore do not qualify for your criterion. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As above, 'likely has enough users' does not swing it. Delete per JzG. Proto||type 11:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. What's the source of a press release? The company. Not independent, whatsoever. Stifle 09:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote Delete. If OpenMail, on which it is based, and which is/was used by a high percentage of Fortune 500 companies doesn't rate an article, this certainly doesn't.--Zooterkin 13:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just because one article does not yet have an article (and OpenMail should) does not mean another article shouldn't. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e ath phoenix 15:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For the edification of voters this time around, the "unique google hits" cited by the nom mean absolutely nothing here. Microsoft only gets about 500-600 on an average day. There is no topic anywhere that would not get three figures of "unique" Google hits, tops, by this reading. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 400 unique hits is plenty. I believe 1,000 unique hits is technically impossible. Kappa

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

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

The result of the debate was: Moved to WP:RFD Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SocialisM

why an article with such a name should exist??? yanis 16:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep it is a redirect to Socialism to help users who miss type during searches. Not overly nessary in this case.--Blue520 16:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. Redirects for deletion sould go on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletionpage.--Blue520 16:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Not a very likely incorrect spelling. Better to fall through to the search feature. — RJH 18:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Unless I'm missing something, typing a misplaced cap at the end of a word should still go to the correctly capitalized article, and not the search page. For fun, I tried 'CommunisM' and was sent right to Communism with no redirect. The only time I can see this being useful is if the typo is in an inline link, in which case the red link would make it stand out enough that it would be found and corrected quickly anyway. -- Vary | Talk 22:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. pointless redirecT. Eivind 00:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Renominate on RFD I've seen a couple of these before on RFD. Apparently, at one time, we didn't have the wikilink syntax, and people had to use "CamelCase" to make links, even if it was a single word. (Ugh!) Some of those old CamelCase redirects still exist. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:56, 4 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark energy resonance

Delete Original hypothetical article SailorfromNH 16:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research, "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas." WP:NOR. --Blue520 16:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research isn't allowed on WP. (aeropagitica) 16:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Tone 16:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — original research. Sloppy spelling as well. — RJH 18:21, 3 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TSI Systemgroup

Delete as non notable company. Even the topmost entry on searching for it in Google is this Wikipedia page. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, no assertion or indication that WP:CORP is met. Sandstein 20:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. worded like an ad ("world class"). Eivind 03:54, 4 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiterios

Vanity page Joey Roe 16:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable gamer vanity page. I can not believe it has been on Wikipeadia since 17 November 2005, the length of time it has been around for might make it notable. On second thoughts Speedy delete - CSD A7. --Blue520 16:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn vanity. -- Krash (Talk) 17:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Eivind 03:55, 4 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garden Soccer

Originally prodded by MNewnham as A non-notable derivative, Forum on external link has 0 active members, in any case, if not deleted, would need to be tagged copyvio. De-prodded by Mike83 without comment so moving here. A note about the alleged copyvio: I could find no evidence that the material was copyrighted. See my comments on the article's talk page. James084 16:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for things invented in a back yard in the long hot summer of 2003 by brothers Mike and Baz along with there [sic] friend. -- Krash (Talk) 19:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notebility by a mile, also made up in school... Eivind 03:58, 4 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nightwish fanclubs

This is forked over from Nightwish, one of our featured articles, and makes it clear that this a list of official fanclubs of the band rather than unofficial fanclubs looking for free publicity. I'm not voting, but since this had been a speedy candidate I would like some other opinions on it. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 16:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its not doing any harm. But it must be getting late - I was just going to vote delete this List of Jewish Nightclubs. Defunkier 17:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a mere collection of external links. -- Krash (Talk) 19:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP is not replacement for company website. Pavel Vozenilek 19:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given its ties to a featured article there is no logical reason to delete this. There is no reason to weaken our coverage of Nightwish. -- JJay 19:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This would even be a valid speedy (not that I'm suggesting people should do this). It's not an article at all, it's a collection of links. Wikipedia is not a website directory. Friday (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a web directory. Sandstein 20:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking at the edit histories for both articles, this one appears to have been created to move the official fan clubs out of the main article, to de-clutter the page. Aren't improvements like that part of what makes a good article into a featured article? - Vary | Talk 23:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Getting rid of clutter is good, yes. I believe that's why this article is on Afd. Friday (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the article's deleted, won't the content wind up right back in the main article? -- Vary | Talk 02:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not if people watch out for it and remove it when it happens. Undesired links can be removed from the main article without having to have a seperate article for them. Friday (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply not encyclopedic. People should be able to find this info on the group's official website, which is appropriately linked to in the Nightwish article. dbtfz ^talk 23:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Belongs under ext link in the band article. Eivind 00:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please there is no reason to erase it Yuckfoo 00:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Friday. MCB 03:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Crash and Friday Cursive 23:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Nightwish (place under external links) if these really are official fanclub. Otherwise, delete. —Ruud 05:38, 6 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Pisano

Is he really that famous? I was going to speedy him, but decided not to. If you think it should be, then please do. ^KILO-_LIMA 16:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably a hoax. No IMDB entry exists for "Bryan Pisano", and nobody in the IMDB credits for Star Trek: Nemesis has that name or anything similar, including the ones listed as "uncredited". I guess he could be an extra in a crowd scene or something, but that would hardly get him an article either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, if he's a rising star, I'm Tom Cruise. Eivind 00:16, 4 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sasxsek

Unknown and made-up language. ^KILO-_LIMA 16:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete language doesn't seem to exist. Minimal Google hits, mostly WP mirrors and such. Already deleted once as Sasxsek language, but the article isn't close enough to speedy as a re-creation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above SailorfromNH 18:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete might be notable in the future, but not now. Eivind 05:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Flower party■ 04:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Legenhausen

IS he that famous? I was going to speedy it, but decided not to. ^KILO-_LIMA 16:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — do his publications put him above the bar on the average professor test? It doesn't look like it, but I can't be sure. I'll take a pass. — RJH 18:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep don't think the average professor test is the best yardstick here and I certainly don't think it's a speedy. Maybe marginal, but he has some books , quite a few articles and an unusual history - an opportunity to act against systemic bias. Dlyons493 Talk 23:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e athphoenix ʕ 18:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to pass notability standard as published author by significant margin. Monicasdude 20:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to The Cosby Show. D e athphoenix ʕ 18:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opening credits of The Cosby Show

Original research. FuriousFreddy 16:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the show's article if considered useful. --Tone 16:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Original research" is never considered useful. --FuriousFreddy 17:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. What makes it original research? --Rory0 96 20:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a completely unsourced report of the different opening credit sequences from The Cosby Show. It's essentially an original paper on the subject. I suppose if it was thoroughly rewritten, it might look better, but as of present, it looks very bad. On top of that, it's quite a bit crufty (do we really need a detailed explanation of the opening credits of a TV show for each season? Didn't we just go through this with the studio logos thing?) There are asome passages of encyclopedic information present in it, but the info needs a lot of trimming if it is to be merged. --FuriousFreddy 01:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(weak) Keep or Merge: I don't see deletion of this content as helpful to the project in this case. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. --FuriousFreddy 01:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely does not need its own article. Should be merged with The Cosby Show which is short enough that this won't be a problem. Needs to be trimmed and wikified as well. Merge. Thatcher131 22:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Eivind 00:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It does not need its own article. Would be better suited as part of The Cosby Show main article. Tachyon01 01:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Opening Credits of America's Funniest Home Videos. We do not need a play-by-play breakdown of the opening credit sequence of any show. -- Saberwyn 03:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, useful content but does not need its own article. - SimonP 05:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. OK trivia but doesn't need its own article. 23skidoo 16:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, don't merge. Wikipedia users should be able to know what were in the Cosby show credits even if they can't see the shows, but not every every reader of the Cosby show article will want or need to read about them. Kappa 11:26, 6 March 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 it never existed. — Mar. 5, '06 [14:59] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Voidism

Non-notable, see Google search for voidism -- infinity0 16:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- infinity0 16:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete -- KSchutte 17:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pn! - FrancisTyers 17:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Lacatosias 3 March 2006
Speedy Delete. -- Ig0774 19:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. dbtfz ^talk 23:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - [40] LMAO! -- infinity0 14:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject clearly exists. Kurt Weber 14:42, 5 March 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. — Mar. 9, '06 [18:08] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Novosoft Handy Backup

I put a prod tag on the article with the following reason:Promotion/advert for a backup utility with no assertion of notability. Prod tag was removed by Novosoft (the author) with no comment, so I'n taking it here. Tonywalton | Talk 16:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read your notice and made some changes in content, thought it was possible to remove the tag after that. Still trying to inderstand what is wrong with this article. Saw very similar article on another backup software, which isn't under deletion. Novosoft 19:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creator of the article is clearly affiliated with the company.Wickethewok 17:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Does affiliation always result in deletion? Novosoft 19:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not if the article stands on its own. See the guidelines on Notability. The question with any commercial product is why would someone go to an encylopedia to look it up, and what would they find that is different than just going to the company's web site. Something like Coca-Cola has been around so long it has cultural significance independent of its commercial value. Microsoft Windows has an interesting history, and the article says more than just where to buy it and how it works (including criticism not found on on official sites). What is the significance of Handy Backup that someone would want to look it up in an authoritative, unbiased encyclopedia? Thatcher131 22:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just several points. Not many programs appeared on CNN headline news. Position in Google. Many reviews on backup software include HandyBackup. Amount of users. Isn't this enough?Novosoft 15:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can find fewer than 10 hits in Lexis/Nexis, dated 2002-2004. I don't know how many computer mags are indexed in Lexis/Nexis so that might be an undercount. It doesn't seem to have been mentioned by the New York Times or Wash Post, which would surely have been picked up in the search. PC magazine reviewed backup programs in 2003 and called it "mediocre." In 2004 a tech columnist in the Bar Association's magazine praised it. It is mentioned in a Ziff-Davis produced segment on PCs that was offered to local TV stations in 2002. That's about the extent of the coverage. Notable? I'll hold my own vote for the moment. Thatcher131 22:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you ask Google about backup, you will find that HandyBackup is on second or third place. It is there for years. Not sure that Google is right source of Notability though. Novosoft 05:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The company(Novosoft) article is under Category:Protected deleted pages. Eivind 05:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it related to content of this article? When I wrote those article, I was very new to Wikipedia and made some stupid mistakes. Going to try to recover that article after getting more experience. Novosoft 05:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Handybackup has 2500 downloads at downloads.com. Given that it is available from other sources as well, does it approach the 5000 user mark suggested in WP:SOFTWARE? But it's shareware (or trialware) so how many users are there really? Has it been included in any published magazine reviews of backup software more recently than 2003? Thatcher131 07:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the good linkWP:SOFTWARE. Amount of registered users of HandyBackup exceed 20,000. Download monthly rate is more than 5,000. AFAIK download.com shows amount of downloads for particular version(latest one), there were many previous versions of HandyBackup. Novosoft 08:18, 4 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wiss

Either non-notable activist or a fake article, see Google search for "Michael Wiss" -- infinity0 17:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- infinity0 17:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pn! - FrancisTyers 17:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain The activism probably would not be notable, but being a title-winning professional bodybuilder would be. I have not been able to verify that through Google, though he (or someone of the same name) is credited with a few photos of female bodybuilders. Can anyone familiar with the Australian bodybuilding scene shed any light on his level of fame and achievement? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No vote yet. The cafe appears to exist, and has some unusual dietary choices (baked pancakes?), but Wiss is not mentioned; their history section is blank of yet. The article on the cafe probably should share the fate of this one. Smerdis of Tlön 19:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone else goes to that website, check out the Retro Games page... look, I'm #7 in the Top 10 Pac-Man scores! Whoohoo! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 02:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Web search indicates that this person has little if any notability—as a bodybuilder, activist, restauranteur, or anything else. Article appears to be vanity. dbtfz ^talk
Delete. --Roisterer 03:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; notability unverifiable, as to both activism and as body-building champion (of what? a club? a state? the whole country?). MCB 03:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unverifiable. A search for "Michael Wiss" bodybuilder comes up with 12 hits and nothing verifying his role as a champion. A search of an Australian newspaper database came up empty as well. Capitalistroadster 03:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. Cnwb 05:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:14, 8 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old School Systems

Obvious advertisement.--FelineFanatic13 ^talk

Delete. Notability not explained, Alexa rank 2,194,384. Weregerbil 15:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn --Tone 16:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly written, notability not explained. CloudNine 17:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable advertisement. --Hetar 20:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1231_property

Delete Serves no useful purpose, does not reference it's sources, unencyclopediac CloudNine 17:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: random useless entry. --Hetar 20:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, useful information relevant to the US tax code or perhaps merge into a broader category. Cool3 20:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep part of the tax code and therefore important to millions of people. Not much different that the articles found in Category:Taxation in the United States. Furthermore, "serves no useful purpose" is a tad bit too subjective for me and not valid grounds for removing content in my opinion. -- JJay 23:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay. The originator has not helped his cause by voiding the stub and hoax tags without providing any feedback however. --New Progressive 23:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs serious work. Eivind 00:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay. Kappa 11:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per fugi. This is accurate information and is part of the tax code. No reason to delete. 11:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep verifiable and significant FloNight 13:18, 8 March 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Echo kitty

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National E-fed Alliance

None notable E-wrestling (fantasy wresting) website. Looks like an advertisement. Englishrose 17:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no website like that is likely to meet WP:WEB. Brilliant prose, too: "I would rather have no fed, than have a fed full of ignorat [sic] people (...) Just make sure you have decent grammer [sic] and spelling before you join". Indeed. Sandstein 20:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ^. Eivind 00:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Jones

Speedy delete. Vanity page, author removed speedy delete tag. Wickethewok 17:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If your vote is speedy delete, and you're the nominator, there's no need to take it to WP:AFD. Just tag the article for speedy deletion. If that fails, try WP:PROD or, after that, WP:AFD. Thanks! :) — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:13, 3 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slicktor

Delete Hoax, not notable, probable vanity page, no Google results confirm content SailorfromNH 17:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note the nomination has been removed from the article, though it is not otherwise remarkably changed SailorfromNH 02:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Non-notable neologism. (aeropagitica) 21:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a hoax. Eivind 00:35, 4 March 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 USERFIED. kingboyk 04:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Is known enough

appears to be a guideline for inclusion, but seems more suited for userspace than wikispace. Perhaps userfy to creator.-- Syrthiss 17:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy and remove from the main wikispace. (aeropagitica) 21:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Has been userfied; delete the redirect? -- Mithent 01:17, 5 March 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. kingboyk 03:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ebil

Delete only definition. Nn also. Wickethewok 17:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Evil. This slang term apparently exists, but as a dicdef warrants no article of its own. Sandstein 20:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The definition of the word given in the article is different to evil, so I don't believe that a redirect would suffice. Happy to be set right, though. (aeropagitica) 21:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per aeropagitica FloNight 13:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, most of these have already been merged. W.marsh 19:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John MacBain

This article apprears to be complete WP:VSCA. the related articles John macbain, John McBain, Didier Breton, Trader.com, Trader Classified Media, and the changes to the disambig pages which are all of the changes ever made by user 81.80.159.196 should all also be deleted/reverted. Jabencarsey 17:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as VSCA. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trader Classified Media^[41] and Didier Breton, merge or keep others. Kappa 11:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, Didier Breton appears to be notable outside the whole trader classified thing so a separate article will be more convenient for users. John McBain appears to only be of interest within the context of trader classified, so merging wouldn't hurt. Kappa 00:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Stifle 09:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, a Rhodes Scholar should assert some notability. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Press coverage indicates company is notable; founder is presumptively notable on that ground and is notable as Rhodes Scholar. Why is there a Wikipedian constituency with the fixed but wholly irrational idea that an encyclopedia should exclude non-trivial real-world business entities but include all but the most trivial comic book and Pokemon characters? Monicasdude 16:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Split Decision: Delete John MacBain (and all redirects) & Didier Breton as non-notable executives. Company may be notable, but IMO that doesn't confer notability back to the founders and neither seem to meet WP:BIO, though Brenton seems to have additional business citations. No opinion on Trader.com or Trader Classified Media, but a precursory check seems to indicate they meet WP:CORP and so should be Kept with a probable merge of McBain and Brenton into Trader Classified Media. On a side note, I'd love to see all the pokemoncruft knocked out of here...--Isotope23 17:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge biographies in organization's page. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the company, Delete the rest. Eivind 23:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 04:51Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan oldach

Delete Google search returns no relevant results. Hoax? Wickethewok 17:51, 3 March 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.

Nomination moved to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Cuba infobox. -- Krash (Talk) 19:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cuba infobox

Delete because it is just a copy of the Template:Infobox country but for Cuba MJCdetroit 17:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 01:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picon

Delete. Personal references. Wickethewok 18:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Place on wiktionary as professional term. Google search shows it's not non-notable but is unencyclopedic. --Mmx1 18:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT I have rewritten the article to deal with Battlestar Galactica. 132.205.45.110 21:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kappa 11:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e athphoenix ʕ 18:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since rewritten Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep and cleanup. this article is a mess, but its content is fine. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very minor. Build up the article within the main Battlestar Galactica article, then if it grows large enough it can spin off into its own article. Wiki shouldn't encourage trivia. SilkTork 01:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Split, merge, disambiguate: Picture icon needs to merge into Instant messaging, and Picon (Battlestar Galactica) should merge to Twelve Colonies. Rework the page as disambiguation. Alba 17:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, split, clean up, needs to be split, and cleaned up. - XX55XX 23:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep. Please, AfD is not for moving or renaming articles. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 19:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Kurdistan

This should be renamed to Kurds in Syria, as no one beside nationalist Kurds refer to this region as 'Syrian Kurdistan' Kash 18:24, 3 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grodzki

No real assertion of notablity other than having They Might Be Giants as fans. Esprit15d 19:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not true… the site itself gets multiple questions a day. not every question is posted or responded to. also note that grodzki is not a product or does not sell anything. mgrodzki 2:11, 3 March 2006 (EST)

Delete as likely WP:VSCA. Doesn't seem very notable; a true "phenomenon" would do better on the Google test I feel. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this phenomenal vanity blather. Sandstein 20:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity!" WP:VANITY and WP:VSCA refers. (aeropagitica) 22:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity. Eivind 00:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE and, if I may be so bold, good riddance. kingboyk 04:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meck - Thunder In My Heart Again controversy

Unverifiable, uncertain, but it seems well-written for a stub article Sunfazer (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unecessary fork, and one that is not WP:V. If it can be verified and anyone cares to, it could be merged to Meck.--Isotope23 19:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary. Not worth its own article.Wickethewok 03:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The song went to number 1 in the UK recnetly. You possibly could have a stand alone article about the song and the original version by Leo Sayer under Thunder in my Heart. There are verifiable sources for that see Top of the Pops. [42]. Yhe "controversy" is more difficult. For the moment, merge with Meck. Capitalistroadster 04:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unidentified dancers from a music video fighting with each other at a gas station does not really constitute a controversy with regard to the song, its music video, or the artist. If anything about the incident is verifiable and notable, it can be included in the Meck article. --Metropolitan90 06:52, 4 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meatspinning

Delete. Original research and/or a hoax; subject material also appears to be non-notable. Mithrandi 19:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. dbtfz ^talk 19:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. -- Krash (Talk) 19:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Isotope23 19:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable porn link. (aeropagitica) 22:25, 3 March 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 speedied _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Gale

Delete. Vanity page, or a joke on a school friend or something of that sort. Stumps 19:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy and marked as such. -- Krash (Talk) 19:51, 3 March 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hakem Rustom

I found this by pressing "Random article". I read it and couldn't really figure out who this person is. He's a Ph.D. student. Great! Doesn't strike me as very notable. Google test: 29 for "Hakem Rustom". Tskoge 19:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Thatcher131 19:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Tone 19:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Ph.D student, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 22:50, 3 March 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.