Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 18

< December 17	December 19 >

Purge server cache

December 18

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 09:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Saw Such Things in My Sleep and Trains to Brazil

Albums by Guillemots (band) (AfD discussion). —Cryptic (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Singles from a band whose article was deleted for being nn.... Delete. These can be recreated (with the band article) when the group gets more than regional notoriety. B.Wind 03:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the band's page is gone, why are the single pages still here? --Thephotoman 06:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the band was deleted, the albums should also go. Punkmorten 10:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Thephotoman and Punkmorten. IanManka 15:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the band's page looks spiffy, and according to AfD, the band is notable in UK. I vote to keep, and strike out my previous vote. ~~I also made an attempt to fix the link for the AfD (it is now on its second vote). IanManka 16:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - ~~I cant seem to fix the link for the second AfD. Anyone know how to do that? IanManka 16:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]
    - I apparently can't read. The links are fine as displayed. IanManka 16:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Guillemots (band) has now been listed on deletion review; you may want to weigh in there and/or hold off on commenting here. —Cryptic (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the Guillemots page will pass deletion review (there's even content there right now), so hence my keep vote.--Aleron235 23:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We can't be keeping every album by any group.Madman 06:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the band is notable, these albums are too. Grue 14:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought deleting the band writeup was unfair but these can surely go / be merged into Guillemots. Two EPs is not substantial content worth splitting. (guest)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

State of the Art PC

Inescapably (admitted) POV article about the "Wikipedia interpretation" of the best possible computer. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Someone's Christmas wish-list. Owen× ☎ 00:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No content of use to anyone but the article's originators. Only one Wiki page links to it and it links to no others.--R6MaY89 00:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
stay the entry is not finished in 5 minutes, makes it better Mr.Do! 03:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator and others. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is silly, we have enough stuff to own State of the Art categorie, for CPUs, medical technology, engines and many other things, PC is only the first entry here. Every range of products has on evolutionary point somewhere. Mr.Do! 04:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per OwenX. —Brim 05:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"The State of the Art PC is a Wikipedia view [...]" — Wikipedia has no views. This article is both non-neutral and original research. Delete. Uncle G 06:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- this was former, all to grumble so much, however, why improve nothing? there is certainly still a better memory somewhere! Mr.Do! 06:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I may have mis-read it, but think that Mr.Do! is pointing out that in response xe changed that to "The State of the Art PC is a Wikipedia NPOV [...]". Changing the sentence into something that now doesn't actually make any sense at all doesn't alter the fundamental problems with this article. I've no idea what the final sentence of the above means. Please clarify. Uncle G 09:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - State of the Art is a slogan of many companies. But in the reality purely subjectively. Alone the Wikipediauser can evaluate which that is! Everyone knows something, and the sum of all parts is a new realization what the State of the Art is, the truth is not outside by Dell, Apple, IBM or somewhere otherwise as enzyklopical fact! Mr.Do! 14:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - We don't create new realizations here; nor do we do truths that do not exist outside of Wikipedia. Uncle G 17:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page is not only pointless, but the person who wrote it obviously could not have come to a consensus with the rest of the Wikipedia editors. Furthermore, this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. To say that something is state of the art as of 2005 might be okay in an article about a specific technology, but to make an article about a hypothetical computer is just pointless. --Thephotoman 06:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The actually State of the specific technology, example the Parts in the HydrogenCar is never not hypothetical pointless in the state of the art, then this is always a today's estimate out the quality sales. Mr.Do! 14:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but make a page for Wikipedia:Recommended hardware requirements if we don't already have one. Firebug 07:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & others. Billbrock 11:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic, per Uncle G, Thephotoman, and others. –Sommers ^(Talk) 11:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sommers. IanManka 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gimme! r3m0t ^talk 16:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Firebug Jcuk 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think someone can figure this out if we just link to State of the art, we don't need a seperate page for PC's. VegaDark 22:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, change page to a redirect to State of the art.--Aleron235 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Volkov

The article remains untranslated after too weeks of it's entry on Pages needing translation; multiple editors are in consensus that the content is of little or no value. Should be deleted. - Introvert ^talk 00:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A few excerpts from the discussion WP:PNT#Nikolay Volkov:
Russian, and deletable. Has nothing to do with any Nikolay nor Volkov. Content is "after the law about the Jewish autonome district was cancelled in 1993 [that's a real district in Russia], which originally passed in 1981, the district was in a strange situation. No new law had been passed, and of the five autonome districts that existed in the Russian USR, only the Jewish one remained (four had been granted the status of republics within the Russian Federation). All five previous autonomies were a part of bigger federation subjects". Jewish Autonomous Oblast has the relevant and verifiable information. Solver 12:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[...] It appears that Nikolay Volkov is in fact, the governor of the said Jewish autonomy (since 1991!). It probably won't be too hard to find the governor's bio, but this piece now surely looks like an anti-governor rant... and perhaps should still be deleted. There's no article about him in the Russian wikipedia too, if that's going to help to make a decision. ? - Introvert ^talk 05:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Introvert on not being telling if it's upside down or sideways, but from the transliteration Rich provided I'm pretty sure it's just the name of the said autonomous oblast: Yidisher="Jewish", "avitanama"="autonomous", "gegnt"="oblast". A rough google search confirms this, too. All in all, nothing of value there.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is two weeks old... Since there's still an active discussion here, I figure I'll ask first: Any objections to moving this to WP:AFD? It looks like we have a consensus that this is not worth translating... Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)}
Comment. I'm removing Nikolay Volkov from WP:PNT, per usual practice. If you want to see the original discussion on, you can read it in this revision. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and disambiguate, as Nikolai Volkov is a name for both a notable professional wrestler from the 1970s through the 1990s and a notable Russian actor. B.Wind 04:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Thephotoman 06:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, disambiguate, per B.Wind . IanManka 15:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete r3m0t ^talk 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per B.Wind--Aleron235 23:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but rewrite about the governor of JAO. Grue 14:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poliqarp

From WP:PNT, been there since December 4th, with little attention. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

possibly Russian --Melaen 23:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polish. About a piece of software. Solver 23:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is decribed in English here. Feels as quite important but the article is so small and the topic so esoteric that it may wait years before someone takes care of it. A more dedicaded person will create better article later. It is not yet present on Polish Wiki. Pavel Vozenilek 00:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly tell author about the Polish Wikipedia, where this entry would be more appropriate. --Thephotoman 06:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete r3m0t ^talk 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep translate and enlarge. Dont see why this would be more appropriate on Polish Wiki, btw Jcuk 20:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jcuk. --Aleron235 23:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Superior Wealth Creation

Advertising MNewnham 00:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per nom. josh (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --Thephotoman 06:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Bkwillwm 07:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pile on, spam xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I have removed the links from the page, they can obviously be replaced in the unlikely event that this passes AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WEAK Delete unless the article can be rewritten in a non advertising manner Jcuk 20:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's not hard to rewrite to be factual.--Aleron235 23:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as there is no notable information other than the (now removed) references. —Onlyemarie 07:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatmough's planet types

John Whatmough's classification system is not entirely scientific, it is an extension for artistic purposes of the Sudarsky classification system. In addition some of the material on the page is dubious - there are no known Vulcanoids, Mercury Venus and Earth are not jovian type planets. The place descriptions are also vague and possibly untrue for a given planetary system, e.g. if the closest planet is in the water zone. Chaos syndrome 00:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Whatmough seems possibly borderline notable; an article on him or his work might be welcome, if he does meet the standards for notability. Or maybe a mention on another relevant page. Anyway, this is too specialized. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. It appears that Whatmough died in September. I haven't found any information about his qualifications or work besides his website. -- Kjkolb 05:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't the issue. The article cites no independent sources, and I cannot find any evidence that anyone has ever acknowledged this system of classification. (Sudarsky, in contrast, not only had at least two co-authors on his paper, but had the paper published in the Astrophysical Journal.) I was going to write "anyone apart from Whatmough", but upon reading this page (which makes no mention of classifying Venus, Mars, and Earth in this way and does not even contain the phrase "sulfur jovian") it appears that not even Whatmough acknowledged the system outlined in this article. As far as I can tell, Whatmough used the Sudarsky system. This is simply not a part of the corpus of human knowledge. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 06:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sorry, I should have been more specific. By notability, I meant that it hasn't been accepted. Even if it was obscure, yet accepted, I would have voted to keep. -- Kjkolb 08:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and comments. --Thephotoman 06:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete r3m0t ^talk 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This term is not only neologism invented by the creator of the article, but the article is also wrong (as if the original classification system wasn't already very speculative). Although I'm a great fan of Mr. Whatmough's website, there is no option but to delete this article.--Jyril 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greenie & Shades

nn webcomic. It was created by a new user "Greenie". A search on google returns almost nothing except the author's own "visit my site please" postings[1]. Unless I'm missing something, this is a delete. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 00:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - nn. Daykart 00:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Hajj Samer Mohamad Bazzi

Non-notable. Only 102 Google hits. The page is also a collection of linkspam. --Khoikhoi 00:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly a vanity page. --Thephotoman 06:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is a vanity page, and an article on this chap's organisation (also by him) has already been deleted. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bay_Area_Shiite-Muslims_Association. --Squiddy 11:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pepsidrinka 19:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page by a linkspammer. Well, he's stopped linkspamming, so far as I know, but still ... Zora 10:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it This is not a vanity page. There are no links to it. It is not advertised. It is harmless. It is not a link spam as it is about a person. There are people inquiring about this person because of his positions. This page tells a little bit about this person. In fact, this is the purpose of wikipedia: provide info about things! Besides, why are you so eager to delete something harmless?? (unsigned -- from user Sambazzi (subject of article))

Please read carefully: "If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this may be evidence of a need for an article. Conversely, if an article is repeatedly nominated for deletion, this is not in and of itself evidence that it should be deleted. In some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete." (unsigned -- from user Sambazzi (subject of article))

Some of the people involved here with Wikipedia are most certainly "elitists," rude, bitter, hostile, and inauthentic, especially those who choose to label others or break the very policies of Wikipedia. According to the Wikipedia policy: "New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore our most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism. While many newcomers hit the ground running, some lack knowledge about the way we do things." (unsigned -- from user Sambazzi (subject of article))

Ok, but now you know that you can't write articles about yourself unless you're notable enough. --Khoikhoi 18:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chess blogs

Unencyclopedic; we can not have pages describing all the possible topics that can be found on blogs. Article is orphan. All relevant links in the article have been added to the main chess article. Delete Schutz 01:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why not? Is there an article number limit I haven't heard about? CalJW 02:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This actually is an interesting phenomenon, and could become a valuable article if cleaned up. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per The Hooded Man. -- JJay 03:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ezeu 03:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a list of nn blogs is not an encyclopedia article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Zoe. -- Kjkolb 05:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Chess. Doomed to be a stub forever or a dictionary definition. It is simply about blogs that are about chess. What more is there to say? Logophile 05:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zoe. Blogs aren't usually notable. karmafist 06:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT a Web directory or collection of external links. FCYTravis 06:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - will always be just a dicdef + a collection of links, neither of which Wikipedia "is". (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Chess. --Thephotoman 06:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Chess, content seems worth noting, but not neccesarily on its own.--Bkwillwm 07:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I approve the merge comments, but since I copied the relevant links to the main Chess article (see nom), I think the merge has effectively already been done. Schutz 09:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wouldn't say delete if there was something special about chess blogs; some sort of unique software intended specifically for them or an organization devoted to them or really anything to indicate that a chess blog is anything more than a blog about chess. Snurks ^{T C} 09:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! I though we had nixed the last of these with Poker blog. Blog cruft however you look at it. - Randwicked 10:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list of nn blogs, now doubly unnecessary due to the work done above by Schutz. Eusebeus 11:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, or else delete, as per the many wonderful arguments above. Chess blogity does not stand as a notable subject on its own. Lord Bob 13:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chess's "external links" section, if it has one, classifying the said blogs into its own sub-heading "Blogs," with a brief description of each; if no section exists, create one, and label "external links." IanManka 15:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~As the "external links" section already has multiple sub-headings, a merge with Chess would substantiate the need for a "Chess blogs" sub-heading within "external links".~~ IanManka 15:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Chess blogs contains 4 external links; only 1 is a blog, 3 are indicated as lists of blog. In the "external links" section, I have cited the one blog, and one of the lists which contains most (if not all) links from the others. I don't think there is a need for a new sub-section; the current sections are split according to topics related to chess (programs, organisation, etc), not by technology used by the website which provides the information. Tell me if you think that this is enough to consider that the merge has been done. Schutz 16:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - It looks good; I call it a day. I am changing my vote to delete. IanManka 05:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete r3m0t ^talk 17:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep article seems to be about a genuine phenomenon. NN is irrelevant as it is not official Wiki policy.Jcuk 20:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No matter how many times you say it does not make in any truer than the first time you said it. NN is very much Wikipedia policy. Do not confuse Wikipedia with other Wikis. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  - Whilst I have no desire to get into a slanging match (which will do neither of us or more importantly Wikipedia any good) I do feel strongly that the statement "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy." found on, for example Wikipedia:Biography page says it all. Jcuk 21:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:BIO is a guideline on what is covered under WP:NOT, speficially "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and "Wikipedia is not a link repository", and WP:NOT is a policy. --Last Malthusian 17:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry I dont see your point. WP:BIO specifically says that what is on that page is not policy. It cant possiby not be policy on one page and policy on another? If that were so, some serious clearing up would need to be done to remove the ambiguity.Jcuk 21:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - See WP:CSD#Articles, which is official policy, under "Unremarkable people". Zoe (216.234.130.130 21:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
      - It is not policy that people who don't meet any of the criteria in WP:BIO don't meet notability criteria. It is policy that notability criteria exist. If you say 'I believe that this person is notable even though he doesn't meet WP:BIO', that makes sense if you justify it. If you say 'This person isn't in any way notable but I don't care', then you're ignoring policy. --Last Malthusian 09:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd have to say that WP:CSD#Articles being official policy, and WP:BIO NOT being official policy seems very odd. If according to CSD notability in Bios IS official policy it's ludicrous to then say it's not in BIO. However this is getting way off the mark, as the vote here is about Chess Blogs. Jcuk 22:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Not really. We have the CSDs to avoid cluttering up AfD with articles that have no chance of survival, including blatant vanity articles. We have the WP:BIO and similar guidelines so that Wikipedians can give exact, precise, quick reasons for why the subject is notable or not by referring to the appropriate guidelines, without having to explain their reasoning over and over again in separate discussions. Two separate reasons, both perfectly valid. The reason one is policy and the other not is because an article that meets a CSD has no merit whatsoever, while an article that doesn't meet WP:BIO etc. may have some other virtue that we overlooked when creating the guidelines. --Last Malthusian 22:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a collection of external links, and we don't need a billion articles on subject + the word 'blog'. There is precedent for this - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Poker_blog, which resulted in a delete. --Last Malthusian 09:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's worth noting the opinion of one of the voters on [[Poker blog]s: "Delete Nope, sorry, "blogs" are not worth a shit in the real world. JacksonBrown 05:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)" It just struck me as funny, that's all -- and it might be worthy in this debate. IanManka 04:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Chess, content seems worth noting, but not neccesarily on its own.--dev1n 02:38, 19December 2005 (UTC)
vote actually by 69.231.19.30 (talk · contribs). Lord Bob 00:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - comment this is bat sh*t fu**ing crazy, this much trouble over a blog about chess?--Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz 06:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

She Died In June

Claims release of a single, a google search pulls 2 hits. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should check http://www.Shediedinjune.com and http://www.myspace.com/shediedinjune for obvious release of said single.

Delete - as per the WP:NMG. The guidlines lay out pretty stringent rules for inclusion, sometimes seem a bit rigid, but in this case there's just not enough notability. --ParkerHiggins 01:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really hate band vanity pages. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 01:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn band. Two sentences do not an article make. Wikipedia will welcome them once they get more exposure. B.Wind 05:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn band. --Thephotoman 06:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep They exist. Nuff said.

"The guidlines lay out pretty stringent rules for inclusion."??? A guideline is by definition not a rule, therefor there are no rules per say for inclusion. Even if you accept WP:NMG, it itself states that just because a band or whatever does not pass its test, that is not automatically cause for deletion.Jcuk 20:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per both B.Wind and Thephotoman.... if all local small time bands were to be considered encyclopedic there would be no room on the servers for anything else-Reid A. 02:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Agnte

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howch e ng {chat} 16:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Moulton

Author and bike builder of rather questionable notability. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Built pro racing bikes- has published a novel. -- JJay 01:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as per nom. Only one booke whose Amazon rank 1,378,054 is low. Keep Vastly improved rewrite Dlyons493 Talk 02:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems a vanity page. --Thephotoman 07:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Keep per re-write. --Thephotoman 21:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only low Amazon rank, I got 1,864,385 Keep not the most notable person ever, but probably worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Article is much better after rewrite and no longer looks like vanity.--Bkwillwm 07:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Eusebeus 11:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite to avoid NPOV problems that seem to exist with the page at the moment. Notability irrelevant, not official Wiki policy.Jcuk 20:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep (Changed due to Crypticfirefly's rewrite) (although I'd suggest moving the page to the name of his company, if any, as that's the notable thing, not him personally) Notability doesn't have to be policy - it's a shorthand for - not what should be in an encyclopedia - that's not a subject for policy. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the name of his "company" was his own name-- he apparently operated the buisness as a sole-proprietorship-- there is no "company" name. "Fuso," etc. were just trademarks that he used. I did put a reference to him on the "Fuso" disambig page, which may help. I should add also, that he did most if not all the work personally on the custom frames that he was most famous for. Crypticfirefly 08:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
commentshorthand for - not what should be in an encyclopeadia. Pretty much leaves me open to suggest every article I dont like gets nixed simply because I dont like it. There has to be a better criterion, personally I think verifiability is it. Jcuk 17:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dave Moulton has definite credibility with certain bicycle enthusiasts. A 'Google' search confirms this. (Pick out entries related to bicycles.) Richard D 13:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Found an interesting article about the guy in the May 8, 1989 issue of San Diego Business Journal, may add more info myself. Crypticfirefly 05:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've rewritten the article. Though I had never heard of the guy before, I can make the following arguments for "notability": (1) in the mid-70's was well-known in professional bike racing. Many photos of British pros of the time can be found with their bikes prominently marked with Moulton's name. If nothing else, people might want to look him up for that association. (2) He was well known enough that people were ordering his bikes from other countries-- namely, the U.S. (3) News articles refer to him as a well-nown "guru" of frame-making or as a master frame-maker. Recent articles about other bike makers mention Moulton's association with their business. (For example, Masi apparently is still commenting on the fact that he worked for them.) Hope this helps. Crypticfirefly 07:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice job. Moulton is an interesting guy. Thanks. -- JJay 07:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep verifiable and reasonably notable within a limited locus; also to disambiguate from Alex Moulton and Moulton Bicycle. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley the Republican

"...the first popular conservative woman podcaster." Weasel words aside, so what? Podcasts are a dime a dozen. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about we see some independent verification of any of these claims. I say, give it a little bit, and if they can't come up with any of that, then my vote is for delete.DeathThoreau 01:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending some verification. -- JJay 01:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 493,000 google hits for "Shelley the Republican" and the early ones are all about this, and in a wide range of different places. CalJW 02:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Gee, that's funny, I get only 105 unique Google hits. Try putting quote marks around the phrase. --Calton | Talk 01:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, JJay's vote is odd -- what, we're supposed to keep all nonverified stuff? That's not the way Wikipedia works. And I have to question CalJW's counting skills, as I get 26,500 Google hits for "Shelley the Republican", only 94 unique. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I meant that the nom has not shown that this is not notable or unverified. I don't have time to google every nom and also don't feel that I can fully trust the nom's judgement. Since we have tons of podcasts/podcasters on the site, how am I supposed to decide which ones stay or go. Therefore, I have to default to keep pending some verification that Ms. Shelley Republican is not notable. I was hoping that editors with some expertise in this area would help guide that choice. -- JJay 03:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I share your same concerns, only because some of the other nomations made by Mr. Gustafson earlier today looked a bit hurried. I am assuming good faith, but I hope that he reconsiders and voluntarily withdraws some of his other noms, such as the AFD for Khalil Beschir. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, I agree. I can't run the risk of throwing away potentially valuable information. In this specific case, how can one judge the notability or popularity of a podcaster? Are there ratings or awards? Wikipedia policy or guidelines? Maybe google hits are not the answer. -- JJay 03:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So, are you saying that lacking verification, your vote above is one for a Delete? You're right, Google is rarely a good source when it comes to Websites, [http:/www.alexa.com Alexa] is far superior, but can't be used in this case since the Alexa rank will be for [http:www.blogspot.com Blogspot], Shelly's bloghost. Maybe we should ask Shelly why she's any different than the hundreds, if not thousands of political pundit bloggers out there. karmafist 07:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this woman was supposed to be a popular conservative woman podcaster. Is podcasting the same as blogging? Does Alexa rank podcasts? I do find Ms. Shelley nominated for Texan of the year along with a bunch of other famous people [2], or mentioned in a Guardian book review [3], but am still quite unable to judge her notability. Also, my vote right now is Keep. It might change to delete, at which point it will be two letters longer with a different pronunication starting with the letter "D". -- JJay 21:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My Google results are similar to that of Zoe's, but with 100 more for some strange reason ("Results 1 - 10 of about 26,600 for "Shelley the Republican". (0.06 seconds)"). [4] The difference of 100 hits might be because I have filtering disabled and am allowing for any language, any format, anytime and anywhere in the advanced Google configuration. This seems notable enough though. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Your search still only shows 94 unique hits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not know how to explain our strange discrepancy, but when I perform a search for this name using the link I provided above, it returns 118 unique hits on page 12. In any case, I believe that this person is notable enough for inclusion based on these results. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator and Zoe. -- Kjkolb 05:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - EVERY SINGLE LINK past 210 is a link to "Podcastpickle.com." Linkfarmed and linkspammed to boost results, obviously. Non-notable. "First popular woman podcaster" is also unsourced and unverified. FCYTravis 06:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alexa check is impossible since it's a blogspot blog, blogs/podcasts are generally not notable and this one hasn't proved otherwise, or really anything about how it doesn't violate WP:NOT/Propaganda Machine. karmafist 06:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FCYTravis and karmafist. - Randwicked 10:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreeing with above. The linkspamming is out of control. Eusebeus 11:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good example of why Google is a guideline when determining encyclopedic notability, not a strict rule. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You want to be anonymous and then spam everywhere in sight? Bah. Non-notable. Ifnord 18:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability Irrelevant, not official Wiki policy. Jcuk 20:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Untrue. Notability is one of the specific criteria by which biographies can be speedy deleted. That is official Wikipedia policy. And please do not confuse Wikipedia with other Wikis. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Notability is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and therefore a valid reason for deletion. Durova 21:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be spamming; absolutly no sourced claims of notability. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Podcasters are a dime-a-dozen. Hells bells, even I've started one. --Calton | Talk 01:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is relevant. Why? Apart from it being the basis of WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, WP:BIO, etc. etc, notability is relevant because the community damn well says it is. Wikpiedia is not a bureaucracy (that's not in WP:NOT, but it should be) and community consensus ranks over the lack of 'policy'. --Last Malthusian 09:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to counter left-wing bias. Grue 14:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per FCYTravis Agnte 20:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FCYTravis - FrancisTyers 16:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although you know the liberal jewish media is out of control *wink* wink* I was tempted to vote keep, but then I didn't--Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz 06:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to University of Minnesota. — JIP | Talk 09:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Superblock (University of Minnesota)

School dorm block. NN. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Interesting stuff. -- JJay 01:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: does that university have an inode table (University of Minnesota) as well? Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to University of Minnesota. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Zoe. The part about "multidude of social activity" sounds interesting from a dudeinal standpoint. Hamster Sandwich 05:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to University of Minnesota. --Thephotoman 07:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Zoe. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and or Merge as per Zoe Jcuk 20:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. I probably would have no consensus-ed it, but the lack of references at the time I closed this makes B.Wind's comment count as a delete, bringing it over the threshold. --Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Best Syndrome

31 hits. Neologism. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - DavidWBrooks 01:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This term has been bandied about in music circles the last few years. Wait for references; if there is no independent reference (Internet or print) by the end of AfD, then delete. B.Wind 04:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Does need some references. --Thephotoman 07:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Doesn't seem to be in popular usage, and the page is sparse. Would be better as a paragraph in the Pete Best article (with a redirect) or just plain deleted, imho. --kingboyk 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's easy to find references that disagree with the article[5], but hard to find ones that support it.
Keep or possibly Merge with Pete Best article. Jcuk 20:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - feel free to recreate if independent references can be found. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
weak keep. I've heard this term quite a lot (ISTR first hearing it referring to Mick Abrahams on a documentary about Jethro Tull, of all people, in about 1990). Grutness...wha? 05:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:V unless someone comes up with a source. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Prolly shouldn'ta AfD'd in the first place... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Czech resistance under Nazi occupation

Essay-ish entry with material covered in other articles. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. -- JJay 01:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Notable, encyclopedic topic, well-written, not a copyvio (unlike what seems like most of what gets submitted here); if the opening seems a little thesis-like, it's not original research, but well referenced to historians (later editors can balance it out a little). I also wikified it/cleaned it up a little. CanadianCaesar 01:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also moved it to Czech resistance to Nazi occupation (What exactly were they resisting "under Nazi occupation"?) CanadianCaesar 02:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You might have said which other articles. I am not going to look for you. CalJW 02:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic with verifiable information. Well done Canadian Caesar for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 03:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but it wasn't really a rewrite, just some small fixes. CanadianCaesar 04:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable historical topic. Movementarian 04:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. --Apostrophe 05:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic is encyclopedic, historical, and can be expanded. Need to make the first sentence consistent with whatever the title is going to be. —Brim 05:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Canadian Ceasar. Nice work! Hamster Sandwich 05:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Strongest Possible Keep. Wikipedia articles are, by nature, essays. What is not allowed is Original Research essays. Logophile 06:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why is this even on AfD, as per above? --Thephotoman 07:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good historical article. Baffling nomination. --Squiddy 11:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting historical topic. Could be expanded in some way (for example mentions about Munich agreement - the psycho-effect of this betrayal of allies for Czechs) Szalas
STRONG KEEP In fact I dont think I've ever felt a stronger KEEP vote coming over me!! The article is encyclopeadic, seems well researched and has a definate place in Wikipedia. (Delete nominator? ;-> ) Jcuk 20:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It covers only early years of war but that could be improved. Pavel Vozenilek 22:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of organizations with names based on word/phrase puns

Useless list, not really accurate, likely POV. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A number of popular names for companies are like this, I can't imagine that this list could ever be wholly comprehensive. Also, most of these are more portmanteuas than puns.DeathThoreau 01:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can't see any reason to delete this. -- JJay 01:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reason is that this list is ill-defined and probably unmaintainable. Most of the companies in that list are actually just modified acronyms. So they're not really based on "puns". mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 02:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good, interesting list. CalJW 02:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A silly concept. How can it be useful, let alone accurate? It's mainly a list of names based on portmanteaux and acronyms, not puns. At bare minimum, it needs to have its name changed. What's next, a list of companies whose CEO's open their cereal boxes from the bottom? Chris the speller 03:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme delete, nonsense list. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Content can go on List of company name etymologies, or List of portmanteaus. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Overblown and unencyclopedic list. --Apostrophe 05:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's just advertising. -- Kjkolb 05:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. Hamster Sandwich 05:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not advertising or nonsense, but definitely silly and useless. Each company name can be explained in the article about that company. Logophile 06:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Impossible to maintain and pointless. FCYTravis 06:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FCYTravis. FreplySpang (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harmless list. No reason to delete. Would possibly support a merge to list of portmanteaus.....possibly. Jcuk 20:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, silly. Pavel Vozenilek 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all lists, especially POV nonsense like this.Gateman1997 19:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does that include valuable non-POV lists that you submit, such as List of White Americans? Just want to know where you really stand. -- JJay 19:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all lists of information that is better contained in cats should be deleted, but as List of African Americans and List of Native Americans are being kept for the sake of racial equality I believe it's only fair to have a List of White Americans. To do otherwise is racist IMHO.Gateman1997 19:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsense listcruft --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin (Emulator)

NN emulator. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. -- JJay 01:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom succinct. Maybe important [6]. Default keep. -- JJay 02:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 163,000 google hits for "dolphin emulator nintendo". CalJW 02:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yikes, this is really notable. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Beschir

NN racecar driver. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Over 11,000 hits on Google, notable. Tufflaw 01:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. A1 driver with team Lebanon. [7]. Did the nom check this? -- JJay 01:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Please read WP:BIO before nominating any further biographical articles. CalJW 02:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CIVIL. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I regard that as a personal attack. CalJW 03:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or speedy keep if the nominator will withdraw; appears to meet and exceed the criteria set forth by WP:BIO. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tarih ve Demokrasi

NN web forum. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has the nom attempted to verify this? It looks potentially important in the framework of Turkish democracy. -- JJay 01:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing vote following relevant comments from Turkish editor hudd. -- JJay 07:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Verify This needs some validation. DeathThoreau 01:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please at least try to justify your nominations. CalJW 02:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Does this website meet any of the following criteria set by WP:WEB?
1. Having been the subject of national or international media attention
2. A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community
3. Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better.
The site is in a foreign language which I do not understand, I would like to hear from the creator of this article, User:Csunsay, before making any kind of final decision. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claim to notability like listed above, only 123 unique Google results.
Delete, well: I'm Turkish, and this is the first time I heard of this site. Its not a forum, obviously some people (probably owners of the site) keep posting articles that will make Turkish right-wing angry (no npov intended, this is what it is). Not to mention description also says "we are totally npov", obviously takes side. Not a famous site (its not hosted on its own server, first of all), not a fair discussion over the Turkish democracy (not a discussion as well, more like some sides gathered together to promote their ideas), doesn't have 5000 users, not a subject to media attention, technically cannot be rated on Alexa. I'd sum up that it does not qualify as a Wikipedia entry, furthermore the article is exaggrating and misleading. It is a nice site, but has no place here, yet.hudd 07:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC) (edit: never got that left/right thing.. sorry)[reply]
Delete as per Hudd. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN web forum Agnte 20:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martin J. Blaser

NN profesor. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep President-elect infectious diseases society, published author on treatment of AIDS patieints, 92000 google hits on 'martin blaser infectious diseases' MNewnham 00:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very important Prof. -- JJay 01:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep President of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. is notable enough. Dlyons493 Talk 02:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep Published over 450 scientific papers, lead researcher on Helicobacter Pylori, frequent TV commentator on the infectious disease du jour
Keep Low quality nomination. CalJW 02:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets the criteria in WP:PROF. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Developers Digest

NN website. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a Mediawiki site without which we wouldn't be here. CalJW 02:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't be here without MediWiki, yes. We do just fine without this pissant nonsense. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absolutely a notable website. What's with the rampage against "NN websites"? Please verify before listing an article for AfD. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Um, what the hell? Just because a site runs MediaWiki doesn't make it notable. It's a wiki with SIXTY-EIGHT ARTICLES. Yes, SIXTY-EIGHT ARTICLES. The fact that it happens to run MediaWiki is irrelevant. FCYTravis 06:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs to be written in twenty foot letters: SIXTY-EIGHT ARTICLES. What the fuck, actually. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it happens to run MediaWiki is irrelevant - what the hell, the category is called MediaWiki websites. The category description is Website that runs MediaWiki software - I believe my website falls into that category, no? --RossOliver

Keep per arguments above. Also please refrain from foul language. Many younger editors participate in these discussions. Frustrations can be expressed in other ways-- JJay 09:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a website whose only claim to notability is that it runs a popular and well-known piece of wiki software. The wiki for a freakin' MU* that I play on has more than 68 articles, for God's sake! And yes, it runs MediaWiki. And no, I will not write an article on it because I'm sane. If 'runs popular software' is a criteria for notability now, should we vote to keep all websites that use HTML? Lord Bob 13:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete ~~Delete~~ as advertising. Nice looking site but at this point in time entirely non-notable. Actually, I'd say speedy delete as vanity and advertising, if that's possible. The site's About page has been viewed a grand total of 98 times, and is one sentence long. The forum says 'Most users ever online was 6'. I rest my case! --kingboyk 17:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as non-notable. I wouldn't call it a rampage but if every website knew we blindly accepted any free advertising they threw at us - we'd be in very sad shape.Ifnord 18:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per kingboyk's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.TheRingess 19:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is irrelevant as it's not official Wiki policy, just a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians choose to edit.Jcuk 21:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and that's what they are doing here - why does something not being policy make it "irrelevant"? That trees grow toward the sun is not policy, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Are not policies the rules by which we decide whether or not something should be kept? Jcuk 21:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Christ - I didn't realise a website had to be popular in order for it to be listed on the 'MediaWiki websites' page. If it's that big of a deal, delete the article; I obviously misunderstood the use of that category. No need to slander my website though. --RossOliver
- I can see how there'd be a misunderstanding, so I'll try and explain as best I can. Categories are not intended to list all things that fit into that category, merely to list all things that fit into that category and qualify to appear in Wikipedia as per the policies and significant precedent that have been laid out. Lord Bob 21:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's fair enough, I misunderstood and I apologise. In fact, I even went as far as to politely apologise to this guy when he first listed my page for deletion and for him to come back and call my website 'pissant nonsense' isn't really on. --RossOliver
    - I agree, as that violates our civility policy, and assume good faith. Mr. Oliver, we sincerely hope that your site does develop great interest in the future, and that someday it will merit an encyclopedic entry on Wikipedia. FCYTravis 22:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd like to second that. This has nothing to do with the quality of the site (note to person below) nor about being mean or rude, but as to whether it currently belongs in an encyclopedia. I'd say no it doesn't, but I hope that some day it will! --kingboyk 10:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't say I'm surprised you've been poorly treated here. The insults that are being tossed around are beyond the pale. You deserve an apology. That said, I voted keep and think your site is good and merits a page at wikipedia. -- JJay 01:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Calton | Talk 04:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete running mediawiki does not make a site worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. Agnte 07:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The JPS 09:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Grue 14:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB.Gateman1997 18:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Danville, Illinois, Ward 7 Alderman Election, 2005

Local election results. NN, delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Looks to be close election with recount. Could probably be expanded. -- JJay 01:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of local interest only. Dlyons493 Talk 02:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Dlyons493. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Less than 1000 people voted and we probably don't have an article on the winner. If we did, the claims would be questionable under articles for deletion. Capitalistroadster 04:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas per Capitalistroadster. Hamster Sandwich 06:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, but I'm really curious as to that one write-in. Not too curious, though. Snurks ^{T C} 09:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Cap. PJM 17:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable. NN irrelevant, not official Wiki policy, just a guideline.Jcuk 21:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to a local election page for Danville as such an election is and should be notable for Danville. Davewild 22:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it notable simply for being decided by one vote? Do we have an article like "Elections decided by one vote" that this could be merged into? TMS63112 16:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We do have Close elections, maybe this could be renamed Close local elections. -- JJay 02:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deelte local intrest only --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Urindish

Neologism. There's nothing on google[8] about this. The author has removed the unreferenced template and left it with no sourcing. Seems highly unlikely that urndish is the 3rd most spoken language when its mentioned nowhere. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 01:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, per nom. Tufflaw 01:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. I mean, if there's an English Wikipedia, a Hindi wikipedia and an Urdu Wikipedia, then one woudl think that the "third most understood language" would have its own. DeathThoreau 01:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Speedy if possible. Nonsense.Hamster Sandwich 06:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the controversy related to the religious connotations of Hindi and Urdu is a very real one (that has indeed caused a long-running edit war to exist on those two articles, and that gives the U.S. English/Commonwealth English controversy a good run for its money), there is no evidence whatsoever that people have adopted this idea in order to distance themselves from it. Indeed, there's no evidence whatsoever that this idea even exists outside of Wikipedia. This appears to be the author's original invention. Delete. Uncle G 07:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non verifiable -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcuk (talk • contribs)
Comment: Just because you are not familiar with the term "Urindish" does not mean it does not exist. The usage of the term Urindish to refer to Hindi-Urdu language is slowly taking off and it is only a matter of time before it gains popularity. Author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amjadfarooq (talk • contribs)

Delete: Unreferenced, unsubstantiated term. Just because someone coins a term doesn't mean it is used in reality. --Ragib 07:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom Agnte 20:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus Ral315 (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woodson Lateral Road

It's just a road. Nominating this for precedence more so than its non-notability, but either works. Stifle 15:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge urban legend stuff about ghosts/whatnot into Woodson, Arkansas and redirect. howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 18:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and cleanup for tone if verified. I have no real preference about where this should be covered but local Urban legends of this kind deserve coverrage, although I wonder how a biker could die on such a straight road... - Mgm|^(talk) 00:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 01:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. -- JJay 01:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Good article on good road + what Jcuk said. -- JJay 21:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn road --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that it is heavily marked for tons of cleanup I'd like to see it have a chance to be improved and refrenced, if not it can always be relisted. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. I wanted to find something notable, and I tried. I like any article with the word, "wierdness" in it. But, in this case, I don't see anything to save nor hope it'll improve even with every cleanup tag we have. Ifnord 18:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The M1 is just a road but it has an entry. Woodson Lateral Road is verifiable, non notability is irrelevant as its not official Wiki rules, just guidelines by which some but by no means all Wikipedians choose to operate. Jcuk 21:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (feel free to Merge, as per Mgm). Notable means verifiable and well-known, and important, and liely to be looked up - what's irrlevant about that? "Some but by no means all Wikipedians" vandalize articles, but that doesn't make vandalizing either relevant or irrelvant to the usefulness of information in Wikipedia. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment - the deletion of this would not set a precedent, unless you're looking to form a precedent on urban legends. --SPUI (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MGcomics

Delete. Non-notable vanity web-site, according to Google only 13 other sites link to it. Tufflaw 01:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:WEB by a long shot. No offense, but it's very hard to assert notability with a sprite comic using other people's creative property.DeathThoreau 01:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It exists, is verifiable, and notability is just a guidline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians choose to operate.Jcuk 21:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My nose exists, too. And I am one of the Wikipedians who choose to operate via notability. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- commentMy nose exists too, as it happens, but you're not likely to find the fact on Yahoo or whatever, therefor writing an article about my nose would be non verifiable. You'll have guess I'm not one of the Wikipedians who choose to operate via notability... Jcuk 21:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, vanity, doesnt meet WP:WEB Agnte 20:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Zoe

Founder of Harbison Canyon

inappropriate entry--Schmiteye 01:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userify While it's great when people want to learn about their family history, wikipedia isn't the place to do it. There are a lot of websites, although I'm not really familiar with any of them, however this isn't one of them. DeathThoreau 01:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied as an attempt at communication. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kaffaria

From WP:PNT. Only been there a few hours, but consensus there is to delete as a hoax. Here's the discussion from WP:PNT... Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

German. "Kaffaria is a modification of the write art of the Kaffkas. In this kind of the letter one needs four pins, between each finger one. Then one must learn with each pin another letter to write, if one created that can one whole stories much shorter time write. Already Homerie Hugold(1312 1363) had at that time a similar schreibart, but only with three pins. The Kaffaria completed the write art then." (Babel Fish Translation) I can't make much of this other than it does not appear to be nonsense, vanity, nor an advertisement. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strange... no relevant Google hits for "Kaffaria" nor "Kaffar", nor "Hugolt". Doubtfully, but could it refer to something really rare but still valid, in the history? - Introvert ^talk 00:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a more exact translation: Kaffaria is a modification of Kaffka's [sic] art in writing. In this kind of writing, four pens are needed, one between each finger [sic]. Then one must learn to write another letter with each pen. When one has done this, one is able to write entire stories in much shorter [less] time. Even Homerie Hugold(1312-1363) already used to have such a way of writing, though only with three pens. [The] Kaffaria subsequently perfected the writing art.

Surely this is a spoof? Kaffaria is a geographical designation in South-Africa, but there is no connexion with the author Kafka (single f). Homerie, as far as I am aware, does not occur, but has overtones of Homer. Writing with a number of pens at the same time, surely, is a game only practised by children? The associations with Kafka and Homer must be relegated to the field of creative nonsense, as must the entire entry. Bessel Dekker 00:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It surely does look like someone's gotten into merry spirits already, so I was just being one step extra careful :) - Introvert ^talk 01:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, too. Well, they've had their fun, which is a nice thought for the season :-) Bessel Dekker 01:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So AfD as hoax? Or shall we let it sit here for two weeks first, just in case? Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is the best the author can do, it must be a hoax. Letting it sit might be an option, but only because this is the merry (and merciful) season. Should you wish to give the author a chance, by all means. But to be honest, I can see no merit in this article. Just re-read my translation above (if you can bring yourself to do it), and try to picture what it purports to describe. Bessel Dekker 01:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I say speedy as {{nonsense}}. Come on, writing with four pens in one hand as a way to write stories faster? Kusma (討論) 01:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - We go over this on WP:AFD all the time. If it is parseable English (or in this case, parseable German), it's not {{nonsense}}. If you can understand it, but yet it is complete bollocks, then it is definitely deletable, but requires debate on AfD. If fact, I think I'll AfD this article right away, since there seems to be consenus here on WP:PNT that it is worthless. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm the nominator) - delete per WP:PNT discussion. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I suspect it may have been inspired by Thea Alba, a German music hall performer billed as "The Woman with Ten Brains"; her act was to write on a blackboard simultaneously using ten pieces of chalk taped to her fingers. She's mentioned in Ricky Jay's Learned Pigs and Fireproof Women. Tearlach 02:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Translated it - I see someone's already done it above but I was bored. Very silly. --Last Malthusian 09:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, no consensus as to where the redirect should point. --Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Laser

This doesn't seem to exist (after looking on Google and the Star Wars wiki), and if it does, it's inaccurate. (The only Super Star Destroyer not in Imperial possession? Try Lusankya (eventually).) 82.27.25.214's other contributions seem similarly likely to be false. If deleting, look at "what looks here" too. Delete. TimBentley 01:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-canon fan-fiction that doesn't even make sense. This ship couldn't've fought in the Clone Wars: there were no Star Destroyers at the time. Marblespire 06:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This ship is already well covered in Super Star Destroyer#Named_Examples. The experts that maintain that page will remove that listing if this ship is too far from the canon. ×Meegs 17:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose redirecting to the middle of the huge Super Star Destroyer article as suggested below. If there's to be a redirect, I'd support Laser only. ×Meegs 06:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Laser (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to laser Jcuk 21:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to laser VegaDark 22:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Marblespire. -LtNOWIS 21:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trandoshan Rifle

This doesn't seem to exist (after looking on Google and the Star Wars wiki), and if it does, it's inaccurate. It doesn't fit with Boba Fett's history, and the reference to Ben Skywalker doesn't make sense. 82.27.25.214's other contributions seem similarly likely to be false. If deleting, look at "what links here" too. Delete. TimBentley 01:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is such a weapon as a Trandoshan Rifle in the SW universe. This isn't it. Even if the article was correct, it would not be 'significant' enough in the fictional universe to justify an article. Saberwyn 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~or transwiki~~ to the Star Wars wiki. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 14:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't transwiki. The information is false, possibly fancruft. The article is in no way canon (in its current form). Saberwyn 20:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 21:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we don't need tiny little articles about unverified fictional weapons, even if they are in the Star Wars univers. Madman 15:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would probably be notable if it were legit, but it's most likely not.-LtNOWIS 00:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Z-98 Walker/Fighter

This doesn't seem to exist (after looking on Google and the Star Wars wiki). 82.27.25.214's other contributions seem similarly likely to be false. If deleting, look at "what links here" too. Delete. TimBentley 01:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not in any way SW canon. Delete - Saberwyn 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've deleted the other contributions of this editor, and all of them appear to be hoaxes. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel New Bestine Infantry Transport

This doesn't seem to exist (after looking on Google and the Star Wars wiki). New Bestine has a Star Wars wiki entry (I couldn't find it anywhere else) that is considered noncanonical. 82.27.25.214's other contributions seem similarly likely to be false. Delete. TimBentley 01:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a stub about a fan-created star wars starship. Delete. Saberwyn 08:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:FICT Agnte 11:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tribi Works Inc.

This doesn't seem to exist (after looking on Google and the Star Wars wiki), and if it does, it doesn't give much information. New Bestine has a Star Wars wiki entry (I couldn't find it anywhere else) that is considered noncanonical. 82.27.25.214's other contributions seem similarly likely to be false. If deleting, look at "what links here" too. Delete. TimBentley 01:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm hearing chants of "fancruft, fan...cruft!" in the background here; or am I just going crazy. Saberwyn 08:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (for those not in the know, see Spam (Monty Python)) Saberwyn, thanks for a laugh. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aspirations Management

Self-promotion. Lincher 18:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOR. Stifle 00:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 01:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Original research or vanity as author of article cites himself. Delete B.Wind 04:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Durova 21:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't exactly follow where the article is going, and the phrase only gets 284 googles, many of which are false positives (i.e. "...aspirations, management..."). -Colin Kimbrell 22:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Zoe Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Pardee

Delete. Non-notable, vanity, reads like a resume. Tufflaw 01:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable within field, if asked, should be rewritten. JAD77 9:19, 18 December 2005

- In all fairness, it should be noted that this is the original author of the article in question. Tufflaw 02:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no proof, not even an assertion that anyone ever took notice of him. Folks, this is an encyclopedia, not a "Who-is-Who". Pilatus 02:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. Google wasn't much help either. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 02:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

S[eedied, nn-bio. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PESwiki

Incomplete AfD, completing nomination. This is actually an article that has been deleted before. Current form, it's a non-notable website, and the article barely exceeds db-empty criteria. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually in the middle of nominating this. NN wiki. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 04:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete if it is simply the recreation of a previously deleted article. Agnte 17:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is just a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians choose to operate. The site exists and is verifiable.Jcuk 21:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. --Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SourceryForge

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please put more effort into your nominations. "NN" tells us nothing more than "I think this article should be deleted". Try explaining why you think something is non-notable, what steps you have taken to establish this, and so on. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:WEB. Alexa Ranking: 5,132,421 — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the nominator has not investigated any of these wikis, judging by later nominations, and I have not had time to do so. I agree with JJay that there may be more merit than an Alexa rating may provide. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending further discussion. -- JJay 03:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 1800 articles, up to a thousand of them "seed" (empty) articles. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, that is pretty impressive. Is there anything else I should know? -- JJay 09:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 04:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN wiki. Agnte 13:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability is not policy, it is just a guideline by which some but by no mean all Wikipedians choose to operate.Jcuk 21:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn wiki --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fun name. -- Natalinasmpf 16:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TerrorWiki

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:WEB. Alexa Ranking: 496,111 — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the nominator has not investigated any of these wikis, judging by later nominations, and I have not had time to do so. I agree with JJay that there may be more merit than an Alexa rating may provide. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Like what? You just proved my point! Notability and WP:WEB are all that matter here. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable. -- JJay 03:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How? Did you go there (and see the only page: "Sorry, the wiki's been vandalized by spammers. I'm going to see if I can fix it")? Did you apply WP:WEB? Blindly keeping everything? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite surprised by your reaction. My comment was equal in length to your nom. As the nom, I fail to see why you withhold pertinent information regarding pages you nominate. Do you enjoy trying to make fools out of your voters? -- JJay 09:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not any more notable than your usual liberal websites. --Apostrophe 04:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A site's use of MediaWiki is irrelevant in determining notability. FCYTravis 06:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Now a non-notable website like this being kept–that is terrifying. Okay, not really. Still should be deleted, though. Lord Bob 13:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 13:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not Wikipedia policy just a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians choose to operate. This website exists (admittedly only just, but it does) and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Existance and verifiability are not, by themselves, grounds for inclusion, especially in the case of webpages. -Sean Curtin 06:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Grue 14:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real content on the site. I agree with JJay that including more info in nomination headers would be nice, though. -Colin Kimbrell 22:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Space Quest Omnipedia

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:WEB. Alexa Ranking: 1,098,681. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the nominator has not investigated any of these wikis, judging by later nominations, and I have not had time to do so. I agree with JJay that there may be more merit than an Alexa rating may provide. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like what? WP:WEB is the ONLY thing that should apply. That and the main page has less than 5000 hits and there are less than 1000 articles. This is a joke. If we have a standard and then ignore it for no discernable reason, what is the point? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. -- JJay 03:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not? It seems unique. How many other wikis focus on Space Quest? At the very least, the info should be merged to one of our space quest pages. -- JJay 09:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Space Quest Omnipedia is currently one of the links on the Space Quest page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin Kimbrell (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good work and thanks. I guess if the nom had merged and redirected it would have eliminated the need for this vote. -- JJay 22:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A site's use of MediaWiki is irrelevant in determining notability. FCYTravis 06:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As a passionate Space Quest lover, I am glad that I have discovered this website exists. That doesn't mean the website is encyclopaedic, of course! Delete, completely unremarkable. It is merely a wiki, not the Space Quest community's oldest and most cherished site or anything (that would probably be the Virtual Broomcloset...it's the oldest, anyway). Lord Bob 13:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails to meet WP:WEB in any way. Agnte 20:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:WEB is just a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians choose to operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Existance and verifiability are not, by themselves, grounds for inclusion, especially in the case of webpages. It deserves an external link at Space Quest, but that's it. -Sean Curtin 06:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete nn . Grue 14:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. howch e ng {chat} 16:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UniLang

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not just a wiki. Also a website, which looks fairly significant in its field. Nearly 3,000 forum members, which isn't bad for an academic site. CalJW 03:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep maybe not NN. -- JJay 03:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:WEB in any way. Agnte 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep UniLang is most known for its forum. Its wiki may not be notable enough for an article but this isn't about the wiki this is about the UniLang site as a whole (the forum, the main site, the wiki). The UniLang forum has 2949 members which is notable for a forum. --Revolución (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears to be notable enough for inclusion, based upon my reading of WP:WEB. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems pretty prominent, considering the subject matter. -Colin Kimbrell 22:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiFAQ

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems important. -- JJay 03:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Inportant how, exactly? Because WP:WEB and it's whopping 177 articles dissaggree. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You should have stated that with your nom. Given your track record (numerous speedy keeps) and complete failure to present a case for deletion, you left me no other choice but to seek to prevent the possible harmful loss of valuable information that might result from a reckless or foolhardy AfD nomination. -- JJay 09:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, given my track record? You clearly haven't a clue of which you speak. All my AfDs are good faith. Simply insinuating they are not based on nothing and then ignoring standards to spite me? We all need to invest in some more wikilove. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention your faith did I? I mentioned that you have repeatedly nominated and then speedily kept numerous articles that should never have come close to AfD. I won't list them here. I also won't discuss your habit of speedy deleting articles that do not fall within speedy guidelines. However, given that past history, I naturally tend to view you noms with some skepticism, particularly as you feel it is below you to justify them. -- JJay 02:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A half dozen questioned deletes out of more than 1600 is not a "habit," and the accusation is unfounded and bordering on PA. Three reversals, coincidentally on the same day, out of 13 months of nominating articles is not a track record. You are judging a book based on the first few paragraphs, where you shouldn't be judging at all. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm judging based on what I saw in the last few days. I thought, based on your noms, that you were a new user. I stand corrected. -- JJay 01:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you not only judged me unfairly, you didn't even bother to check out my user page or past contributions or logs (where you would have seen that not only am I not new, I am an admin)?--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was going by all those noms of the last day or two. I now know that I was being quite unfair. I take back and humbly apologize for my remark about your track record. That was wrong, and might be misconstrued as a personal attack. However, given that you are an admin, can you please end what is starting to look like a mockery of a farce at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czech resistance to Nazi occupation and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leticia Moreno. Also, thanks for reversing (speedily keeping) your other recent noms. I respect your character. -- JJay 02:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The former I have speedied. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the speedy keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czech resistance to Nazi occupation. You are a true gentleman and scholar. Furthermore, it is probably best to remain cautious on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leticia Moreno as the voting could still go either way and it may yet prove to be another in the unending series of classical music vanity scams I keep hearing about. -- JJay 08:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rest assured, the sarcasm of all your resposes here are frankly appaling. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm? I won't accuse you of making personal attacks, but can't you have the good grace to accept a compliment or an apology? -- JJay 10:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The Site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- My son has a website (hosted by my email provider) and it is verifiable. So what? mikka (t) 23:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oooh, I exist, for that matter. And it's verified! Who wants to write my article (so I can speedy it)? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- By this standard every website on the internet should have a wikipedia entry. Agnte 11:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - As an inclusionist Wikipedian, I'd have no problem with that. jc.
    - Woah, then you're the most hardcore inclusionist i've come across, congrats :) Agnte 17:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Dunno about that but thanks anyhow! *G* Seriously, if the article is verifiable, not scurrilous (spelling!!!), not obviously POV, I cant see what harm its doing by existingJcuk 21:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey, ah, but can we verify you exist by the guidelines set out in Wikipedia for doing so?! *G* Jcuk 17:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could be a hoax... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

del. nn website. mikka (t) 23:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN website, does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 11:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utetrly nn. Grue 14:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The wiki community benefits from more wiki's gaining visibility within the community, thus i see no problems with it. Jeff, I notice you went through the entire Category:MediaWiki websites and marked most for delition. My guess is these sites only help to spread the proverbial word and improve the code that wikipedia runs on. - MEP
Delete - "WikiFAQ states that they hope that by..." How about telling us about what WikiFAQ has done for us lately rather than what they want to do. Endomion 07:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiHealth

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Need more info. -- JJay 03:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, this wiki has less than 200 articles. Less. Than. 200. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. So are you saying that's good? Because if you convince me it's not notable, I might change my vote. As in, my vote, could change -- JJay 09:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. It's also recent, being started on April. It's nice, but not notable. --Apostrophe 05:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wiki with 158 articles. It has been edited 11 times since December 13. Punkmorten 10:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 13:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Beautifully presented skin though, and I wish them well. --kingboyk 17:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aggreed about the skin. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. mikka (t) 23:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Grue 14:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MWUsers

NN wiki forum. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. -- JJay 03:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with what? Have you read WP:WEB? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really want to discuss your nominations? -- JJay 09:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. --Apostrophe 05:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A forum with 135 users fails WP:WEB. FCYTravis 06:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 13:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Grue 14:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SailWiki

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A sailing wiki. May be unique or unusual. -- JJay 09:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 13:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.Gateman1997 19:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Existance, verifiability, and uniqueness are not, by themselves, grounds for inclusion, especially in the case of webpages. -Sean Curtin 06:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Grue 14:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. --Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

S23 Wiki

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. useful. -- JJay 03:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For whom, exactlty? It has less than 125 registered users, less than 5500 total pages. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly for the users of those pages. However, if these facts are pertinent to the discussion, why were they not presented earlier? -- JJay 09:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A site's use of MediaWiki is irrelevant in determining notability. FCYTravis 06:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 13:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.Gateman1997 19:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Grue 14:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is merely an opinion. Anyway, I think it's notable, so keep it. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 01:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course im biased, cause im running the wiki myself. But i just wanted to throw in google results. Results 1 - 10 of about 32,200 for s23+wiki | Results 1 - 10 of about 62,400 for is-root.de+wiki. (same place,different URL) Mutante23 08:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MattisManzel 22:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC), another biased starter of s23-wiki.[reply]
Keep Kunda23 23:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC), yet another biased member of s23 wiki, imploring those who have the power not to disassociate s23 wiki from the mother-meme-ship of Wikipedia.[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 08:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SeattleWiki

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasonably active and useful for its (large) locality. We should be encouraging other wikis. CalJW 03:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recentchanges shows twenty edits in two days. By what standards are you saying reasonably active? For a wiki that boasts less than 500 articles to boot. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Huge local interest. -- JJay 03:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Huge"? Okey Doke. --Apostrophe 05:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article, but I have no problem with it being an external link at Seattle, Washington. karmafist 06:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 13:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not voting, because as a participant in SeattleWiki I'm undoubtedly biased in its favor. However, allow me to point to a few examples of good work in that Wiki (much of it my own) -- Jmabel | Talk 03:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC):[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:WEB.Gateman1997 19:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 08:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skwik

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Could be good home for all the band articles we delete. -- JJay 03:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A site's use of MediaWiki is irrelevant in determining notability. 571 Googles. FCYTravis 07:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:WEB in any way. Agnte 16:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Grue 14:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. --Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 08:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infosecpedia

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Partly written by Jimbo Wales himself. CalJW 03:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So what? It's got a whopping 256 articles to it's name. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. CalJW makes a good point. Has the nom checked these wikis out? Since the noms give me no info, I think I'll have to default to keep on all of them. -- JJay 03:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EXCUSE ME? "Have I checked these out"? Are you applying accepted standards to these votes? I just said this wiki has 256 articles. I deleted 256 articles today alone. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted standards. It's funny you mention that. Where are the accepted standards for nominating race car drivers, award-winning violinists, and internationally-renowned infectious disease specialists to name a few of your recent choices? I would also be curious to know what standards you applied to your 256 deletions. I would hate to think that we might be excising vital submissions from new editors. Although, I'm sure that your speedies are only rarely overturned. -- JJay 09:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget top-tier college athletes who are nominated for deletion five minutes after article creation. Sawney 11:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. AfD is looking far too much like pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey today. --Agamemnon2 18:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is well beyond the stage of innocent childhood games. The nom seems to feel he is defending the Normandy beaches on D-Day. He uses a machine gun to kill most incoming, then takes the wounded to AfD. However, like the Czech resistance fighters- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Czech_resistance_to_Nazi_occupation - the underdogs will win out. -- JJay 19:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its seems as if you're just voting keep to spite the nominator. Say what you will about other noms - this article doesnt meet WP:WEB, it doesnt even come close, so it should be deleted. Agnte 20:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My original comment above explained it fairly well. -- JJay 21:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. Does not come close. Does not have an Alexa ranking [9], so not in top 100,000. Google indicates only 3 sites even link to it [10] , and one of those is this wikipedia entry. Agnte 20:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a slow growth does not make a project unnotable. Paul Carpenter 21:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm an admin on Infosecpedia. The site is not (IMO) notable enough to warrant an entry, and it's pretty much unmaintained now (have a look at recent changes -- pretty much all spam). — Matt Crypto 22:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A footnote at best. -Sean Curtin 06:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Grue 14:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ErrantryWiki

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Need info to judge notability. -- JJay 03:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

281 articles. 281. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Again. Again. Thanks. Is 281 enough? Seems like a nice start to me. Of course, if you think that's not notable, maybe we could merge the info from your wiki noms into a wiki list of some type. Lists are always helpful, I find. Don't you agree?. -- JJay 09:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A site's use of MediaWiki is irrelevant in determining notability. FCYTravis 07:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN wiki, does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 13:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Grue 14:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has fallen between the cracks, so I'm closing it myself. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Wiki

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Might be notable. -- JJay 03:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad it isn't: 121 articles. 121. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. 121 you say? Can you repeat that? It might still be notable. -- JJay 09:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A better question is, do you believe that it is notable? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB, wikipedia is not a web directory. Agnte 13:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Grue 14:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this myself as this seems to have slipped between the cracks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 21:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OrthodoxWiki

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Over 1,300 articles and accelerating. CalJW 03:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. How many Orthodox wikis exist? -- JJay 03:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A site's use of MediaWiki is irrelevant in determining notability. FCYTravis 07:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable enough. I've went there and I think I've heard of it mentioned online several places.--T. Anthony 10:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I'm one of the project's sysops, so I'm biased (I still get to vote!), but I have heard it being talked about it a good bit even outside of the Internet. —Preost ^talk contribs 10:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, notability is official Wikipedia Policy, Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry but I cant see anything on that page that says anything about notability. Verifiability, yes, but not notability. Jcuk 17:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Notability is a proposed Wikipedia policy. —Preost ^talk contribs 17:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Granted, but as of right now its only proposed policy.Jcuk 21:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well-maintained, informative place and with broad audience and editorship. Unlike the rest of wikicruft listed here it has notable context in wikipedia. mikka (t) 23:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per mikkalai. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- OrthodoxWiki isn't an obscure resource so its article shouldn't be deleted for allegedly being "non-notable". Critias 12:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not close to being notable, as based on WP:WEB. Traffic Rank for orthodoxwiki.org: 422,224 (not in top 10,000) [11]. 703 active users [12] (not over 5,000). No evidence that it has been the subject or national or international media attention. And having a few links from wikipedia doesn't demonstrate notable context. Agnte 17:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Heck, if Wookieepedia (Star Wars) can have it's own page, why can't this? Dumanov 01:28, 21 December 2005
Delete nn. Grue 15:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks like a quality resource that can only become more notable in the future. --Pmsyyz 09:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this wiki is notable Yuckfoo 07:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was FRIED. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fried human fucking

Delete. Patent nonsense. I originally attempted to speedy delete, but I respect Haukurth's changing to AFD. Tufflaw 02:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources providing notability of the idea are established. A Google search gives me nothing. I've added clean-up tags and contacted the new user who is writing the article. A pleasure to work with you, Tufflaw. - Haukur 02:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not even running a Google search on something like this. Author didn't verify his/her work with reliable sources, and for this particular case that satisfies me to vote delete. CanadianCaesar 02:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Patent nonsense. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 02:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Patently patent nonsense if ever I saw it... KC. 02:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really seeing it. I've heard of cannibalism and necrophilia; these things exist. It is disgusting, though. CanadianCaesar 02:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear Lord above, delete. Someone needs to have a word with this user. - Lucky 6.9 02:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete FCYTravis 09:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanborn UK

Non Notable forum (Alexa ranking 1,135,959). -- ReyBrujo 02:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. FCYTravis 07:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wikipedia is not a web directory. Agnte 13:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB, nothing else to make it special. - Bobet 02:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - FrancisTyers 16:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was O Keep after votes by annons and new users were discounted. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O RLY?

Another so-called internet meme which will be irrelevant in ten years, if not already. D e nni ☯ 02:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Informative!!
Strong Keep Wikipedia is such an excellent source of info about Internet memes (among other things, of course).
Speedy delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O RLY CanadianCaesar 02:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I'm not sure exactly why that was closed as a consensus to delete; and it may have gained notability since. ~~Abstain.~~ CanadianCaesar 02:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep it's a increadible meme spreading in the net. Keep this, is very interesting about speed of Internet memes.--Quackshot 02:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merging it with an some internet slang article would make it needlessly difficult to find. Kfroog 03:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
O KEEP Well written, informative, I've seen lesser articles on topics of much more importance. Agree with Kfroog. Tom Foolery 04:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
O KEEP. --Apostrophe 05:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep it's a well rounded, informative article on something that has been bugging people all over the internet... 'what is this o rly owl?' --Anonymous This user's seventh edit.
Keep O RLY is very popular and i've used this page as an explination. --Ryu 06:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC) This user's third edit.[reply]
Keep NaconKantari 06:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of the Internet memes which deserves to be kept. It's an interesting, funny, sophisticated and interesting meme - compared to the utterly puerile, juvenile and offensive Brian Peppers meme. FCYTravis 07:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now because it is relevant today, per above votes. If it turns out to be irrelevant in ten years, I'll gladly vote delete then. Wikipedia is beautiful for its fluidity. (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is relevant, probably should be referenced on the page on Internet jargon. --Thephotoman 07:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
YA KPY - It's a big enough meme. Darobsta 09:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was actually checking to see if there was an article on this. Was surprised to see it under VfD. Definitely noteworthy (especially as an indicator of how stupid internet memes can get -- ya, rly!). neckro 10:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NO WAI! Keep. Cernen 12:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found this helpful, really. This user's only edit.
Keep While memes could still be considered in their infancy, who can say what sort of sticking power they'll have? If this is still a problem in 10 years, I'll vote for deletion then. Acelin 18:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC) This user's only edit.[reply]
Delete. I disagree with all justifications detailed above and consider this to be an utterly unencyclopedic topic. --Agamemnon2 18:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Agamemnon2. Reyk 19:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Thirded! This is completely not notable and prone to vandalism and copyright violation! --DJH47 21:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. w00t. Pablo_Mayrgundter 8:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Very Strong Keep This is a part of internet culture that should be told! There are many other internet culture articles that should go before this one. This user's only edit.

The Internet doesn't have a culture unless you count clueless ranting, illiterate spam email and advertising banners. --Agamemnon2 04:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Keep That Is As Strong As Possible This is so important..people should learn about the internet, and its fads. This user's eleventh edit in eight months.
Keep this belongs on its own page apparently... ALKIVAR™ 21:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was just wondering about the history of the o rly owls and was happy to stumble upon this page. Without its wikipedia entry, I wouldn't have known what it was. I think most popular memes belong on here. This user's second edit.
Keep This is a lot more popular than most internet meme's, and i see it everyday. so what if its not relevant in 10 years, isnt that what HISTORY is for? Logging such things?. Jragar 01:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC) Jragar's only edit, even though his contribs page turns up no hits at all.[reply]
Keep Come on, its bloody brilliant. Which sycophant motioned for deletion? tut tut QrimmerQrimmer's 29th edit.

Comment: 29 edits, spread uniformly over a month? Works for me... -Colin Kimbrell 22:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant? You =do= lead a sheltered life. D e nni ☯ 03:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; not encyclopedic (as is the case with nearly all "internet memes"). --keepsleeping say what 03:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Really, is it less encyclopedic than Kilroy was here? The only difference I see is in age. Kfroog 09:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per Keepsleeping. WikiFanatic 03:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - graphics animation emblemic of pushing it past reasonable limits. [User:Metarhyme|Metarhyme]] 04:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep for Academia I am currently using this article in my paper for Sociolingustics in my discussion on Language of the Internet, and that alone I feel suffices for reasons to keep this article. It contains information pertainate to my research. Nearly all article are prone to vandalism and that is not sufficient grounds on which to remove an article. As for those who claim it as unencyclopedic, I ask that you please give me your definition of encyclopedic. If you mean something that would someday appear in a professionally published encyclopedia, then I'm afraid I disagree with you on the premise of Wikipedia. The nature of internet hypertext over print is that it allows for a much larger base of information, so while this information would not be pertainate enough to justify listing in a printed medium, it contains relevant information that seekers of knowledge would care to know. As for the person who claimed that there is no such thing as internet culture, I beg to differ. Even among professional circles it is recognized that there is such a thing as internet culture. I may not be a lingustics major, and I'm taking this class for fun, but I do know enough to claim that the internet does have a culture, and that the language used within the internet does have a history. Slang has literary significance just like any other language feature, and that of the internet is no exception. If you're really desparate for proof that I really am using this for my paper, look up Professor S. Dart at Macalester College a few weeks from now after I turn in my paper and ask if I discussed O RLY. --D. Ly 23:35 Dec 18 2005 (CST) This user's third edit.
weak keep... although I can't really see anyone typing this to find out about airports in Paris. Grutness...wha? 06:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC) (it's a joke, ok?)[reply]
Keep or speedy keep, exact search returns 204,000 hits on Google. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This should not be deleted, as it is a great example of a deversity of a langauge that has grown up on the internet. To say, it defines the modern genteralion, as teens use it for text, and even dome adults use it as well, if they are in a hurry. User:Tehmadbluebear This user's only edit.
Keep this article! I was here specifically looking for this, becuase I see it at least once a day on the forums I read and was really boggling over question: 'what's with o rly thing?' ~Ari 03:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC) This user's only edit.
Keep - David Gerard 16:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dumb but notable. If it fades into non-notability in a year then we can talk about deleting it. - Stlemur 16:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopedic, not notable, and banish the puppets. Agnte 17:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepThe O RLY Owl is the best -- it's on par with All your base, etc. User:Tryndamere 09:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC) This user's fifth edit, of which four have been AfD votes[reply]
Keep "notable" meme. --SPUI (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Wikipedia is genius because it providers a pretty reliable place where everyone can share knowledge or use it. Most of it is kept in real time and even if you have the littlest knowledge which may seem ridicolous and would never be ever needed, you can contribute. Since an encylopedia should cover pop culture, and this word is part of the rising Internet phenomenom, it should be kept as it can be useful to someone who is doing a report on the ever expanding and changing cyberworld. SandBoxer 23:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could use improvement, but the meme is indeed notable. --c3o 01:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if it's irrelevant in ten years I would think it should be kept for historical reasons. (internet phenomena and such).Garion96 (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable internet meme. --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 02:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Not quite up to the level of All Your Base, but I'd say this is the most pervasive meme of this year. A 02:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
O NOES! EXTREME Keep! One of the biggest memes to hit in a long time. It will (unfortunately) be with us for quite some time. Might as well document it. --Froggy 02:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SRSLY Keep. Rly. Rampart 03:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
YA RLY keep. Next we'll delete the entry on the US Constitution, since that's looking to be irrelevant in 10 years. --66.92.84.190 03:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
O COMMENT: can we BJAODN this discussion and then drag it out whenever we're taking ourselves too seriously? ^_^ Marblespire 04:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep this please erasing it does not make sense it is notable Yuckfoo 07:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I agree with ~Ari, I found this article useful in figuring out what was meant by 'o rly' CMJ 08:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe it should remain, as an example of a meme, since it is one of the largest to hit the internet, probably on par with the "Zero Wing". It definitely deserves to stay. axedesign 08:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pfctdayelise 13:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If All your base are belong to us has an article, this should too. Dan 17:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Ya rly!) The article is good, and the topic is fairly notable, IMO. — 69.211.123.29 18:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ya, RLY. Article is notable and part of internet culture, similar to all your base are belong to us. Those who say it isnt notable or encyclopedic, should understand that Wikipedia is not paper. Mystache 20:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this was removed, Then All your Base should be removed by the same logic. --Theredstarswl 00:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 200,000 on google Zig 04:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
O KEEP wheres the vote botten, it needs to be expanded
Keep Like others, I came here specifically looking for this entry. Few would say that internet memes represent a high point in modern culture but they nonetheless form part of the social background of the medium. --Mizake 12:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Where would people go to find out what these kind of, admittedly obscure, pop-culture references actually mean, if not WikiPedia? It is notable, and unlike other sources, the information listed; i.e. origin, meaning, history/evolution is encyclopedic. It may be a insignificant fad, but if it had no listing, how would you know?
Keep I agree with Mizake, this is a wonderful article on an obscure subject. This is one of the key components of Wikipedia, IMO. Not only informative, but a bit wacky.--droptone 14:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The meme is established and wide spread. It gets an extremely high number of hits on google and is thus notable. The article is appropriately sourced and is worthy of inclusion. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 18:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As you guys can probably tell this is a really biased vote. I guarantee you most of the "Keeps" are users from YTMND. Let a group of admins decide on what to do with this. It's just silly. --Tykell 20:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice to see good faith is alive and well on AFD! Uncyclopedia:O RLY? - David Gerard 22:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's always fun to have your motives and background second guessed by someone who knows nothing about you. I've not cast aspersions on the motives of the 'Delete' voters, but then my interpretation of the vote here was not quite so cynical. Yeah, that comment annoyed me. Does it show? --Mizake 00:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Suggestion is inherently invalid in that the reasoning used to justify recommendation for deletion fails Assume Good Faith guidelines. Lumbergh 05:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Delete?! NO WAI!) This doesn't seem to violate any policies or anything... Besides, it's a useful article with helpful information! Think about forum newbies asking what this O RLY owl people keep talking about is- This really is the ONLY really GOOD source on the topic. llamapalooza87 22:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Usage is currently widespread enough to be worth coverage. If that changes, we can always re-evaluate the situation later, as others have noted in earlier votes. -Colin Kimbrell 22:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It can be hard for those who only see the end products to figure out how trends, jokes, memes, etc. begin (Ever missed an episode of the Simpsons and subsequently failed to get a reference everyone else did?)- it's good to have an explanation. And it's a perfectly cromulent article. -- Jake 00:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It's a popular meme. —Zazou 01:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Certainly nowhere near the league of AYBABTU, but at least deserves an article. Turnstep
Keep a very large meme, definetly notable. Staxringold 16:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? Ja, wirklich! --Kotjze 22:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, please. Someone just said that in an internet forum another day, and I had no idea wath it meant. Keep please. 22 December 2005
Keep The O Rly owl rocks. When future generations come to the internet, shouldn't they be allowed to do research on what an "O Rly" owl is?
Don't Delete -- I fail to see the justification in whimsically deleting articles arbitrarily declared to be unencyclopaedic at the spontaneous and unsubstantiated decision of a small but loud group of misanthropes who do not understand the relevance of and importance of documenting the history and evolution of the internet. The O RLY owl is an important piece in the aforementioned history and evolution, and therefore ought to remain. Lumbergh 04:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should be kept, O RLY is a quickly growing internet meme and the phrase has been around for quite some time. This article is especially important for communities such as 4chan where the O RLY Owl originated. richjkl 06:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' In 40 years people will want to know this stuff. Endomion 06:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 23:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apptix

~~no claim of notability per WP:CORP WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 21:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep and add links to article WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 08:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stifle 00:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Palfrey 00:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 02:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Publicly traded Norwegian company [13]. -- JJay 02:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be legit. It is in Yahoo! Finance and Reuters [14] which qualifies "The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Also as JJay has already stated, it is a publicly traded company in Norway. --J. Nguyen 02:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay. Movementarian 04:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep and move to Le Bec-Fin. howch e ng {chat} 16:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Le Bec Fin

No claim for notability for this restuarant. Was previously speedied, but doesn't qualify under CSD. Delete Owen× ☎ 02:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Four Stars in Michelin is a claim of notability, and if it can be verified (and rewritten to seem less like an A4 speedy), then Keep. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix per Jeffrey. The original entry was a weblink placeholder; the current version is better but still an ad. I've left word with the user. - Lucky 6.9 02:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Google rank is very low. There's no such thing as a 4 star Michelin ranking - only 3 places in the world have 3 stars! Here's a list and they're not on there - http://www.homestead.com/andyhayler/files/3_Michelin_Star_Restaurants.htm Jgritz 03:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as rewritten by Capitalistroadster too.Jgritz 06:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are more than 3 restuarants with three star rankings, the link provided above shows something like 26 in France alone. However, this notability claim is false as Michelin does not rate restaurants in North America.

Keep as rewritten by Capitalistroadster. Movementarian 04:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Michelin has started in NYC http://www.michelinman.com/difference/releases/pressrelease02232005a.html?source=4]. --JJay 04:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That guide is not released until 2006 (I realise that it is fast approaching, but until it is released my previous statement is correct) and only covers NYC. This restauraunt is in Philly. Movementarian 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thought the book was launched because I remember seeing it on the news. -- JJay 05:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough. -- JJay 04:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable restaurant. Esquire magazine described it as America's finest French restaurant in 1993. Extensively referenced in books see [15] and Perrier published a book of recipes in late 1990s. I have expanded and referenced the article. Capitalistroadster 04:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Un grand merci à notre formidable homme à tout faire, M. Capitalistroadster. -- JJay 05:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move I lived in Philadelphia during my college years, and can attest that Le Bec-Fin is extemely well-known there, and is something of a household word, given as an example of something expensive or high-class. There are not a whole lot of encyclopedically-notable individual restaurants out there, but this is one of them. Should be moved to Le Bec-Fin, its real name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. It exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 22:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Uchi

No Google hits at all. Hoax? Perhaps a typo, if someone could find a real name that corresponds to the contents of this article. -- Curps 02:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Honasan seems to be accepted as the leader. There's a list of related people at [16] but none look like Uchi. Dlyons493 Talk 12:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hits on google on various spelling variations either, or just the first or second name with context. Smitz 19:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. unverifiable. Agnte 20:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 06:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waddle

Page was made again on here, but used as a different thing. This song was never a single. It is a song that was released, but it hasn't been on an album or isn't a single. Y5nthon5a (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are provided (to show that it exists, and is notable). Terraxos (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not asserted. --Yamla (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Bob

Looks unverifiable and smells of vanity. Blue Man Group doesn't mention any such instrument, and anyway, the only claim here is that it's "similar" to what they use. CDC (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep It is a real instrument, just give me some more time to add on more to the article--Jakewater 23:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here is PROOF that it exists go to http://www.bluemanlibrary.com/instruments.php and scroll down to the TUBULUM and that is a picture of what is similar to the bob.--Jakewater 23:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Either the page needs a complete overhaul, or maybe more substantial information can be provided. Looks like a vanity page to me too. le petit vagabond 23:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blue Man Group was there first, and have the advantage of being notable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, the insturment just happens to be very similar to the one from the blue man group,i am using it to compare.--Jakewater 00:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, from your description it's closer to the PVC than the Tubulum anyway. The Tubulum has the rubber "reeds" on the end and is played with drumsticks; the PVC is bare pipe and is struck with paddles. And it's still not notable. Where would we have seen a performance with this instrument? TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At deerfield high school they make many preformances of the bob. Just give me a chance to put some more information on it, then once ive put all of the information on it, then you cna decide if you want to delete it.--Jakewater 00:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to deerfield high school. -- JJay 22:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ ~~Merging would be absolutely idiotic! The bob is not the same as Deerfield Highschool. Just keep it the way it is now, and then after a while it will be edited.~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakewater (talk • contribs) 16:13, 14 December 2005 Note: This is user's second "Keep" vote.

Ok, I've crossed out my vote along with your second vote. Neither of us want to be idiotic, right?-- JJay 01:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
i crossed out thing i said to, i should have worded it differently--Jakewater 03:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 02:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research unless outside references are provided. Movementarian 04:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable; reference to Blue Man Group appears to be desperation, for if the tabulum and the bob are the same instrument, BMG's prior use of it would give the tabulum name more weight. Only the high school band is referring to an instrument called a bob; the term must become much more widespread before entering here. B.Wind 04:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fact that something is called "The Bob" in one high school band may be a fact, it may even be verifiable... but it is utterly and completely unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 07:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utterly insignificant. --Agamemnon2 18:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unverifiableJcuk 22:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insignificant, original research. Tom Foolery 14:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This is a real insturnment and i am surprised that none of you have heard of it! I know there are some websites talking about the bob that i could put on in the article--Crstar20 08:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The above user has only a handful of edits to his name, about half of which are vandalism. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 11:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Indeed, one the vandalized articles is the one under discussion, just about a week ago. [17] TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - dispite that fact, he still brings up a good point. It is a real insturnment. It seems as if the only reason that people are trying to delete this article is because of the name, if this insturments name was something like the "Jiolin" or some random name, people would agree that it is a real insturnment--Jakewater 19:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - No. Please read the votes. Whether or not it's real is entirely beside the point. And please don't separate my sig from my comments. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary - Unless more can be added this is a definition anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James084 (talk • contribs)
- Comment Except that Wiktionary also has standards of verifiability and notability. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson

Vigosegest

Delete. Non-notable, vanity, ZERO hits on Google. Tufflaw 02:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to New College of Florida. — JIP | Talk 16:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New College of Florida Police Department

The entity in question is non-notable...are we going to include every university police department? Nsb3000 03:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New College of Florida. It is the police department of a public university and thus a government agency, however the main article is quite short and this article is merely a stub (and likely to remain so). Movementarian 03:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with New College of Florida. B.Wind 04:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per B.Wind. FCYTravis 07:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merte to New College of Florida xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Jcuk 22:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as per the others. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Notable and verifiable. Pincus 03:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Good P**** H** 08:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Narcotics trafficking in the USA

Unsourced rant. I'd like to see some proof that Mexicans are the most responsbile for narcotics trafficking, because I don't believe it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - editorializing. B.Wind 04:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to War on Drugs. Capitalistroadster 05:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for glaringly unsourced info. I'm surprised that Kappa created this article. --Apostrophe 05:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As per xyr edit summary, Kappa was doing Wikipedia:Articles for creation work on behalf of an anonymous user. Uncle G 07:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination 208.54.14.17 20:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And provide better article framework on drug trafficing 24.131.196.58 18:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - FrancisTyers 16:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glitter's Cap-Page Board

Seems to be just advertising for this website (WP:NOT) KC. 03:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, message board with 276 registered users. Fails WP:WEB and has no claim of notability in the article. - Bobet 02:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising. failed WP:WEB. Agnte 12:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 08:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Musopen

NN website promoting free music. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention they forgot to add the external link to boot. Delete for certain; speedy as link spam if possible. - Lucky 6.9 03:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But rewrite if it sounds like advertising. Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 22:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ and cleanup based on the national news coverage. -- JJay 02:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Abstain for now as Bobet has made a compelling case for lack of news coverage. -- JJay 02:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and don't believe everything an article says. To me, the whole mention of national media coverage looks like something cut and pasted from a wikipedia guideline (after it was afd'd) so that it could claim notability. 4 google hits for "musopen.com" isn't national news coverage, and the claim isn't even sourced. - Bobet 02:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that there was no coverage? I assumed it was true because the nom did not comment about it. -- JJay 02:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there has been national media coverage, it's been in a country that has no access to the Internet. - Bobet 03:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and Bobet. Agnte 20:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Findlay Village Mall

Non-notable mall Hirudo 03:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not only nn, but article has a POV problem, too. Lack of references and Wikification are additional problems. B.Wind 04:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertising. Madman 15:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite to remove NPOV issues. Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. Jcuk 22:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even though I go there all the time. Except for very large malls (and IMO no mall in Ohio is "very large"), they're not encyclopedic enough. -- Grev 01:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agnte 20:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Cassava Enterprises. howch e ng {chat} 17:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Casino on net

Totally non notable ± the adlike nature of it. Has ZERO pages linking to it. ((Comment later added to the AfC page): Alexa ranking in the 25 000s) 68.39.174.238 03:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is one of the first and most well-known online casinos. Rhobite 05:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, there's a page on such things (Online casino) that could have a "History" section created if this is old enough to warrant discussion. I still maintain this does not deserve its own page unless there's something unique or lengthy that can't be better put on the general page. 68.39.174.238 05:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very easily in the keep category. Calsicol 11:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Well known company. On the other hand, it does seem rather adlike... but then that means the article needs to be improved rather than deleted. -Halo 14:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- HaH! That was easy! Just drop that second section and it's now almost wholly factual. Also, a poser for those who know this place so well: Is it "Casino on net", "Casino on Net", or "Casino-on-Net" ? I've seen all three and suspect only one's actually the real name. 68.39.174.238 16:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 22:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 888.com into ~~888 Holdings PLC~~ Cassava Enterprises. The specific websites that ~~888 Holdings PLC~~ Cassava runs aren't as notable as the company itself, which is notable for its prolonged and expansive pop-up advertisement campaign. --Stephen Deken 19:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly redirected this article to Cassava Enterprises, which I just created. --Stephen Deken 17:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Cassava Enterprises. howch e ng {chat} 17:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

888.com

Same as Casino on net, seemingly non notable ad. Also, has three things linking to it: A userpage of articels about websites, and Casino on net and Pacific Poker, both directly related to these people and ad-like. Casino on net is up for deletion (by me) as an ad, the other one was kept as somewhat notable. I don't exactly if these people are notable by relation. AfDing it to see. 68.39.174.238

Keep, to quote the Financial Times "888.com, the world's largest internet casino operator in terms of numbers of visitors, aims to launch an initial public offering in London next Thursday that is expected to value the group at more than £700m ($1.3bn)." [18]. Also sub-200 Alexa rank [19] Kappa 04:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is notable I would think it'd not be so orphaned around here. If I get a flood of keep votes and see them before anyone wants to delete I suspect I'll withdraw it. 68.39.174.238 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:CORP. Kappa has cited a Financial Times article. This Ireland Online article indicates that the company has recently been added to the FTSE 250 on the London stock exchange see [20]. Capitalistroadster 05:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounded like a 3rd party observer, but if it's legit, OK. Keep and/or redirect to online gambling. 68.39.174.238 06:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As per Capitalistroadster and Kappa, the company satisfies the WP:CORP criteria (and is a datum supporting the assertion that companies that are used to calculate stock market indexes will satisfy the primary criterion by their very nature). Keep. Uncle G 07:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reason given. Calsicol 11:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily meets WP:CORP. Agnte 13:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable online casino. Rhobite 22:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable online casino, although Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 22:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfies the criteria set by WP:CORP. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Casino on net into ~~888 Holdings PLC~~ Cassava Enterprises. The specific websites that ~~888 Holdings PLC~~ Cassava runs aren't as notable as the company itself, which is notable for its prolonged and expansive pop-up advertisement campaign. --Stephen Deken 19:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 888.com is the shirt sponsor of Middlesbrough F.C. howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 23:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly redirected this article to Cassava Enterprises, which I just created. --Stephen Deken 17:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 22:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crispin Wallace-Ingersoll

Delete This page fails WP:V: it is not verifiable. While Rainer Maria Gerhardt was a poet, he died in 1954 [21] and is not indicated anywhere on Google as having a work called Metabolisme. If Metabolisme was published posthumously in 1956, how can it have been Gerhardt's first citation of the alleged nom de plume Crispin Wallace-Ingersoll? The article may well be a hoax; even if not, it has been flagged unreferenced since August 2005 and no one has provided references. See the talk page for further argument indicating unverifiability and possible hoax. -- JimR 03:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's had its 15 mins of fame. Hoax. Dlyons493 Talk 12:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 18:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nusearch

Doubtful meet WP:WEB. No sources. pfctdayelise 03:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Its an advertisment! Does not meet WP:WEB. Traffic Rank for nusearch.com: 1,244,356 [22] Agnte 14:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 22:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in accordance with official Wikipedia notability policy, despite Jcuk's claim to the contrary. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. howch e ng {chat} 17:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commision Junction moved to Commission Junction

Substub, adlike, of the two links at the bottom (Which comprise close to ½ the article) one is the subject itself, the other is a forum about them with ZERO posts. No Wikipedia pages link to it (The page). Should also mention they misspelled "Commission" ((Note: This was added to the AfC section after this page was created): Alexa rank in the 400s, but I'm still not sure of its notability.). 68.39.174.238

Keep. Notable online marketing company. Among its clients are Yahoo and eBay. Alexa ranking of 431 Obviously it should be moved to Commission Junction. JoaoRicardo^talk 05:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Kappa 05:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also, I don't know if anons should be starting afd listings. Rhobite 05:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As a rule, no, but User talk:68.39.174.238 shows the record of a pretty trusted user. (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anons can't create AfD pages since they can't create new articles. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll settle for renaming it and letting it die of neglect > ; D! (Consider this a withdrawl if you want). 68.39.174.238 05:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do we really have to have pages for every e-marketing, click-targeting, advertising, sleazy spam scam on the internet? there are thousands of these companies.. google might be a place for them, but an encyclopedia is not. Jabo 07:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reason given by nominator, ie. Alexa rank. Calsicol 11:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanx to whoever rewrote it and moved it. As much as I dislike having "notable" articel that's unlikely to ever get very much larger then that, it's not such a blatant ad as to seem like AfD fodder. It's to late to withdraw though, based on the excellent point made above, though... 68.39.174.238 15:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 22:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is official Wikipedia policy, despite your repeated claim to the contrary. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  - No, it is not, unfortunately, though I believe it should be. See Wikipedia:Notability. It explicitly says: "There is currently no official policy on notability." JoaoRicardo^talk 18:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - See the official policy at WP:CSD in which speedy deletes can be performed on unremarkable people. Zoe (216.234.130.130 23:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
      - Yes, it is a strange situation. Maybe we should discuss it more on some other place. I'll start a discussion about it at the Village Pump. JoaoRicardo^talk 02:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Harro5 Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 10:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Hoffmeister

Vanity. pfctdayelise 04:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as {{nn-bio}} / CSD A7 Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Jamie. B.Wind 04:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyright violation of [23] biography of David from the website. Capitalistroadster 05:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wow, two speedy tags. I wonder what the Wikipedia record is for most CSD's legitimately satisfied by a single article. :) Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 18:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bitscape

Seems totally non notable. Articel is a stub, gets no links but from some usrtalk pages. Also, Alexa ranking in the 1 000 000s. 68.39.174.238

Delete per nom. No claims of notibilty, reads like an advertisment. Agnte 14:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 22:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per official Wikipedia notability policy, despite Jcuk's repeated protestations to the contrary. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Many sites exist and are verifiable - we don't need to have articles on all of them. utcursch | talk 10:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB, nothing else in the article to indicate notability. - Bobet 02:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. howch e ng {chat} 17:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goals Soccer Centers moved to Goals Soccer Centres

Article on one not particularly notable 5-a-side football (soccer) organisation in the UK; reads like a website for the organisation Daveb 04:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Real organization, with facilities in 18 cities in the UK according to their website. Needs a cleanup. Should be moved to Goals Soccer Centres. JoaoRicardo^talk 04:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily notable enough in the UK. Calsicol 11:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate, however in this case I'd argue they ARE notable anyhow. The company exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 22:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite your repeated spamming of this untruth across Wikipedia, NN is very much official policy, as indicated at WP:CSD. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  - Whose spamming? I have a point of view. That point of view is that notability is not official policy, which is why I vote to keep things that are said to be non notable. I'm supposed to vote "Keep" without stating why? The reason happens to be the same, as I seek out so called non notable articles up for deletion. By the way, I cant see anything at WP:CSD that says anything about notability. However at Wikipedia:Biography it states quiet clearly that notability is a guideline not official policy.Jcuk 17:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know it is not an official policy, but let me ask you something. Do you think that verifiability is the only acceptable standard for inclusion in Wikipedia? What if I want to write an article on my PC, or on my left toe, or on that day I went to the zoo when I was 8? Articles on these topics could be verifiable, but would they belong here? JoaoRicardo^talk 18:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, as there are accepted ways of verifying something, for example does it have X number of hits on Google. Therefor, whilst Iron Maiden would have multiple hits, Freddie and the Flintstones, who have had one practice session in Freddie's dad's garage would have no hits. Or maybe one if they had the nouse to write a website, but that would not count as verification. Jcuk 21:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Significantly notable in England and Scotland. The person who listed this article for deletion is located in Wales, thus isn't aware of its notability in England and Scotland and has failed to research into the matter. EnglishRose 11:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- - That was indeed me, thanks for the info JoaoRicardo. Englishrose 14:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
- Previous vote is actually by User:Englishrose. Please sign your name using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. And remember that the wiki software is case sensitive. JoaoRicardo^talk 21:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Siplian Gender-Changing Ritual

No sources, the "PhD" line makes me suspect it's possible original research, which would of course contravene WP:NOR. pfctdayelise 04:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This has got to be a hoax. -- JJay 04:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably a hoax. Article has many inconsistencies (eg: there are no indigenous people in Antartica, clicks have been found only in Africa etc). JoaoRicardo^talk 04:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete As per Joao. DeathThoreau 05:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NaconKantari 05:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete bollocks Jcuk 22:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Dinosaur Dance

A dance that was done at a highschool and has not gained widespread recognition. Delete. —Brim 04:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- JJay 04:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be danced in only one locale. I wonder if The Bob is played at that dance. B.Wind 04:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 17:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too bad no speedy criterion applies. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tesoro High School in Las Flores, CA article if in fact such an article exists...Jcuk 22:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator, not notable. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 10:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz 06:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. howch e ng {chat} 17:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

nn web forum with 5 members. Revealing review by someone on alexa.com:

This site is just a series of essays offering the personal view of a Canadian retired engineer - and one who admits to having no standing in the academic or religious communities. His essays are poorly written, and his conclusions often say the complete opposite from all his sources. The writer has a good name for his website, which no doubt helps him get lots of web traffic, but the content is no better than a poor essay from an untrained 16 year old

User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll bet that "someone" on alexa.com is User:Jguk. Strong Keep - this website gets millions of hits a week and has been cited by newspapers, other prominent websites, etc. Your own personal opinion of their veracity has nothing to do with their notability. What's with Wikipedia's sudden war on this site? Firebug 05:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Whether you like or disapprove of OCRT, their website is a commonly used site and is heavily searched and referenced on the internet, to the point of being an internet phenomenon at the very least. Don't censor it. Yahnatan 04:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. I've certainly heard of them; been cited by the Toronto Star, BBC, CBS etc. CanadianCaesar 04:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - A notable and often-referred-to site in many religious discussions I've had. Certainly a wealth of information (nearly 3000 essays written). And for the record, "Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance" (including quotes) returns 80,400 Google hits. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 05:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This website has been often discussed in the media. Jabo 07:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move The article should be moved to Religioustolerance.org (which is currently a redirect) as, although the OCRT is non-notable of itself, as noted above its website has some notability/notoriety and is a suitable subject matter for Wikipedia, jguk 08:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given above. Calsicol 11:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with the proviso that voting to keep the article does not in any way, shape or form indicate acceptability of them as a source. (Man, it's sad that I have to specify that, isn't it?) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The anonymous Alexa review is not weighty evidence of anything. They may or may not be an NPOV source, but that is not for us to decide. --Agamemnon2 18:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable.Jcuk 22:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There are millions of websites. Shall we have an article on all of them? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Certainly not, but this one happens to be an often-cited, well-known website. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 03:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not what Jcuk is saying. He is saying that there should be an article on every website that exists and is verifiable. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
      - I'm not, I am saying there COULD be an article on any website that exists and is verifiable. Not SHOULD. Jcuk 17:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unfortunately - it is indeed someone talking off the top of his head, but it gets quoted lots and lots in cult studies, particularly by the cults, because it takes Sympathetic Point Of View - David Gerard 16:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've used them as a source in the past when writing short stories that touch topics like Wicca and New Age Religions briefly. In light of the aforementioned, I shall not make the same mistake again. I just wish there WAS an unbiased source online, though I clearly see the impossibility thereof. You cannot fight stupidity with knowledge, stupidity will always win. --Agamemnon2 19:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Religioustolerance.org. Right now, the name of the website isn't even in the article, which seems odd. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Zoebb moved to talk page. --cesarb 15:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Ejaculation (grammar). howch e ng {chat} 17:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Religious ejaculations

dicdef, if that; should not be in plural, and not really any different from Ejaculation (grammar) Flapdragon 04:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's an article for creation, give it more than a minute or two. Kappa 04:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- JJay 04:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to clarify your reasoning? Kappa 04:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't realize it was being worked on. -- JJay 04:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it will be expanded but the requester gave a good explanation and it can be harmlessly redirected if not. Kappa 04:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the request, but still tend to agree with the nom here. Will refrain from voting because I'm not sure. -- JJay 05:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. ERcheck 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge first sentence with Ejaculation (grammar). --Apostrophe 05:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the first sentence- and only the first sentence, with Ejaculation (grammar). The rest is original research. I Googled it and saw an educational website using the term, so it perhaps doesn't deserve complete deletion, but in its current state it shouldn't be kept. CanadianCaesar 06:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because the article title is hilarious. Jabo 07:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Apostrophe. Movementarian 08:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move, Merge and Redirect The article title should be Religious ejaculation. I find no harm in having the title remain, although the content of the article in its current state certainly doesn't warrant its own article. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 08:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep maybe move to Pious ejaculation which is a term which appears in Wuthering Heights, Bret Harte and Mark Twain. Dlyons493 Talk 12:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Ejaculation (grammar). Jcuk 22:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect and expand at Ejaculation (grammar); at least for the time being. At least the first sentence is valid content; and a fair amount could be written on the cultural practice of using these semi-impromptu responses in religious ceremonies. Smerdis of Tlön 05:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The shadow of a society

Stub for planned movie still looking for funding. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ERcheck 04:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination. ERcheck 04:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've seen a lot of these.. Jabo 07:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Agnte 14:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Marotta

Unable to verify. A Google search turned up besides the usual wikimirrors two Joey Marottas: a background musician who did some work on one of Peter Gabriel albums and the user name of someone banned from an online gaming group for cheating. While the former is probably marginally notable enough for an article., this article doesn't appear to be about the musician but some supposed sketch comedy actor/writer/producer. Delete and possibly write a new stub about the musician to plug the gap. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. No google hits. Joe Marotta on IMDB does not appear to be the same person [24] Agnte 14:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article has no information beyond his job and where he lives. That's not very useful, since you can't even figure out if a google hit is about the same person, making the article useless (pretty close to csd A1). - Bobet 02:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. This vote had a little of everything, and I'm not comfortable with merging anything per the few "rewrite" votes. Ral315 (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of the Verse of Rajm

This article has no text except for quotes from other people. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep Can you let me work on it? i created it some minutes ago, man... --Striver 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down - only 19 minutes between initial post and AfD? This is way too early for a nomination, especially since there have been at least six edits since the AfD. B.Wind 05:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There is still nothing there but quotes. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's now substantial content. Rewrite Dlyons493 Talk 12:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There is still nothing there but quotes. Your chararacterization does not address my reason for listing this. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seemed very early to nominate an article with content (even if that consisted of quotes). However, it seems to have stopped there and the odds of the author expanding it are now lower. It clearly needs a context to make it intelligble to non-Muslims. Dlyons493 Talk
Keep and lay off the nominating articles that have existed for less than a day!!!!! Jcuk 22:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no, I don't think so. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename and completely revise. Merge with Rajm. I'm changing my vote. The article should be merged into Rajm (a much better title) and rewritten. Zora 21:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rationale: Striver is unlikely to improve this article, since he has an imperfect command of English. He writes stubs, not complete articles, and has said that it is up to others to fix his work. He also creates incomplete lists, or copies and pastes from online sources. This article was clearly created by cutting and pasting from online hadith collections. It completely lacks any narration that would clarify the issue for confused readers. Yet it IS a notable issue in Islamic history and even in current events, since it concerns the Quranic justification -- or lack thereof -- for the stoning of those convicted of adultery. If it were retitled to something like Islam and stoning (I'm not set on this title, there are probably better ones) and given another 30 KB of exposition, it could be a useful article. As it is, it is both unfindable and useless in its present form. Zora 00:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it is fair enough to have an article on a text in its own right. Maybe there should be a close relation with a more detailed article on punishment in Islam. jnothman ^talk 00:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - A text? This is not A TEXT, this is several hadith, or collected oral traditions, from collections with thousands of them. More than 17,000 in Bukhari and Muslim alone. Striver pulled out hadith relating to one particular issue. It's the issue that's in play here, not the hadith. Tafsir (commentary) and sira (history) are relevant too, not just hadith. This is a job for ... Islamic-studies-scholar-man! I wish he would jump out of the phonebooth right now. Zora 01:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite Should be explanatory rather than merely quoting the Hadith. Texts belong in Wikisource and the article currently does not explain (whether in good or bad english, I don't mind) the relevance and significance of this hadith. jnothman ^talk 00:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems like it can be improved based on comments from Zora. I'm willing to give Striver much more time to clarify the concept. -- JJay 03:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ill work some more on this soon, i couldent do that for two days. --Striver 12:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge info into Rajm. Given the societal context that Rajm is one of the least understood topics within Islam, how about writing a complete article on stoning in islam, aka rajm, and including these hadith as links into that article. It could include the Sunni view, Shi'a view, and also historical facts involving the punishment of rajm. It could be linked from the stoning article under the Islam section. [Previously left unsigned accidently] Pepsidrinka 22:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into Rajm. Keeping bias that will not be improved makes wikipedia biased. After 10,000 edit my inclusionist idealism died. I'd rather have the article neutral in five years than something out of context, etc. now. Not that Rajm is an exemplary article or anything. gren グレン 20:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - give the article a bit time, its only been created a few days ago, and i'm sure Striver will improve/develop it. --Khalid! 18:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison Between the Legal Systems of the Middle East and the West

This article reads like a rant in some places, hasn't been touched for six months and if someone else can find a proper place where it can be redirected, please be my guest. Otherwise, "Delete". Hamster Sandwich 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic, POV essay/rant as written, doesn't look like anything is really there to be salvaged... a... profound example of this truly sacrilegious and “backwards” phenomenon... the “blood for oil” war against the peoples of the Middle East etc. --W.marsh 05:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comparisons are inherently original research. --Apostrophe 05:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Capitalistroadster 05:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above commments. Movementarian 08:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Reyk 19:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 23:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - FrancisTyers 16:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

White Collar Child Abuse

Aside from the fact that the current article is entirely POV, "white collar child abuse" is not a notable expression. It's an attempt by the fathers' rights movement to capitalize on the visibility of "white collar crime" with their own neologism. Rhobite 04:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Need additions, interesting topic. I would like to hear more on White Collar Child Abusers. Neutral for now. Kwalker
Unsalvageable (I don't know if I spelt that right) Delete ε γκυκλοπαίδεια * (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Its got a nice little link dump. I guess there's a few questions to ask here:

Is this already covered in Child Abuse?

Should this be included in Child Abuse?

Can it be WP:NPOV to refer to it as "White Collar"?

Is the research as listed there useful?

Is it a common enough split from Child Abuse to be worth its own sub category? i.e. are we going to have Blue Collar Child Abuse, Redneck Child Abuse, Yuppie Child Abuse etc?

I really don't know, so I will leave my vote until I've seen what others have worked out. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP not soapbox. Child abuse industry already exists (at about the right length, and tolerably NPOV) --Squiddy 11:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and remove soapbox Agnte 14:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - c'mon, we're trying to run an encyclopedia here, not a newsgroup. Madman 15:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a bulletin board. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied and replaced with protected {{deletedpage}} by User:Harro5. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meredith Belbin

delete: blatant copyvio, advert — Shadowhillway 05:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Not sure about the copyvio, but it is definitely an ad. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copyvio from Belbin Team Roles. --Apostrophe 05:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: too bad we didn't catch it sooner, so it could be speedied as {{db-copyvio}} / CSD A8. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Apostrophe. - Eagle^a^mⁿ 05:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Check the deletion history on the article. It's already been deleted twice as copyvio. I'm going to tag it for speedy as {{db-repost}} / CSD G4. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 20:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time Crisis (rock band)

A band found two days ago is not notable. I mean, I could write things on Wikipedia about what I did on Friday : ). I know the author was well-meaning, nonetheless, delete ε γκυκλοπαίδεια * (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely nn; Wikipedia articles are never written in the second person. B.Wind 05:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, YANNB (yet another non-notable band). Can we please have a CSD for these? Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 10:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or {{db-repost}}. Punkmorten 10:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. Tagged. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 10:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. howch e ng {chat} 18:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Residence hall director

Poorly written article with little substantiation and few (no) references. More importantly, the very term is ambigious and resistant to definition as different institutions use it to refer to graduate students with limited responsibility or professionals with Masters degrees and signficant responsibility. I think this is (or should be) covered adequately in the Residence Life entry. ElKevbo 05:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Residence Life is also on AfD. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. However, I believe the newly-edited and expanded Residence Life is both acceptable (no votes to delete at the moment) and adequately covers the topic of Residence hall director. I could be mistaken, however, and welcome further discussion. --ElKevbo 21:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm going to try to spruce up the article a bit, but it is an important topic that needs to have an article here and not just be absorbed into the residence life article. We'll need to get rid of the Resident Assistant article too if ElKevbo's argument is valid . Being poorly written is not justification enough for deletion. I don't see at all how the term is at all ambigious, and all that is needed is a bit of rewording (which I think I'll go work on). --ScottyBoy900Q 02:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe it deserves its own article. If, after voting for this is done, there is a consensus that a move should be made nominate it for a move. I think it deserves its own article. --Nick Catalano (Talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The Kids"

Article has very little content or purpose; text is incoherent; little (if no) potential to be revised by other editors. This article looks more like an email than an article

Speedy delete for patent nonsense. --Apostrophe 05:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be song lyrics (?), but there is no assertion of notability and is thus unverifiable. Movementarian 07:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Movementarian. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Punkmorten 10:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. The only song I know called "The Kids" was a duet between Robbie Williams and Kylie Minogue but this seems to be an obscure rap song. Capitalistroadster 10:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, the title of the Williams song is just "Kids". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Title is against Naming convetions (#1.12) but it doesn't appear that it is worth renaming. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 18:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research! - Bobet 02:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of common sorting algorithms

This is original research... article is in pretty bad shape but it's not a speedy. Apparently not a cut and paste copyvio, though it does look like one at first glance. W.marsh 06:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a how to. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not a direct copy/paste copyvio... instead most of the content is copy/pasted in small chuks from the page referenced in the footnote, as well as from its subpages (listed at the bottom of the referenced page). Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's relatively easy to produce a comparison of sorting algorithms that is not original research, given that this has been extensively discussed in the literature. (This article isn't really original research, moreover.) But there's no need for a new article. We already have such a comparison at Sorting algorithm#List_of_sorting_algorithms. Uncle G 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, plagiarized. Gazpacho 09:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It could be good topic (unlike most of "comparison" pages) but current text is crap. Pavel Vozenilek 23:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy redirect

John tynan

Not notable. Delete karmafist 06:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of John Tynan. "Delete". Note: John Tynan was a noteable character in American Music and should probably remain. Jackbunny2006

Speedy Redirect to John Tynan. Simple mistake. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. howch e ng {chat} 17:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Baghdaddios

The article reads like a review of a non-notable band. The author cited no sources. No one has done any editing except to add wikify, cleanup and pov templates.DeleteTheRingess 06:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

Keep - they have an allmusic.com entry here: [25]. They have enough traffic on google here: [26] (although 1 was for a construction company, the other 841 are for the band). Whilst the article is horribly badly written, and it was too hard to wade through it, they seem to be notable enough. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and clean up. I'm not sure if they're signed, but they apparently get a strong amount of national press for an 'underground' act. I might change my mind if a sensible enough case is made to delete it. PJM 07:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Notable enough for mine but the article could do with judicious pruning. Capitalistroadster 10:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if someone wants to clean up the article, then Keep, but I'm weary of folks just dumping dreary nearly-unreadable stuff in Wikipedia Madman 15:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikify Clean Up Jcuk 22:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Q Q 00:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Ral315 (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Katelyn Faber

I know I'm going to get a lot of flack for this one, but so be it. This article, while about a person who achieved a certain notoriety through the media, still does not belong on Wikipedia, if for no other reason than Wikipedia Is Not A Propaganda Machine. This article reads like a press release from the defense team. It's horribly POV, from the text to the accompanying pictures, and while POV is not a reason to delete an article, I think from a policy standpoint this is not something that should be a part of Wikipedia. Most reputable news outlets do NOT release the names of alleged rape victims, and that self-imposed ban would extend to most if not all print encyclopedias as well. To acheive an air of legitimacy, Wikipedia should follow suit, and not simply say that because one or two unethical media outlets release information about a rape victim that it's just "OK" for Wikipedia to have an article about it. Delete. Tufflaw 06:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable accuser of celebrity who filed a court case under her own name against Kobe Bryant. She involuntarily became a public figure, but after voluntarily filing a lawsuit, what little claim she can make to "privacy" goes out the window. She chose to sue a basketball star for rape, that makes her notable. If there's POV, clean it up. I will note that many "reputable news outlets" released her name - including the Associated Press, after she filed a public-record civil complaint against Bryant. You cease to have a claim to anonymity when you sue someone. FCYTravis 07:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how the fact her name became public after she filed a civil claim makes her life story encyclopedic, including information such as her various jobs or places of residence. Tufflaw 07:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - This person had intimate contact with a basketball star, accused him of rape, didn't testify in the case so the charges were dropped, sued that star and then settled out of court. It is ludicrous to argue that somehow that isn't notable. "Kobe Bryant" rape gets 980,000 Googles. "Katelyn Faber," in the neighborhood of 10,000. I see a lot of sourcing in the article to mainstream media coverage of this person. I think it's actually a quite good article which encyclopedically discusses the very issue you bring up - the ethics of reporting her name. Fact is, her name is now out there, it's widely-reported public record and it's certainly encyclopedic. FCYTravis 08:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - It should also be noted that Googling her name actually brings up only 311 unique hits, and a bunch of those have nothing to do with her. Tufflaw 23:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not saying it's not notable, just not encyclopedic. Notability is not an automatic inclusion factor, to my knowledge. There is also a degree of journalistic ethics that should be considered as well. At the very most, if her name should be mentioned at all, it should be in the article about the incident itself, or the main Kobe Bryant article. To create a separate article just for her and to describe the incident in such graphic detail comes across as an attack on her, and reads like propaganda. Tufflaw 18:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think it's moralistic to claim that a person who claimed she was raped by a basketball star is entitled to any special treatment. Her acts were clearly encyclopedic - this isn't some woman who claimed to be raped by Joe Blow, she said she was raped by one of the biggest sports figures of the era. If you feel the article is biased, fix it so it's not biased. I am a journalist, and there's clearly *no* issue of journalistic ethics here. She voluntarily became a public figure. FCYTravis 21:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you seriously claiming that anyone who is raped by a celebrity is voluntarily becoming a public figure by reporting that to the police? Tufflaw 22:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        She voluntarily filed a civil lawsuit, a fact that was widely reported in mainstream media. You're also showing your bias by saying that she was "raped by a celebrity" when that celebrity was never found guilty of any crime. She was *allegedly* raped. FCYTravis 23:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't call her a rape victim, I asked you whether *anyone* who is raped (or even allegedly raped) by a celebrity automatically surrenders their privacy merely by the notoriety of the person who raped (or allegedly raped) them? Tufflaw 23:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Irrelevant. Faber voluntarily surrendered her privacy by filing a civil lawsuit. And yes, there ARE involuntary public figures. It's too bad we don't have an article on the legal concept of a public figure, but if someone is involuntarily thrust into the public eye, courts have ruled they may be a public figure whether they like it or not. [User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 23:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
        Without commenting on the Hobson's Choice you're saying that a rape victim must face if they try to decide whether to file a civil suit aganist a celebrity, the mere fact of her filing a civil suit doesn't mean that this article is or should be encyclopedic. Tufflaw 23:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        The fact that that civil suit was against a basketball star, and the suit alleged said star raped her, is encyclopedic. FCYTravis 23:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that the facts of the entire incident are encyclopedic, both the allegations and the subsequent media frenzy. An article just about HER is not. Tufflaw 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Very notable subject. Everything you're listing above is reasons to edit, not delete. I don't believe that her name should still be protected, since legally she is no longer considered a rape victim; however even at that the article should be moved to "Kobe Bryant Accuser" or something, not deleted outright. And all the alleged POV problems (I havn't read through the entire article) can likewise be fixed. Flyboy Will 07:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because the charges were eventually dropped doesn't mean a person is not a rape victim. There was no claim that the charges were dropped because of any sort of hoax or perjury by the accuser, but because she didn't want to go on with the intense media scrutiny of her personal life. There's no legitimate need for the kind of information in this article to be available, which effectively victimizes her again. Tufflaw 18:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - What sort of twisted logic is that? I understand you have a POV on this, being an ADA, but we can't call her a rape victim because it was never factually established in a court of law that she was raped. FCYTravis 21:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wouldn't call it twisted logic at all, and while I'm an ADA, I work very hard to keep my personal POV out of Wikipedia. If someone is raped, they are a victim of rape, whether their accuser is ever caught, or if caught is punished. If someone is murdered, for example, would you say they aren't a murder victim if their killer is never caught or convicted? Now, I don't know if this woman was raped or not, because I wasn't there. However, she shouldn't be punished or exposed to public scrutiny because she was allegedly raped by a celebrity instead of a non-celebrity. To say that by accusing a public figure of attacking her means that she is "voluntarily" becoming a public figure - well, THAT is twistic logic. Tufflaw 22:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - A murder victim is not necessarily a murder victim until a coroner's jury makes a finding, or someone is convicted of the murder. It would be appropriate to say they were a victim of homicide. In this case, nobody was convicted of the alleged rape so we must call her an "alleged rape victim." Saying she was a "rape victim" is implying someone was guilty of a crime, when in this case we have no such finding of guilt. She voluntarily filed a lawsuit, which makes her a public figure by any standards. FCYTravis 23:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        That's semantics. If I rob a bank and am never caught, am I not a bank robber? I may not be convicted of robbery but that doesn't change the fact that intrinsically I am still a robber. Same thing, if I rape someone, does the fact of my never being caught mean that I'm not a rapist? Are you saying that any woman claiming to have been raped is not a "rape victim" until their attacker is actually caught and convicted?? Tufflaw 23:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not semantics, it's a neutral point of view. We cannot call Ms. Faber a rape victim because the person she accused of raping her was not convicted of any crime. Hence, alleged rape victim. Wikipedia cannot make judgements that have not been made by a court of law. FCYTravis 23:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Leaving aside the semantics, are you saying that if a person is "allegedly" raped by a celebrity, that it's OK to create an encyclopedia article about them unless/until their accuser is convicted? Tufflaw 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd ask an attorney about the appropriate terminology. This did result in a civil court settlement. Durova 22:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Civil case settlements virtually always include no admissions of wrongdoing. FCYTravis 22:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you a lawyer? Durova 00:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Have you not read newspaper articles on lawsuit settlements? The entire point of settling a lawsuit out of court is so the defendant can "pay off" the accuser without having to admit in a court of law that they actually did anything wrong. FCYTravis 01:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        From your answer I gather you are not a lawyer and therefore unqualified to answer the question I posed. The issue I raised is one of technical terminology. It regards Wikipedia's obligations as a publication. Durova 15:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd never heard of her, of Bryant or of the incident, but it is clearly notable in the U.S. Calsicol 11:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with Flyboy Will's comment about reasons to edit, not delete. --Squiddy 11:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notible. Agnte 14:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect with Kobe Bryant. To the extent that this covers a notable court case it amounts to a POV fork of the celebrity article. The rest is borderline slander. The number of times this otherwise non-notable woman colored her hair is of no encyclopedic interest. Durova 22:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kobe Bryant] Jcuk 22:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Not withstanding this 'no smoke without fire' fishwivery, clearly a notable person (even if we wish she wasn't). --Last Malthusian 10:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, merge and redirect per Durova. If not being raped by a celebrity was a claim to fame, we could all have articles. --Last Malthusian 16:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Speak for yourself ... damn that Fireman Sam *sniff*. Oh yeah, redirect to Kobe. Proto t c 14:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This wasn't just some celebrity rape case that was kept under wraps by the accused, but dominated national news for the entire basketball season. howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 23:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand your comment - how could this be "kept under wraps" by anyone? Bryant was arrested and that was big news, I agree. The incident is certainly encyclopedic. How does it make this particular graphically in-depth biography of the accuser encyclopedic? Tufflaw 20:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - So clean up the parts that you feel are too graphic. The fact that an article needs cleanup is not a reason to delete it. FCYTravis 21:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not why I nominated it, it's not encyclopedic. At the very least, if it's not deleted, it should be merged into the Kobe Bryant article. Tufflaw 02:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. --King of All the Franks 08:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. howch e ng {chat} 17:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Weil

The page is spam.DeleteTheRingess 06:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It reads like an ad and a copyvio. But the company is a real (and notable) watchmaker. But this is not the article to describe them. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though they make cheapo watches that don't deserve to be called Swiss, they're still a notable company. Their ads are all over the place with Charlize Theron. The article just needs an edit. Flyboy Will 07:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Notable watchmaker. Capitalistroadster 10:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per capitalistroadster Agnte 14:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up as per Capitalistroadster. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

419baiter.com

Vanity page: serves no real purpose other than to detail the function of a minor website. This article does not seem to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia as an article. It just profiles a website of no significance. --Thephotoman 06:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Alexa ranking is 883,228, 193 Google hits, no reference in media outside blogosphere. --Thephotoman 07:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per well-crafted nomination. FCYTravis 09:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity. Site already has a link within Scam baiting. Eddie.willers 13:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agnte 14:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KC. 14:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant info into Scambaiting Jcuk 17:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. I was going to keep it, but the external link no longer works. Looks like the site is gone. howch e ng {chat} 18:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Binary Report

Non-notable "news" site with no Alexa ranking, few relevant Google hits - and it's hosted on Freewebs. FCYTravis 07:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Agnte 14:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, 120 visitors per day? :) r3m0t ^talk 21:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on reading the first paragraph until its very end. Getting mainstream media attention (which google seems to verify and it's mentioned in the Katelyn Faber article here too) qualifies it per WP:WEB. - Bobet 02:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen_Goodfellow

vanity article Jabo 07:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline speedy. (The article makes claims to notability, but such claims are omplete bollocks. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 08:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's incomplete bollocks? :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlyons493 (talk • contribs)
  - Yes, that was a typo. I won't bother correcting it though — it's funnier as it stands. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 14:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Humansdorpie 19:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Barneyboo (Talk) 19:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. howch e ng {chat} 17:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hampshire County Historical Highway Markers

I just don't see how this is useful in anyway nor evidence that any of the highway markers are historical. Cruft Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if verified that these markers are erected by the state as part of a historical landmark signage system, a-la the roadside "California State Historic Landmark" plaques installed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation. FCYTravis 07:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But I found no proof that this is vertified and It's all the highway markers in one county also not a whole state. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 08:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FCYTravis. Movementarian 08:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FCYTravis. –Sommers ^(Talk) 11:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could eventually be merged into something on the markers for the state of WV. Should be renamed List of Hampshire County, West Virginia historical highway markers for the time being, however.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antill

Stub article on obscure vaporware game from the 80s Mecanismo | Talk 22:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in spite of claims to notoriety "This was the first real game that was to use an animated 3D on a PC" which would be massively important, IT WAS NOT RELEASED! If it had been released, it might have been influential. And just for reference, it doesn't exist. Not unless it was called "Anthill" perhaps. But in that case, this needs to be wiped anyway. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to generate more discussion. Previous listing only recieved 1 vote other than the nominator's. Mo0[talk] 08:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN - article even says game never release. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 08:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom Melaen 15:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thunderbrand 05:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropology in the tabloids

Article looks like original research and smells a lot like copyvio Mecanismo | Talk 22:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how can it be both? It can be original research or copyvio, but it can't be both. Might be neither. I am going to abstain for now. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It can easily be both. If someone writes original research on their own web page and then it's copy-pasted to Wikipedia, then it's both original research and a copyvio. Remember that "original research" means it's not based on any reputable sources (see WP:NOR). howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 23:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to generate more discussion. Previous listing recived no votes other than nominator. Mo0[talk] 08:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: anyone have a copy of Windows on Humanity? This (and quite a few other Wikipedia articles, not all by the same contributor) are very unwikified and cite this book as a source. They may ALL be copyvios, but this is a print source so it's not easy to verify. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is nothing of value here. If the author has something to say, add it to Supermarket tabloid, but delete this article. Madman 15:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. - Bobet 02:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one of several similar articles created by user, all appear to by copyvio of "Windows On Humanity" by Conrad Phillip Kottak -- Vary 06:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, whatever it is, it is not encyclopedic article. Pavel Vozenilek 01:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Potente

Hoax. No Google hits for Jesse Potente or Jesse W. Potente. Unfortunately the article asserts notability, and there is no Speedy criterion for hoaxes. Herostratus 08:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You're right, there's no CSD for complete bollocks like this. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Jamie. Eddie.willers 13:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being non-verifiable and/or a hoax. - Bobet 02:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. unverifiable. Agnte 20:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps speedily as patent nonsense CSD G1. -- JimR 05:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about speedy. I guess in about 1% of cases like this you get suprised: "Oh sure, everyone in Jersey knows about him, some kind of genius I guess, some college gave him a doctorate, it was in the papers". Patent nonense would be like "Jesse Potente is the Emperor of the World" or whatever, in my opinion. Herostratus 20:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taleia Lockett

Non-notable Nv8200p talk 08:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't speedy - claims notability. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, claims notability, but those claims aren't verifiable (at least not by me using google). - Bobet 03:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. unverifiable. Agnte 20:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --NaconKantari 20:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - writing for and/or publishing through the National Library of Poetry is non-notable. It is a pay to publish organization. ERcheck 20:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. howch e ng {chat} 18:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Danger dog

Hoax. Can't find any refernces in Google Nv8200p talk 22:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - try this search [27]. Hrm. Other than a couple of blogs [28] and [29], and one hell of a lot of self-referencing Wikipedia mirrors (or else places that got their research from Wikipedia), it was hard to find it. One thing though: It would likely be "danga dog" rather than "Danger". What I mean is that it wouldn't be pronounced Danger. It'd be pronounced "danga" as in banger, which is the British/Australian slang term for sausage. This is likely the problem. Logically, it makes sense that "danga" would be a slang term for hot dog, as it would be based on "banger" for sausage. Hot dogs are basically a type of sausage, so it all adds up nicely. "Danger dog" as in "dangerous", though, is hard to believe. I was doing other searches but I got tired. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax, or at the very least uncyclopedic. Agnte 14:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to I Am Furious Yellow. The current text is some sort of hoax, but "Danger Dog" was the inspiration for Bart Simpson to create the character "Angry Dad" in Simpsons episode #DABF13 (I am Furious Yellow). Movementarian 21:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's talking about a dog - as opposed to a hot dog. I think that that's the confusion. There is also a TV show called Danger Dog as well that I picked up on the google check. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is actually a known type of hot dog, albeit restricted to this small part of Mexico. There are some indications on the Hot dog page that this is now being sold in Los Angeles. Jtmichcock 22:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 18:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic Disciple

Delete. Non-notable, obscure terminology. No context given in article. I searched Google for a while to figure out what this is supposed to be about, but it still seems to be incomprehensible sect-speak. —Preost ^talk contribs 22:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - it says why in the article, and its pretty obviously important. See the links in the article, and look at them. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- There is only one link in the article, and that is to Messianic Jew, which does not explain what a "Messianic Disciple" is. When it's not giving endlessly hedging definitions, this article seems to be attempting to adopt the definition of Messianic Jew, but without the "Jew" part. It seems much more like someone's pet theological phrase than a notable and distinct theological concept. In any event, it only gets 33 unique Google hits[30], and most of them seem to be part of some webring. So, even if it is "pretty important," hardly anyone's talking about it. —Preost ^talk contribs 14:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, I can't verify it either (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Durova 04:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per zordrac Jcuk 18:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see the link and I look at it, but it doesn't mention a messianic disciple. No sourced claims so it might be original research or a view of a very small group of people, which isn't identified. - Bobet 03:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, belongs in another article, such as Messianic Religious Practices --William Allen Simpson 09:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep and ask for sources Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as non-notable bio. Mo0[talk] 19:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Arnesen

Unnotable photographer. Possibly self-biographical. Most google hits on his name are not about him. Haakon 22:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claims to notoriety. Web site is a personal home page. No news, nothing. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as {{nn-bio}} / CSD A7, probably autobiographical. Was created by an anon, who never created (or edited) any other page. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Speedy. Punkmorten 10:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Speedy for nn-bio. Neier 13:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob SquarePants: BC Bowling

Another worthless Spngecruft article. --Apostrophe 22:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An online Flash-type game. Does it even need to be said? Saberwyn - 10:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neier 13:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Movementarian 21:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Mucciolo

No assertion of notability. He's got about 500 google hits, and he really seems to be an educator in NY schools, but this article has no content beyond that, and he doesn't seem to be talked about outside of the schools where he works. Fails WP:BIO, so delete. GTBacchus^(talk) 21:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nonnotable -R. S. Shaw 05:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination ×Meegs 17:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Even if every high school deserves its own page, surely every high school principal does not. --Thunk 22:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hunter College High School and keep as a Redirect. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fopish Dandies

NN band. "Fopish Dandies" yielded 7 google hits. I thought it might be a typo, but "Foppish Dandies" got arount 550 google hits, most of them unrelated to any band. Delete. Fang Aili 20:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- JJay 21:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Madman 15:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Agnte 20:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lokshin 01:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotype records

Delete non-notable, no artists, no records Drdisque 19:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

updated info. Proof of relevance : http://www.stereotyperecords.com Dylan@stereotyperecords.com 21:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still looks NN. Delete. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lokshin 01:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terrasoft CRM

Non-notable company according to WP:CORP. Google finds it only in directories, etc. S.K. 18:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear advertising r3m0t ^talk 00:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lokshin 00:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Golden drummers and chips

dic def Bachrach44 18:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Mattley ^(Chattley) 19:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dictdef. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Could possibly be expanded in a similar manner as Fish and chips? Bjelleklang - talk 09:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note added stub. Bjelleklang - talk 09:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers 13:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 18:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty alice

Band vanity. Google for '"Dirty Alice" band', '"Dirty Alice" "Chris Bristow"' and '"Dirty Alice" Rainbow'" (one of the band members, and their EP, respectively) returns basically nothing except a dead link to their promo page. FreplySpang (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, since self-releasing music on the Internet by the droves doesn't count. No verifiable claims of notability. - Bobet 03:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: reverted vandalism (vote changing) by 80.1.224.12 at this point. - Bobet 18:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: we all know that if its not on google it doesn't exist, this should most definately be deleted! I CANT USE THE INTERNET WITHOUT GOOGLE —the preceding unsigned comment is by 84.66.129.194 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fair enough was a bit of a knob-head, but FreplySpang's comment is not true as this band have a website and not just a dead "promo page" and I don't care what the guidelines say, if you release music "by the droves" on the internet then a band does count and IS important. Let the fans of this band have a page about them on wikipedia! —the preceding unsigned comment is by 80.1.224.12 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the band do have a website and people actually enjoy their music and want them to have a page on Wikipedia it seems harsh to try and get it deleted. Unless a complete knowledge of all music and other peoples ideas and feelings can be claimed, (which i doubt it can!!!) then it would not be fair to remove this bands page. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 83.67.211.233 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Having met the band personally, I can say that they are a nice bunch of lads who take their music seriously and produce some quality material.I was directed to Dirty Alice two years ago by a friend when I was looking to produce and release an album of my own - a compilation of christian rock songs - and they were so accommodating that we actually decided to pool our finances, ideas and musical talent to produce the album together. The album even managed to sell 14,700 copies in its first year of release! Its production was the best four months of my life. I've never learnt so much from a band before and we have been in regular contact since. Thanks again guys.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.224.12 (talk • contribs)

Comment: I think that the whole 'self-releasing music on the Internet by the droves doesn't count' argument is quite frankly pathetic. Having seen the meteoric rise of the Artic Monkeys by creating a fanbase utilising the internet and music downloads, it seems stupid to dismiss the releasing of music via the internet. These Dirty Alice guys seem to have a pretty professional website so I reckon they may well be going places and this seems to be backed up by the fact that they played New York in 2004. Though it doesn't say where they played, for a band based in England to go all the way to New York to play a gig suggests that they are already getting recognition in the music world. The very fact that these guys seem to have dedicated a large amount of their time to produce a significant number of albums means they must have an already large and enthusiastic fanbase, so I'd just wait and see where this band is headed before you hastily delete the definition. Plus I think of Wikipedia as keeping me informed about popular culture - and this is most definitely popular culture. P.S The guy who says he can't use the internet without google is a moron. If he can't spell definitely then nobody should have to listen to his inane, ill-considered opinion!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.72 (talk • contribs)
- Comment, self-releasing music doesn't cost a band anything, and doesn't require anyone else to have heard or liked the music. I could record a song on a mic in 2 minutes, put it on the internet and claim i'm a recording artist. That would not make me notable. If the band gets some mainstream media attention (like Arctic Monkeys which you mentioned), you can try again with the article. See WP:MUSIC for what's generally considered notable enough. - Bobet 12:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Once Beautiful Tragedy

Non-notable band. Not on allmusic, not on Amazon, tagged per WP:NMG since 25 Nov and no response, no evidence of being signed and written in POV terms. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Saberwyn - 10:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to meet WP:MUSIC. Eddie.willers 13:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no releases. Punkmorten 09:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 18:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mastermind productions

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mastermind Media and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunter/Gwin. —Cryptic (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mastermind Media

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was see Hunter/Gwin (Hunter/Gwin (AfD discussion)). Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasoning at Hunter/Gwin Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of verifiability and notability. Eddie.willers 13:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 18:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DanaSah

This software is by User:Pedro Castro. Is it notable? This is the only thing this account ever did at Wikipedia. Fplay 03:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparently very minor freeware. I fount <200 Google hits, although it would have gone up if I'd accepted Google's recommendation to substitute Danish... Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DistroTalk

This thing is run, in part, by user:deltalima. Notable? Fplay 05:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete forum with, apparently, 216 registered users. None of whom were online when I visted. Nor were any other guests. Which probably explains why there are only a couple of thousand posts :-) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable forumcruft. Eddie.willers 13:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:WEB. --Thephotoman 22:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Agnte 20:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ECTOR

This software was written by François Parmentier . Notable? Fplay 06:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like a NN pet project of his. I've written programs too, can I make Wikipedia articles for them? :) Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting, but ultimately non-notable and not encyclopaedic. Eddie.willers 13:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agnte 14:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was yeah, that's a delete all right. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chek-Point Studios

Appears to be non-notable from my research. gren グレン 03:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

future manga? heh. Delete. Billbrock 11:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability and crystal-balling. Eddie.willers 13:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agnte 14:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 01:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tydamonic Alliance

Uncited; I suspect it's a hoax. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 00:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Now some anonymous user has come in and added two "references" (unlinked, naturally) that have nothing to do with "Tydamonic Alliances". Someone is trying to hoax Wikipedia. Maybe they heard about the Seigenthaler thing and thought they could do it too. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 00:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per fruitless Google search. Billbrock 10:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Thy pitiless unmanning is most meet / Thinks Ercole, the zany Paraclete." Billbrock 10:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it was a real secret society, we'd have heard of it. --Squiddy 11:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...But you've never heard of it because it's just that secret! ;) r3m0t ^talk 21:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 18:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Herrut

Patent Nonsense / Hoax? I found this page from a request to create an article for Meh (goddess). Neither Meh nor Herrut appear anywhere in my extensive library on ancient Egypt, most notably in [31]. Google search brings up a few Christinanity-related pages, all listing "Herrut" as the basis for claiming Jesus was based on Osiris, and Herrut being the biblycal Herod. In conjunction with obsolete and incorrect names of Egyptian deities linked to it, this leads me to believe that Herrut is part of some hoax from the 70s or before. Flyboy Will 08:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to add, those Herrut-Herod web sources claim Herrut is derived from "heru" which is supposedly egyptian for "to terrify". That is complete nonsense - "heru" is either the God Horus, or kheru which is 'voice', or possibly heroo which is 'day'. 'To terrify' would be something like "sebeha". I.e. more proof the entire thing is based on some nonsence. Flyboy Will 08:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting link here in line with Flyboy Will's comment. The "patent nonsense" argument sounds plausible to me, but I don't know enough to make an informed decision. Billbrock 10:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The references to Herrut seem to derive from The Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ by Gerald Massey, originally published c. 1900. Considering that the Christian references to Herrut seem widespread (though there is no evidence that Herrut was an Egyptian god), ~~I vote to keep the article~~, on the condition that it be rewritten and recategorized to discuss the contemporary Herod-Herrut connection rather than claiming Herrut was an Egyptian god. Adunar 05:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That essay by Massey is described by himself as original research. If it hasn't gained academic acceptance by now, we can hardly use it to support the article, or any other works that reference it. If the article is kept, perhaps it should document the "Herrut Hoax" d how it has been used. Wesley 23:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I haven't found references to Herrut by a reputable third party publisher, so it would be hard to support an article on the Herrut-Herod connection. I'll change my vote to delete. Adunar 10:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as utterly and absurdly unencyclopedic. Period. FCYTravis 08:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

V6P4P8

Doesn't even begin to be notable. A look at the author (J7)'s talk page indicates that he's been screwing around with editors in an odd way all day; I'm tempted to speedy this for vandalism but for now I'm just recommending delete. Dvyost 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ska wars

NN band, vanity. Google takes us to a myspace page; fails WP:MUSIC. Delete. Melchoir 09:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I've been waiting for this to be AFD'd. -Lifthrasir 09:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. The article now says that they haven't done anything notable. -Lifthrasir 09:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons mentioned above. My earlier problem with the SD was that you did not mention your reasons for deletion, which you satisfactorily mention here, in the place in the template where reasons for deletion are meant to be declared. Sorry about that. -- Daverocks 09:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, I'm just a lazy bastard is all. Melchoir 09:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
google actually takes us to a website but some bastards cant see that.-- xskapunkkidx
- Okay, pardon me, a myspace page and a tripod page. It still fails WP:MUSIC. Melchoir 09:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - doesnt it seem a bit elitist to say that basically if someone hasnt done something on a major/ majorindie label they arent important xskapunkkidx
    - Yeah, well, it's true. Server space isn't free, you know. (Note that xskapunkkidx created this article). -Lifthrasir 09:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - P.S. Having done something on a major label isn't good enough, either. -Lifthrasir 10:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wait, nevermind. It is. Sorry. -Lifthrasir 10:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - The WP:MUSIC page is simply guidelines, and you should read it more carefully. A band doesn't have to meet every criteria on the page. Your band just happens to meet none of them. xSOUPx
    - Those criterion happen to be hard to meet for an ultra indie band like mine-- xskapunkkidx
      - Alright. Then update the page with every verifiable significant thing that you've done, and we'll see how it stands up. Have you ever toured, released an album, or anything? How is your band noteworthy? xSOUPx
        I have updated a few things we have done. need more xskapunkkidx
        This is cruel. Look, xskapunkkidx, you may as well give up here and focus on the music. Your article is going to be deleted. Melchoir 10:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Indeed. Maybe once you've accomplished a bit more, someone will put up an article about your band. Good luck with that. xSOUPx
        we've accomplished more but its top secret maybe if wikipedia is nice we'll post what it is -- xskapunkkidx

Article not encyclopedic, reads like a blog entry. NN act. Delete B.Wind 23:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Great name, great mission. Delete per nom. Hope to see a non-deleted article soon: good luck! Billbrock 10:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per content and this discussion. Punkmorten 10:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what ever happened to WP:IARXskapunkkidx 10:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)xskapunkkidx[reply]
- WP:IAR is built around the concept of common sense. In other words, if it is clear that this article should be kept in an encyclopedia, and a rule prevents that, ignore that rule. I don't see how keeping this article contributes to the concept that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. On the basis of failing the WP:MUSIC guideline for all music-related articles, delete. Saberwyn 10:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete band vanity Agnte 14:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, vanity. Madman 15:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You may fire hwhen ready! Flyboy Will 18:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, poorly written vanity page maxcap 01:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe nevin

Vanity page, little significance, short on accuracy and detail Lloyd Wood 09:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity page. Fails WP:BIO. Agnte 14:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Computer Joe 14:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buena Vista Studios

Gives virtually no information, reads like an advertisement, and the company may not be important enough for an entry to begin with. The Jade Knight 09:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Certainly Disney's Buena Vista would merit an entry, but this isn't the same company. Billbrock 10:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedy?) spam - not to be confused with Buena Vista Motion Pictures Group, founded by Walt Disney. B.Wind 10:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agnte 14:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Epolk 21:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - FrancisTyers 16:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Expand All this article does is state a little about what they offer. I'm sure somebody could add a couple paragraphs.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 delate, hoax. Homey 16:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Parkinson

I believe this page is a hoax. I can't find any proof of the existence of this person --YUL89YYZ 09:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; anyone born in 1954 is unlikely to have served in the Kennedy administration. Billbrock 10:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. A "regular on-air personality on CNN" doesn't get 1 Google hit when searching for "Terry Parkinson" CNN. This article has been around since July, good catch by YUL89YYZ. Punkmorten 10:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, hoax. Agnte 14:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Sounds fishy. 209.202.119.248 14:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Shinewald

Non-notable Canadian lawyer YUL89YYZ 10:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; he may be N in five years, but NN now. Billbrock 10:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but asserts too much notability for speedy. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 10:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.209.202.119.248 14:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Detele, per nomination. NN. --Thunk 23:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Clerking for the Chief Justice of a national Supreme Court is, I think, enough for notability. But only if we can establish that it was for a serious length of time, and that he had a significant role. -Joshuapaquin (strawpoll) 19:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. I realize it's 3-1 for deletion, but given 23skidoo's rewrite, it's clear that the article is worth keeping. howch e ng {chat} 18:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe cartoons

no context, no assertion of importance, not notable website (Alexa >900,000) - main function is advertisement. Suggest deletion. QEDquid 10:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; ad. Billbrock 10:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as porrly written wikispam. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 10:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable website and one of the pioneers of web cartoons. Article as stands doesn't make this clear. I've revised it slightly. It's still a stub, but I think it's worthy. Note that the web address given in the original version is outdated since Joe Cartoon is now part of Atom Films. This needs to be moved to Joe Cartoons if it's kept. 23skidoo 15:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 19:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bubb Rubb

He's notable, erm, because Internet forums talk about him saying "Whistles go WOOO!". This isn't encyclopedic. Delete. The Land 10:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 743 already displayed." There's a bunch of linkfarming that name from "Jenny2.com." Doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. FCYTravis 10:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's as notable as the other Internet memes. --Quarl 10:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quarl. 28,600 Google hits [32] seems like plenty; it's comparable to the others listed at Internet phenomenon. –Sommers ^(Talk) 10:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's not really 28,600, though. Only 743 unique hits. FCYTravis 11:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While kind of obscure, it's decently written and has enough information on the topic to be valid. --Aleron235 14:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agnte 14:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sommers Computer Joe 14:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 15:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All this internet "phenomenon" cruft is ridiculous. They fade away even before the article creators can hit Save. Flyboy Will 17:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This Internet phenomenon "cruft" is very useful. It's here for the same reason that all the other pop-culture "cruft" is in Wikipedia. A million people are "in" on something; Wikipedia lets you in.-Quarl 21:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I agree completely. When I come to a page like this, I ask myself whether I'm (A) glad to have the information available or (B) annoyed and distracted by the page. In this case, the answer is "A". Sure, the subject is mainly just a dumb joke, but if I came to Wikipedia trying to figure out what on Earth the joke was about, I'd want this page to be here. –Sommers ^(Talk) 01:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete r3m0t ^talk 00:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aleron235 Colonel Cow 02:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 28,600 Google hits / 743 unique hits is enough, isn't it? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quarl @ 21:29 A 02:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe good ol' Bubb deserves this little bit of space in Wikipedia as it not only makes a statement about Internet memes/personalities, but also to give people in the future additional context in regards to a real person and situation, in a real place, that might give them a better idea of what really happened. --Froggy 02:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep this please it really is a famous meme on the internet not cruft Yuckfoo 03:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This issue is about what Wikipedia is. Mr. Rubb is, and for better or worse will always be, a pop culture reference. People who want information on these kinds of things will always prefer a thoughtful, sorted, centralized space to self-sorting through Google searches. However, without a huge breadth of articles such as this, Wikipedia is just a an open-text version of any other encyclopedia. As such, it is vulnerable to criticism that it (a) is open to tampering, and (b) lacks the professionalism of other encyclopedic sources. Articles such as this, however, give Wikipedia its own space among large pools of organized information, and thereby give Wikipedia a utility that it will otherwise, in time, come to lack.
Keep famous enough to make MTV as a "news story" lol... he's worth keeping on wiki. ALKIVAR™ 00:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I love this and believe...oh...wait...I thought it said bum rub. Count me out guys. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.0.142.29 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 21 December 2005
Keep. It's internet history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.185.10.18 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 21 December 2005
Keep. Bubb Rubb is all that is beautiful on the internet... per AlanzoB.
Keep per User:Froggy --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 09:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WOO!!! My girlfriend also raises the point that these whistling modifications may handicap ones ability to evade law enforcement. —RaD Man (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The church's opinion on alcohol

Article has little substance, the content is surely covered better somewhere. No redirect vote because of ambiguous title: what church? Punkmorten 10:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the author has yet to hear of communion. Delete. Capitalistroadster 10:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Better covered in Religion and drugs, History of alcohol and Abstinence. --Squiddy 11:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ambiguous article, apparent biased POV B.Wind 11:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Squiddy. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 11:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is by User:Tonyk23, whose prior articles were all copyvios. This is an improvement: it may be deletable, but at least it's original content. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 11:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - That provides us even more grounds for deletion. -- SoothingR^(pour) 11:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. In the spirit of Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies, the article should be deleted on its own mertis (or lack thereof – I already voted delete), and not those of the author. If he has moved on from copyvio to POV nonsense, he may progress to valuable contributions (or at least solid stubs) at some point. He's only been with us a few weeks. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 14:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per squiddy. Agnte 14:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per aboive. Unfortunately, there are many who regard their own church as "christian" and any other (but particularly Catholic) as "non-Christian. This may be one example. Jtmichcock 22:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could be useful topic if covers all churches but this is just rant. Pavel Vozenilek 23:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete r3m0t ^talk 00:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. John 2: 6-10. Grutness...wha? 05:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Grutness. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not express the views of the majority of Christian churches. Even if it did it would be better as a subheading on another Christian page. —gorgan_almighty 16:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete "obviously". Gaius Cornelius 17:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lol - FrancisTyers 16:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My Christian Church uses consecrated wine. Endomion 16:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wronskian on the 49

I think that this information is hardly enough for its own article. Wikipedia could do without these two lines of non-notable facts, and could at highest be incorporated into Wronskian or HP-49 series -- SoothingR^(pour) 11:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia articles are never written in second person, and Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide. B.Wind 11:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the 'HP' in the article, the author appears to be referencing the Wronski feint from the Harry Potter series and more particularly the Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (video game). The term itself is contained in List of Quidditch teams, although there seems to be a tip about the level that is better located on a gaming site than here. Jtmichcock 22:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted for nn-bio. Enochlau 14:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Watt

Wikipedia articles are not memorials YUL89YYZ 11:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as {{nn-bio}} / CSD A7. WP:NOT an obituary column. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 11:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Stagnaro

Page is an advertisment for books and ebooks written by contributor. Mr Twain 12:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising, vanity Agnte 18:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Porkalicious

Dictdef of a protologism. It's already been transwikied to Wiktionary, where it was promptly deleted. —Cryptic (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per wictionary. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 14:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agnte 17:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, deleted from Wiktionary. Punkmorten 20:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Movementarian 22:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MCUIC

Delete as hoax: Google (even with spelling variants such as "Cohen") finds no evidence of its existence, nor does Wauwatosa "ice rink". Tearlach 13:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Computerjoe 13:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom Melaen 14:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. r3m0t ^talk 21:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It won't come up on any search. It exists as a private rink in a local Wauwatosa pond. There are quite a few dedicated visitors but it does exist.

Come now. I wouldn't consider the Skip Vigliorolo ice rink in Belmont, Massachusetts notable enough for Wikipedia. Why should someone's local pond/rink be considered notable enough? Delete. Haikupoet 05:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mailer diablo is a douche bag, this is a real place. Just because something doesn't exist on Google doesn't mean it is not a real place. Quit living in the science fiction world prick. You can't bring down the MCUIC, much like you can't get any poonany.

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

The result of the debate was transwiki. howch e ng {chat} 18:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prostration

belongs on Wiktionary Njál 13:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki - surprised it's not there already. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 14:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki r3m0t ^talk 00:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no.keeping.required. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No.Explanation.Required

Non-notable website Nv8200p talk 13:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The link doesn't even work for me. Delete --Petros471 14:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete r3m0t ^talk 21:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - was a rewrite-after-copyvio which has now become the lvie version. -- RHaworth 07:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Old National Bank/Temp

Seems to be a test page with same info as Old National Bank

delete as above Neier 14:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete r3m0t ^talk 00:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 18:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pádraig

Delete Non notable musician. Can be re-created if future work takes off. Petros471 14:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please put more effort into your nominations. Instead of simply saying "non-notable", explain why it's not notable (e.g. fails WP:MUSIC). Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason this article couldn't be replaced with a redirect to Patrick? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Make redirect to Patrick - David Gerard 16:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
End of Time charted on the official British charts at 187 in 2004. - Pádraig
Delete; Suspect article was created as a form of self advertising. the individual concerned is not sufficiently known / accomplished to require an article to himself. This could lead to every individual who has recorded a tune wanting an article. Also link End of Time, which has been edited from a redirect, claims it is a British debut single by Evince, which is a link to a page about a document viewer, so this is probably a hoax entry86.2.136.146 20:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article and the links End of Time and Evince do not seem to support the article and a link to a newly created page Debut Days also seems to have been edited to state Pádraig arranged Eric Clapton song Wonderful Tonight, which reached 30th in the British Charts in 1991 (Source:- British Hit Singles edition 16 by Guiness World Records), also (www.britishhitsingles.com), when Pádraig was only 6 years of age. The link in the info box of Debut Days which goes to Deepening_Days is promoting a alleged album for release in 2006 (advertising on Wikipedia. It also has further links to other pages which back up the hoax theory EG:- Paul_Hawkins. I also suspect this and the links from the page and subsequent article pages could be a hoax setup. Richard Harvey 21:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
End of Time is a direct link from the page because it's the lyrics to the song that was released. Pádraig does not claim to have arranged Eric Clapton's song but REARRANGED it for the album for which he obtain the rights to cover. Paul Hawkins is the name of one of the session vocalists from the album nothing to do with a formula one driver!
Comment: If this article is deleted, should also all the articles about the Evince albums be deleted? Note that Evince is about a PDF viewer, not a British pop trio. — JIP | Talk 12:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article and links together, this article and the linked pages were created by the person who it is about, simply as a form of self promotion. Pádraig is not sufficiently know or worthy to be listed, The article has been created for no other reason than to give some publicity to himself. The Evince pdf viewer article should be kept as it is only referred to in error by bad editing. 86.2.136.146 14:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yah-key

Not notable: nothing I can see on allmusic.com and Google gives nearly nothing too. NicM 14:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as YANNB (yet another NN band) Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 14:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete YANNB eheh r3m0t ^talk 00:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Well, thanks for biting the newcomer! Don't bite the newcomers!

I would have appreciated being notified of this event, since it is an acronym commonly used in skeptic circles, and not synonymous with the usual meaning of the word "scam". It was the result of long discussions and deliberations, and was carefully formulated to avoid falsely accusing people involved in unscientific practices, who weren't deliberately involved in real, illegal scams.

It isn't a typical definition of a word, but an explanation of an acronym. Right now Wikipedia has a hole in its knowledge base, because this bit of knowledge has been censored.

Mailer Diablo (below) mentions a "debate", but I haven't really seen one, rather I saw the old timers making a decision, but without explaining to me what is appropriate and inappropriate here.

I'd still like to understand this matter, so as not to repeat it in the future.

Fortunately the acronym is listed at SkepticWiki, where it is explained more thoroughly: sCAM -- signed!! Fyslee 21:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SCAM

This topic is not important enough to have its own article. Perhaps it would be better sent to Wiktionary File Éireann 14:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not only is it a dictdef, it's a POV dictdef. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 14:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[[33]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyslee (talk • contribs)

Delete, then recreate as redirect to Confidence trick, which is where scam redirects to. Saberwyn 21:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jamie. It's a dicdef, a neologism, and POV... the not-so-rare AfD hat trick. –Sommers ^(Talk) 21:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete r3m0t ^talk 00:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete both. I'll leave you guys to decide which to redirect though. Seriously I've heard of neither. - Mailer Diablo 17:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Up the duff, Up the spazza

Slang terms for being pregnant. Classic unexpandable dicdefs. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 14:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki both. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 14:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please expend the 10 seconds to check Wiktionary first before suggesting that something be transwikied. Uncle G 21:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard that expression myself... I'd think "Up the duff" would possibly refer to shoving something into one of Hilary Duff's body cavities, myself... Delete as a dicdef, possibly suitable for Wiktionary. (Maybe mention this meaning briefly in the Duff disambig page.) *Dan T.* 14:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary had up the duff for almost nine months (sic!) prior to this article's creation and WikiSaurus has pregnant, too. Any editors who want to write a dictionary or a thesaurus are welcome at Wiktionary. Uncle G 21:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdefs r3m0t ^talk 21:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Up the Duff to Pregnancy. Capitalistroadster 00:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Up the Spazza. This word has two results on Google and is a neologism see [34] and I had never heard of it as an Australian. Capitalistroadster 00:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete up the spazza. Up the duff is common in quite a large number of countries, and has been around since at least 1941 (according to the Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang), so its hardly a neologism. It's also the title of a (probably NN) play by Sarah MacDougall, so I'd recommend keeping that as a redirect as per Cap. Grutness...wha? 05:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue isn't whether it's a neologism, but whether an encyclopedia quality article can be created about it. I submit that there is very little more that can be reasonably said about Up the duff that is not already said in the article. Which makes it an unexpandable dictionary definition, and thus not an article worth keeping. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 12:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - yeah, sorry - I mistread Cap's comment about "Up the spazza" as applying to both. I suspect that "Up the spazza" is a local variant of "Up the spout" - another long-standing version of the term. Grutness...wha? 22:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.
Delete Up The Spazza, but redirect Up the Duff to Australian slang. Cnwb 06:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirecting Up the duff to Australian slang would be inappropriate, as it is apparently slang in more countries than just Australia. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 12:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spazza, redirect duff, pre Capitalistroadster. JPD (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete up the spazza, redirect up the duff to pregnancy. Proto t c 14:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete. There is probably a suitable list somewhere for this expression. It is not a neologism: it has been current in the UK for as long as I can remember and probably much longer. Gaius Cornelius 17:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete up the spazza and redirect up the duff to pregnancy. Sarah Ewart 10:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 23:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Streetman

Not notable, either as music or otherwise. NicM 14:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio from Steerman's web site. Listed on WP:CP. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 14:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big Barry's

non notable local resteraunt. Only had 3 locations and it's not even opened anymore. This would be a Pandora's box if it's allowed in. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn r3m0t ^talk 21:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agnte 10:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Avalon 17:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Feel free to merge or rename as you see fit. howch e ng {chat} 18:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Inquisition Myth

Article title is inherently POV. Article is strongly POV and reads like a research paper, thus running in contravention to WP:NOR. The editor has also removed the NPOV banner that someone else put on the article, which doesn't bode well. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 14:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then delete the redirect. The title is inherently POV, but there may be some usable material here that could be merged into Inquisition or one of its subpages. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 14:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The title is not POV, this is what the Inquisition historical revisionists are generallly calling this line of research (see the biblio section of the article for supporting evidence). BTW this is a legitimate line of research recognized by mainstream historians, it is not the same as, say, the historical deniers. --Stbalbach 20:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Merge if possible. We don't need an article entitled 'The Inquisition Myth'. For NPOV purposes, the author, Gth0824 needs to add these points and data to the Inquisition articles, where they could be useful but balanced. Madman 15:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sources cannot be deleted. If its current title is unpalatable, then move it to a better one (or perhaps a subpage of the Inquisition talkpage). By deleting the source article we're hiding the information on who contributed what from non-admins, which is Quite Probably a violation of the GFDL. So, if we delete, we delete, and if we merge, we keep (tho' a move or whatever is possible). "Merge and delete" bad. Bad! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, just to clarify for the record, and to avoid confusion, it is possible to merge page histories together so that the source article can be deleted while retaining the history from the source article in the target article. It is a process fraught with peril, however, and not for the faint of heart. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 15:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point about the article history. How about move it to a better name (and delete the no-history redirect, to remove the POV name), then NPOV the content, then possibly merge from the clean content leaving the redirect in place to hold the article history.... Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 15:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Flyboy Will 17:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is considerable recent scholarship about the controversies and debate surrounding what actually happened in the inquisition, more than enough to justify a Wikipedia historiography article about it. It would also help solve a lot of POV battles if we can simply "main article" all that cruft out to a single place because its becoming a real problem lately, almost all the edits lately have been edit-wars over this topic, it really needs to be expanded upon in its own article. --Stbalbach 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is arguing with the content - the title itself is what people have a problem with. "Inquisition Myth" is extreme POV. Controversy, Theory, something like that could be fine if a separate article absolutely must be created - however Inquisition itself is short, and I see no reason why this can't just be moved there. If there is opposition, try to reach consensus via the usual channels. Flyboy Will 20:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - A VfD for rename an article interesting.. the problem with putting it in Inquisition is it gives undo balance to controversial subjects. Also, there is more than one Inquisition article, there are as many articles as there were inqusitions. It would be better if each article could simply "main article" to a central place that covers all the controversies, rather than repeating it over and over in each article. --Stbalbach 20:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article title simply needs to be changed. There is obviously a POV issue with the title now.User:Gth0824 (signed on behalf of user to validate vote, see history log to verify.)
Merge. This is a fork of the Inquisition article. Legitimate content should be presented there. Durova 00:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. per Durova, et al. -Willmcw 00:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if we were talking about holocaust denial nobody would be saying 'lets merge with the main article'. The term 'Inquisition myth' is inherenty POV, the sources appear to be heavily biased towards the Catholic church which conducted the attrocities. --Gorgonzilla 13:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This article does not attempt to deny the existance of the Inquisitions in the slightest. In fact, it presents an outline of all three waves of Inquisitions and identifies their victims. It is never suggested anywhere in the text that inquisitions did not take place.
  - Au contraire. The article presents every claim that minimizes the crimes as fact. Innocent III is absolved of all responsibility - as if he thought equating heresy with treason as anything less than a death sentence. --Gorgonzilla 14:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - In addition the editor continues to remove all attempts to reduce the POV nature of the article. --Gorgonzilla 14:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have not looked at it in detail, but with the ones I saw, I agree with the reversion of your edits. Including the vandalism you made blanking nearly the entire article! Now your calling someone a sock-puppet in the article talk page. --Stbalbach 15:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - If the 'editor' will not allow any POV other than their own on the article then removal of the offensive parts is the best approach. The editor refueses to engage in any discussion and it is entirely a personal POV piece that only seems to be supported by yourself and the editor. And yes I do suspect that you are the sock puppeter. --Gorgonzilla 18:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        The title of the article needs to be changed, but otherwise the content is supported and cited according to the rules of Wikipedia. As for sock puppets, Gth0824 is not me. You can easily verify this by asking an admin to check it out, why dont you do that? Instead of making baseless claims that do nothing but damage your own credibility. --Stbalbach 18:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Delete. The title of this topic is POV. Agnte 10:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been renamed allready, everyone agrees the name is bad and needs to be renamed, but we can't do anything while the VfD is underway. Would you reconsider to change your vote to "rename"? --Stbalbach 13:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why of course. It still needs a cleanup :) Agnte 13:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is plenty of research that goes along to criticize the "mainstream" ideas about the Inquisition. Yes, the title needs to be changed, but there can be healthy criticism on the issue on the Inquisition, to what extent it happened, and where it happened. One historical study I have read places the numbers executed based on the Inquisition in the hundreds and that the standard of treatment, while not up to modern standards, was far better than in the "civil" system. -- Jbamb 16:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by r3m0t (CSD A8 -- copyvio). howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 23:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ITI limited

Seemingly inconsequential company. Appears to be a badly disguised advertisement (WP:NOT) KC. 14:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as {{db-copyvio}} / CSD A8. They're a real company, and a major manufacturer of telecom gear in India. And this article is a copy of their home page. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 15:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 20:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prashanti

Looks like nonsense. Can't find any hint what this is about. NicM 14:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think it's actually a girlfriend page. Not sure enough to speedy as {{nn-bio}} or {{nonsense}}, unfortunately. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 15:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied by me. One of those creepy I-worship-my-girlfriend pages, no notability presented, unless you count crying at King Kong (classic line: "Then there are more human moments when you see her cry for the KING KONG...") or not using the crossword puzzle dictionary. Due to confused writing style, could probably qualify as nonsense too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lingo Java project

Not notable. NicM 15:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Definitely NN, the article even states its limited scope. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 15:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Err, no. r3m0t ^talk 21:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Agnte 10:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. The content looked like it could be merged into Contemporary culture of South Korea but it was just a copy-paste from a how-to guide. howch e ng {chat} 18:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Business and Cultural Communication Styles in South Korea

Appears to be original research. Stifle 00:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "how-to" guide. B.Wind 02:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisting 19/12/05, which in your star-time is still the 18/12/05. Something to do with the speed of light, I understand. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect per Proto. Ral315 (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Johnston

nnbio with very little information Reid A. 15:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plan It X Records. howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 23:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly redirected to Plan It X Records. Proto t c 14:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Critical problems facing humanity

This just looks like someone's school essay rather than an encylopedic discussion of a genuine subject. NicM 15:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, not verifiable, inherently biased NickelShoe 15:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic r3m0t ^talk 17:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. PJM 17:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete title is not NPOV. Also WP:NOR Agnte 18:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete personal essay. Plus, I don't see the opposing arguments about how oppression can be a good thing. CanadianCaesar 22:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom FrancisTyers 16:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Inn Markham

Unnotable. One of 19 existing high-rises, the tallest being 18 stories. Markham is a suburb of Toronto. Simesa 15:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN hotel in a suburb full of many indistinguishable nn hotels. The external link provided isn't even to the hotel's website (which is here), but to a real-estate site. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 15:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Agnte 18:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --YUL89YYZ 17:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; individual locations in a chain of hotels are almost never notable on their own. I'm willing to consider that there might be occasional exceptions (e.g. if a hotel had a notable history before it was acquired by the chain), but there's no evidence that this one would qualify as one of those exceptions. Bearcat 18:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was uincorn delete. Wheeeeeeee! :D - Mailer Diablo 17:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn solutions

non notability Melaen 15:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn company / nn product. It's almost {{nonsense}} or {{db-foreign}}, being 80% buzzwords. :) Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 15:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete must be some sort of joke! r3m0t ^talk 17:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like an ad. WP:NOT either way company doesn't seem very notable and article is just a link to the website. Tom Foolery 14:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Doesn't meet WP:CORP. Agnte 10:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VPWW Office Detroit/Wyandotte

advertising Melaen 15:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really lame advertising. Delete. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 15:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agnte 18:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete A7. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 05:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Fonseca Rendeiro

Vanity page. NicM 15:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy as {{nn-bio}} / CSD A7. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 15:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 17:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete csd a7. Agnte 18:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tearlach 00:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied r3m0t ^talk 09:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Kedgley

non notability, vanity Melaen 15:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as {{nn-bio}} / CSD A7 Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 15:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. PJM 17:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger of Doom

non notability Melaen 15:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN corp. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 15:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn - there's no evidence in the article or their webpage of notable customers, etc. ×Meegs 16:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (of Doom). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:CORP Agnte 10:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bicyclemark's Communique

Not notable, looks like a blogger vanity page. NicM 15:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Delete vanity r3m0t ^talk 17:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nom --Mecanismo | Talk 21:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Tearlach 00:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Innards

Dicdef and inaccurate to boot. NicM 15:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, dicdef and garbage. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 16:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: zap the image, too. It comes from hormel's website. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 16:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Agnte 10:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Martello

Hoax or NN. Google with various permutations of Martello, soccer, football, australia(n) doesn't turn up anything. NicM 15:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Agnte 17:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax [35] Agnte 18:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ambi 23:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax and/or attack page. Besides, a player for whom the highlight was playing in a Bendigo amateur soccer competition isn't notable anyway. No results found in a newspaper search.Capitalistroadster 00:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax novacatz 07:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Roisterer 08:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, recreate as a redirect to Scalable Vector Graphics. Ral315 (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

S.V.G.

non notable "story" by some teenager Melaen 15:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 16:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopedic Agnte 18:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scalable Vector Graphics, which is where SVG redirects to. howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 23:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Long Hill Baptist Church

nn churchHirudo 15:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete r3m0t ^talk 17:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another local church. --Calton | Talk 01:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rponline.mihopa.com

unencyclopedic; it's a no longer existing website Melaen 15:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn r3m0t ^talk 17:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete website doesnt exist and doesnt warrant an article in an encyclopedia Agnte 17:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete doesn't exist, host not found - FrancisTyers 16:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Save on Telecom

company non notability. Does every Telus dealer deserve an article? Melaen 15:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete If this is one of the most successful, perhaps it is a good example of the business model. r3m0t ^talk 17:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no information or story worth preserving for posterity. --NormanEinstein 21:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 18:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Volunteers Online Volunteering

Advert. NicM 16:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Delete r3m0t ^talk 17:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doomed

rant about the DOOM movie Melaen 16:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move to portal leading to hell~~ Delete «LordViD» 16:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stfuomgbbq style rant. r3m0t ^talk 17:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agnte 19:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Nonsence. Flyboy Will 21:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black Mage Village

forum posts Melaen 16:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like worthless fanboi crap Wikicrusader 16:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undeveloped, unpublished role playing game ×Meegs 16:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic Agnte 19:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 18:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Newtonian mechanics applied to the human frame

Original research/Howto. Not encyclopedic. NicM 16:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Original research r3m0t ^talk 17:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR Agnte 17:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Meh Could potentially be improved into an interesting article? Ppe42 00:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Complicability

Recently coined neologism/dicdef, probably not something wanted by Wiktionary either. Coined in 2005 per article, used 5 times on forums [36], not defined anywhere but WP, not used in any press. --W.marsh 16:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The 5 times are probably just slips of the pen, not active use as a neologism. r3m0t ^talk 17:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agnte 19:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Doty

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn r3m0t ^talk 17:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BIO. Agnte 19:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (CSD G4 -- reposted content). howch e ng {chat} 18:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evan_Greer

NN Already been deleted once

Anarchists, by nature, do not follow the rules, and this page having already been deleted once after full discussion has now been created again. Speedy Delete because such discourtesy does not deserve a second extended discussion. --StanZegel (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever - Not a completely NPOV decision, as I am the creator of the article and I know Evan personally. I am aware that the article has already been nominated for deletion. However, refer to my comment on the discussion page for this article. He's toured all over the United States and he passes the "google test" with 11,500 mentions. Daykart 19:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough. His webpage lists appearances in coffee shops and bakeries. That's not touring. If more notability can be established, will gladly change my vote. Flyboy Will 17:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't rate a hit in the allmusic.com database. Jgritz 11:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evan Greer has performed at ABC No Rio, he has some clout in the anarchist folk scene. His collective Riot Folk is present on Wikipedia with no issue. (166.109.0.71)
Delete I was the one who proposed this page for deletion for three reasons. 1) It has already been deleted once. 2) This incarnation of the article is even less informative and relevent than the previous and merits deletion on its own. 3) Not sure if this matters but I put this up for deletion after talking with Evan who vehemntly does not want a page on him. --FluteyFlakes88 08:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 14:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Evan Greer

Advertising or self promotion; lacks biographical data; not of general renown.--StanZegel 04:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Restoring as deletion candidate after User:Brockert unilaterally removed it from consideration.--StanZegel 04:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, artist promo, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as capitalist self-promotion. Wyss 18:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The tone of it is just self-promotion. Zzyzx11 23:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, If I wanted to know about this artist, the information on this page would be of some help. It isn't blantant self-promotion.
Delete, egotistical promotion vanity etc. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable self-promotion. Carrp | Talk 16:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like vanity to me. Robin Johnson 13:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Ronald Reagan#Assassination_Attempt. howch e ng {chat} 18:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Giordano

Is this article REALLY needed? If anything, redirect it to..somewhere... --Mrdie 07:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete One mention in the press is not really enough. r3m0t ^talk 17:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~ Merge figure in the Reagan Assassination attempt. [37] Many press mentions [38] [39] [40] His famous quote is in wikiquote [41]. Agnte 17:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure, he has many press releases, and his quote is well known to people who know about Ronald Reagan, but still. He is, pretty much, not all that different then any other surgeon who had to work on any other President besides the fact that he made a nice comment to "I hope you're all Republicans" and helped save a Presidents life. (Something I am sure the surgeons for all other Presidents did too) --Mrdie 23:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we had an article on the Reagan assassination attempt, I could see merging this into that article, but as far as I can tell we don't. Weak keep unless merged into an article about the assassination, whether existing or newly created, Caerwine Caerwhine 05:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Ral315 (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable Muslim reports

It is likely that this will be moved to 'List of Hadith' if kept. Please take this into account when voting.

The title of this article is problematic, its scope is potentially enormous, and there is no NPOV criterion for choosing which "reports", or Hadith, are notable.

The title is problematic because "Muslim reports" is a very poor translation of "hadith". Hadith, or formally collected oral tradition, is an accepted, widely used term in Islamic studies. The user who created this article seems to prefer NOT to use Arabic terms of art in discussing Islam-related articles. Anyone searching for articles about hadith would not find this one.

But there are bigger problems than the title. There are many thousands of hadith. Bukhari and Muslim, the first two books of the Sunni canon, contain over 17,000 hadiths. There are four other Sunni books, as well as Shi'a collections. Is this article going to contain them all? The creator of the article says that only "notable" hadiths should be included, but he offers no criterion for notability. All the hadiths he has selected so far have to do with the long tradition of Sunni-Shi'a polemics, and prominently feature hadith used by the Shi'a in attempts to prove that the Shi'a are right and the Sunni are wrong. (The editor is a Shi'a.) However, hadith cover hundreds of other topics as well. If we included the most cited hadith for each of these topics (such as salat, zakat, hijab, inheritance, etc.) we would have an article as long as a book.

I asked the creator to consider picking another title and narrowing the scope of the article. An article on Hadith from the Sunni canon frequently cited by the Shi'a would be manageable and perhaps even useful, since the Shi'a editors keep listing the same hadiths, over and over, in various Islam-related articles. However, the creator -- with whom I have not been getting along -- refuses.

If someone else could persuade him to change the title and narrow the scope of the article, we could drop this whole AfD. Can anyone do so? Zora 05:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep

Yeah, whadever:

List of aircraft engines of Germany during World War Two
List of aircraft carriers of Russia and the Soviet Union
List of aircraft carrier deployments
List of airport circulators
List of airports in Israel
List of airports in the Greater Toronto Area
List of airship accidents
List of alleged conspiracy theories - compare it to this one :)
List of angels in Enochian - wtf is that?
List of Amtrak stations
List of Anti-Revisionist Groups - now, that is a small, narrow list, isnt it?
List of apes
List of aquaria
List of aquarium diseases
List of mathematicians - literaly thousands
List of archaic musical instruments
List of Arkansas county name etymologies
List of Art Deco buildings in Tasmania - List of what?
List of armoured fighting vehicles of World War II - yeah, that is small list...
List of Armenian Patriarchs of Constantinople
List of Australian air force bases

And that is a random and small sample from A in Wikipedia:List_of_lists/uncategorized. I wont bother with B-Z Try to make a list of list, there you have a big one...

Here is another thing for you: List of article created by User:Striver and nominated for deleting by User:Zora that did not get deleted:

Zora said that i have only included narrations that are relevant to Shi'a Sunni discutions. Well, that makes them notable, doesnt it? Wikipedia is not a paper encylopedia, we dont delet lists only since they could be big. In fact, just the fact that it could become big makes it notable. IF it gets to big, will create breakout articles. Regarding notablility and NPOV, its the usual WP rules.

I did not choose "Hadith", since it would exluded non-"hadith" material, for example "Sira", letters and sermons. --Striver 05:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move and Delete. Per nomination and the creator's response, this list is meaningless. Lists exist to be found, and with a vague misleading title it doesn't fit the bill. As an example, List of airports in Israel is a good list - but if it was called List of Long Strip of Level Land on Which Flying Machines Can Land in a Certain Middle-Eastern Country, it would be useless. Flyboy Will 18:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Rename to List of notable Hadith. — RJH 21:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment i just renamed it to List of notable hadith, even though it narrows the list.--Striver 02:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, you broke the AfD link on the page. If kept it likely should be moved. However, don't move during the AfD and break the link to the AfD. gren グレン 03:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did include a correct link to it, but if you insist...--Striver 03:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice the link at first but it be part of the box. It's just bad to move an article while up for AfD. If you want to put on the top of this page that it will likely be moved to list of notable hadith so that no one deletes this because of its name then feel free to. gren グレン 03:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, given that no criteria of notability appear to have been established. Palmiro | Talk 03:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and delete most of the individual hadith entries. This is completely unmanageable. There is no systematic way to choose what should be on this list given. There is no systematic naming or scholarly precedent that is being followed for this. I understand the inclusionist impulse. I really do. However, it cannot be used for this article. Renaming to "List of notable hadith" is not enough. How do we set notability in an academic matter? Are Shia hadith inherently less notable because there are fewer Shia? How is the naming of the individual hadith done? At last resort I'd deport the various hadith to wikisource if their translations are in the public domain. An article like this removes any academic credibility from wikipedia. It exemplifies our bias problems and violates no original research in so many ways. gren グレン 03:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gren, you know that many of this hadith are very prominently used in many articel around in Wikipedia. In this articles we can elaborate on their credibility, how they are sourced, whar different scholars have said about it and so on... We can drop "notable" and move it to List of Hadith. I mean, we have a List of schools, and given that i do not understand how we can not have List of Hadith. Notability is judged on a case-by case scenario, its like sayin "its hard to decide if a school is notable, so lets delet list of schools". that does not make sense. --Striver 04:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as there exist no standard to what can and cannot be included in this list. Furthermore, it can be argued that every hadith is notable. Choosing selective hadith and adding them to this list will only create a biased point of view. Pepsidrinka 05:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let's start thinking about overcoming systemic bias here. If the "notable" in the proposed title irritates, move it to List of hadith then. This is a commendable attempt to create a directory of articles and links to important Muslim texts, categorizing them by the authority cited and by which branches of Islam accept them. The info actually here is verifiable and NPOV, and doesn't present particular problems as to what to include. I doubt we will ever have to face this issue, but if (God willing) we end up with articles on each reported hadith, so be it. Smerdis of Tlön 05:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smerdis, there's no systemic bias in removing a junk article. I'm one of the editors working on Islam-related articles (which I suppose is overcoming systemic bias) and we have a lot of work to do ASIDE from dealing with thousands of hadith. Hadith aren't "texts", BTW -- they're often quite short -- sentences or paragraphs. Do you really believe that we should include 17,000+ hadiths in Wikipedia? That's a reductio ad absurdam. If someone wants to put all of Bukhari or Muslim into Wikisource (if they're not already there), fine. Do dip into some hadith collections ([42], [43]) before you insist that it would be just fine, really, to have articles for every single one of them. Zora 11:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago, there was a series of AfDs about individual Bible verses; no consensus was reached that these should be deleted. I am not sure that this is significantly different. Smerdis of Tlön 12:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Khalid! 09:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/query: I am an un-fan of lists in general and may never have really understood the rationale behind them, but if we have articles about individual hadith, is there any reason why Category:Hadith wouldn't be adequate to group them? Palmiro | Talk 05:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the same reason there are other lists: To include information that is does not exist in categories. --Striver 06:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i see that people have a problem with the title "List of notable Muslim reports". Note that the "notable" part is droped, if its only the name you dont like, vote for a "move". --Striver 13:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind people:

If we have this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 1:verses, then there is no reason to not have a list of hadith. Nobody is going to bother to include random non-notable hadith. If you belive a hadith is biased or non-notable, vote down the hadith, not the list. This vote is not about weather WP shoudl have articles on hadith, only about linking to the existing hadith from a list. Nothing more. You dont like the hadith in the list? Add some of your own. You dont like a specific hadith? Improve that hadith, or afd it, not this list --Striver 13:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't feel the need to vote, but I will say that the hadith are so voluminous and so important that I would think they deserve their own wiki, and they can't really be done justice within WP. I would suggest to the authors that they consider developing a hadithwiki and then linking it where appropriate in WP. As with Bible verses, I think only the most important and best-known really deserve their own articles on the main WP. Bikeable 17:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as List of Hadith. Bikeable 18:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Striver 03:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, bro nobody is going to bother to copy random hadith here, it takes effort. Remeber that every single entry needs to be encyplopedi notable, otherwise it will be deleted. That ensures the notability of the entire list. The only reason Zora and gren are voting delet is that the list contains many Shi'a haidth at the moment, and they cant stand it.--Striver 03:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It takes effort? So does compiling a million-page online encyclopedia, but there are plenty of people interested in doing it, and I still think a hadithwiki would be an important project. Regardless, I'm now voting keep, above. Bikeable 18:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and all lists on that list of lists... if that made any sense. Lists are useless and are better served by categories.Gateman1997 19:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My sentiments exactly. Zora 21:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bah! How come we only see you in this vfd and not in one about any other list? If its about not liking lists in general, you go and try to change the WP policy about lists, not vote down individual lists. You dont like this specific list, since it at the monent containst Shi'a hadith, you said it in your nomination at the top! At least be honest about that.
    - - Sheesh! I said that I thought that the article ought to be renamed, to something like Hadith from the Sunni canon frequently quoted by Shi'a and that it should contain only Shi'a-preferred hadith. In fact, I think it should BE the hadith, not just a list of hadith. I don't quite get how wanting Shi'a-preferrred hadith re the Succession to Muhammad (which seem to be the ones you're citing) in an article constitutes prejudice against the Shi'a. At least that cuts the whole project down to a manageable size. Zora 05:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        There are plenty of non-Shi'a hadith in that article.--Striver 20:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Look, please. I said, Hadith from the Sunni canon. Zora 20:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A systemic bias it is indeed. We can have a list of apes, but we cant have a list of hadith. That's just sad.--Zereshk 01:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to List of Hadith, but we should also have categories for each hadith. A basic overlaying "Hadith category" subdivided into smaller categories dependant on who recognizes which hadith. freestylefrappe 23:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP --Ya Ali 16:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Yahussain 18:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 18:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey van Tol

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was appears to be vanity page. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn r3m0t ^talk 17:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity, nn, doesnt meet WP:BIO Agnte 19:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 18:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket Solitaire

Delete - per nomination. This is a non-notable piece of software, and I wasn't sure that this should get the db treatment. The page is primarily an advert for the program, as both links point to buying the sucker. D.valued 04:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn r3m0t ^talk 17:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. nn product advertising. Agnte 10:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 18:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promised Messiah

speedy delete Get rid of this. Cuñado - Talk 19:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like nonsense to me r3m0t ^talk 17:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or possibly Move? Some dude who claims to be the Messiah and has a sect may be notable; but the title is inappropriate POV. Flyboy Will 18:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. --Thephotoman 22:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what npov there is into Ahmadi or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.Her Pegship 14:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pegship, your merge tags are ridiculous. I'm removing them. freestylefrappe 17:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, excuuuuuuuuuuse me! Just trying to keep the peace. Her Pegship 06:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - FrancisTyers 16:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. howch e ng {chat} 18:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ronan Seamus Farrow

Delete Apart from having a famous father, Farrow has done nothing to warrant an entry. Hadnot 01:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yeah, but Seamus has done work with UNICEF and has done other stuff. There's noone else named Seamus Farrow so why not keep it? Rogerthat 02:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UNICEF?? Strong Delete TexasDawg 15:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. There is notoriety related to his case and it appears a growing amount outside it. Jtmichcock 22:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is of some interest. Homey 02:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I second this 24.26.120.39 19:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Saw him on Hardball w/ Chris Matthews earlier this year. He's an extremely intelligent and fairly high profile advocate on the Sudan issue and he seems to be doing some really interesting work with his group, the Genocide Intervention Fund. I see from the article that he also has a growing list of op ed publications. And if it is true about him going to college at 11 and Yale Law School at 16 (!) then that is noteworthy. Becca k. 18:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus when discounting IP votes. Ral315 (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt Institution

This is a non-notable student organization. All the links from other articles to it were added by User:Kstinch in an apparent attempt to make this seem more important and notable than it actually is. Roosevelt Institution was also previously deleted on September 13, 2005. The Terminator 07:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I'm not sure how you would define notable. Since March of last year, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Times, the Nation Magazine, Mother Jones, Current Magazine, the San Francisco Chronicle, and many other press outlets have found it worth enough to note. The Roosevelt Review is the country's only student-published public policy journal of a national scope, and the organization is active at over 120 college campuses in the United States, and a handful in Europe. Can you elaborate on your reasons, beyond Kstinch's links, for declaring the organization non-notable? Andrew 05:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable vanity ad for a student organization. Google hits are only their official web sites, student newspapers, and wikiforks. Google News only shows student newspapers. OCNative 07:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by 68.252.195.60:

Kstinch here -- the reason I'm the main person listed in the history is because there were two articles, "Roosevelt Institution" and "Roosevelt institution" -- different capitalization. The one with incorrect capitalization had most of the editing history. If someone objects to the links, I don't mind people taking them down, my understanding of how this works is that a newbie does something they think will be useful with the understanding that someone else might decide it's not useful -- but I don't see the links as a basis for deleting the article...

Google [44] says 43,000 pages refer to the Roosevelt Institution (though I think this is an overestimate). Alexa [45] says Roosevelt is (barely) among the top million most visited sites on the net, while others listed in the List of economics consultancies and think tanks (which represent a decent consensus about what is well-known) are similar or worse (for example Timbro and the New Politics Network rank something past four million, Business_Round_Table is at 1.7 million, Fabian Society, Reform (think tank) and Foreign Policy Centre are at just over a million. I wouldn't describe the Roosevelt Institution as one of the most prominent American think tanks but it does seem to get media attention (as Andrew argued) and seems to be something people on the net look for and find useful.

Another comment -- the fact that four different users at different times have created the article suggests that there's a need for it. If someone wants to edit the article, sure...

Disclaimer: I do play a major role in the organization. I thought it was useful for me to correct some inaccuracies in the previously-existing article (among which, I was listed as the founder), to improve Wikipedia. And then while I was at it I listed it on the Think Tanks page, etc. Once it was listed for deletion I read over the policies and I it seems like there's a lot of debate about an organization's members to edit the page -- the consensus seemed to be that if it's an encyclopedic subject and written fairly it's OK, but if you're writing about yourself it does cast suspicion that it's a vanity article. Anyhow, if it's the consensus policy that I shouldn't have improved the original article because of a conflict of interest or something I'd be glad for someone to let me know and I'll refrain from editing the page in the future.

End of comment by 68.252.195.60

The history of Roosevelt Institution and history of Roosevelt institution both show they were created by anons. All major edits were by anons or Kstinch. The Roosevelt Institution's official contact page shows Kai Stinchcombe (email is <kstinch><at><stanford><dot><edu>) is the webmaster. The Terminator 10:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The organization has been prominent enough to receive stories in the New York Times and other papers, hold meetings on capitol hill, put out a journal of policy, and so on. I think it's notable enough for an article. (Disclosure: I helped out with the institution's launch a little bit when I was at Stanford.) AaronSw 15:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they've gotten press covereage in reputable publications and many student newspapers across the country. TMS63112 16:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a vanity article. TMS63112 is the only keep vote that appears to have not been involved in this organization. Senatedems 00:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if verifiable sources can be provided. AaronSw has claimed the group has received press coverage in notable newspapers, which would qualify the article's inclusion, but without links or citations, we can't verify. If none can be provided, then delete. howch e ng {chat} 18:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Going to their website, I found press links to the outlets they claimed. Those links are now part of the wiki entry under the official website section.

Keep This is not mentioned in the article, but according to the organization's website they appear to have the backing of several heavyweights who are not known for throwing around their endorsements lightly. Their Board of Advisors includes President Clinton's former Secretaries of Defense and Labor (Bill Perry and Robert Reich, respectively), Clinton's former Press Secretary Dee Dee Meyers, Clinton's former Chief of Staff John Podesta, Jim Dean, Hoover Senior Fellow Larry Diamond, and Katrina vanden Heuvel, the long time Editor in Chief of The Nation.

Keep The Roosevelt Institution has also been accepted within the think tank community; following a link form their website, it appears that the Center for American Progress, one of the major liberal think tanks in the country, has co-published at least one report with the organization:[46]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn) - --Haham hanuka 14:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy Jezel

So, I don't know for sure, but I don't think Roxy Jezel is real, or if she is, is really a porn star. In any case, there is a lot of bad information on this page, and I don't think anything on this page is worth salvaging, if it's true. Thoughts? ParkerHiggins 21:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --ParkerHiggins 21:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC) (see below)[reply]

She is a real person and the information here is accurate according to a number of sources.

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete r3m0t ^talk 17:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the version I added the AfD tag to was very heavily vandalized. Now it looks to be fine, and probably should not be deleted. So, I'm changing my vote to Keep. --ParkerHiggins 19:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Haham hanuka 14:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. It's an orphan page with no activity. howch e ng {chat} 17:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Srebrenica Research Group

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article has been one sentece for four months. There is already an extensive article on the Srebrenica massacre that mentions three reports published by the Srebrenica commission, the Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, and the Serbian government. I think this article is about the report by the first group mentioned in this section. In any case, the article in question adds no info to the larger article, and only serves the purpose of vaguely casting doubt on the independence & objectivity of the group. It was previously tagged NPOV, but the tag was removed by the author. ×Meegs 17:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 17:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taiidan Heavy Cruiser

We don't need a separate article on some specific class of fictional warship for a specific fictional race in a fictional gaming world (Homeworld) Madman 15:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete r3m0t ^talk 17:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gamecruft. Flyboy Will 18:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete *shudder* Agnte 19:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Buckingham Browne & Nichols. howch e ng {chat} 17:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Vanguard

This article is about BBN, a private high school in Cambridge, MA, and its MONTHLY newspaper; this cannot possibly be worthy of an article. After all, it is a high school paper that is published eight times per year. The seems much more like student vanity than actual information for the public good.

Pbhayani

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Buckingham Browne & Nichols, the school the paper is published from. It'd make a nice peer to the "athletics" section in that article ×Meegs 16:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nom. FCYTravis 21:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per the recommendations above. Whether or not vanity motivated the post is immaterial. The information here, while we may consider it inconsequential, is verifiable (I just visited the BB&N website), and may be of use to someone. Although the topic may not warrant an entire article, I do feel it, as most things, have a right to belong somewhere within the Wiki universe. Earthliberator 07:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Vanguard has been an institution since 1974 and the recipient of numerous honors from the Columbia Scholastic Association. Certainly this page is not of mass appeal, but that is the case for most encyclopedia entries. This page is very useful for a segment of users to get background on an honored and historic newspaper.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 17:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight, He Comes

This page is attempting to be a crystal ball (movie has not yet been released) Anabanana459 04:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystal-ballery, apparently starts filming next summer. [47] Agnte 17:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 17:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB has a page on this and lists it as in pre-production. But there's not much on this page and it can be readily created once it is further along. I'll take a pass. — RJH 21:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. howch e ng {chat} 18:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warhawk (Justice League Unlimited)

This article is very poorly written, flaunts the NPOV standard, and carries an overall tone of promotional material. That, combined with the fact that it is about such a minor character make it a prime candidate for deletion. Thoughts?

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up. Being poorly written is not a reason for deletion, it's a reason to request a clean-up. And since the character has been featured prominently on episodes of two TV shows makes this notable. Jtmichcock 19:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Character has only appeared in two DCAU episodes: "The Call" in Batman Beyond and "The Once and Future Thing" in Justice League Unlimited. Maybe it he was a recurring character, but he's hardly so. --Apostrophe 00:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC) I've changed my mind; Warhawk at least has a somewhat major role in the stories he takes place in. Keep. --Apostrophe 02:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The background of the character has affected other plot elements in Justice League Unlimited. --Joe Sewell 17:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~That can be noted on the Hawkgirl and John Stewart (comics) pages. --Apostrophe 20:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. The outside campaign itself admits that the article doesn't "deserve recognition on the information superhighway." howch e ng {chat} 17:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will Bardwell

non notable Redwood201 02:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 500 hits on Google. nn r3m0t ^talk 17:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This guy has apparently won some journalism awards. I googled the Meridian Star and read some of his columns and they were really good. This guy's got talent. BarryManil0w 01:27, 22 December 2005 (EST)
Keep This guy is awesome.
Keep Award-winning journalist. Worked for a reputable newspaper. Sounds good enough for me. OldManJones 03:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Outside campaign [48] to keep this entry that is non notable.205.188.117.13 04:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Thought it was a close call, but he's mentioned on Answers.com and is the Attorney General of The University of Mississippi in addition to what appears to be a distinguished record as a journalist. Also, I'm not sure an outside campaign is any more ethically questionable than an anonymous snitch. NateShreve 02:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A sportswriter for a newspaper that doesn't even have an article. That Answers.com has mirrored our article is hardly a convincing reason to keep it. And note the scant contributions of most of the above users. —Cryptic (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Status shifting

Reads like nonsense, and I can't find much evidence this is a real term. NicM 16:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Truisms, and the phrase is not used r3m0t ^talk 17:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smacks of some stuff I learned a while back in sociology. Apparently this is a phrase used in a sereis of text books by Conrad Phillip Kottak see Anthropology The Exploration of Human Diversity if you google search I pull up between 27 and 42 references. Although someone has published a book with this phrase, due to the lack of information I can find, I don't believe that this article is worthy of being in an encyclopedia. J E Bailey 17:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stifle 00:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 17:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabby

nn vanity page Hirudo 16:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete, nn. I couldn't confirm the existance of a company called GabTron. ×Meegs 16:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, unreferenced, rubbish, hoax, perhaps defamatory, Slutty? Agnte 17:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stunning girl, though *rolleyes* r3m0t ^talk 17:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete , nn-bio. PJM 17:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
sPEEDY Delete. Flyboy Will 18:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Objections to possible defamation, nonnoteworthy, and no valid hits.. --Thephotoman 22:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. -- JJay 21:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete your choice of hoax, attack, nn-bio, and patent nonsense. Stifle 00:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to People's Mujahedin of Iran. howch e ng {chat} 18:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.M.O.I

Reason why the page should be deleted- This page has no relevant information, only a link pointing to a website. The page should be expanded or deleted. I placed it here because I see no hope that this page will ever be expanded, or ever be of importance.Trjumpet 16:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I liked your nomination (clearly explained your reasons, refrained from voting, etc.), I have to disagree with your "no hope that this page will ever be expanded". An expanded version of the page already exists, at People's Mujahedin of Iran. I found it by checking if PMOI existed (to see if there were other things that PMOI could stand for). I see no reason why P.M.O.I shouldn't redirect to the same place PMOI does, so I've changed the article appropriately. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to People's Mujahedin of Iran. --Thephotoman 22:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 00:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Movies that feature people bleeding from their eyes

List of examples of an arbitrarily-selected entertainment medium featuring people with an arbitrary consequence of injury to an arbitrary body part. Some of which are deliberate, while others just happen to be to that body part. WP:ISNOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PJM 17:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 18:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I get the feeling someone is playing with WP:POINT here. 23skidoo 18:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Agnte 18:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, although it is funny. --Agamemnon2 19:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That list makes me bleed from my eyes. Flyboy Will 19:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and BJAODN. Kinda funny concept, but it really isn't worthy of a page. --Thephotoman 21:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Eye mutilation and bleeding have been important in cinematic and art history since Un Chien Andalou. Nothing wrong with this list, which has potential scholarly use. -- JJay 08:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally unmaintainable.Gateman1997 19:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? This is not a pet cat, it's a list. -- JJay 19:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel the need to comment on most of my votes?Gateman1997 21:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many of them clearly deserve comment. However, I apologize for interrupting your important work here at wikipedia. -- JJay 21:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

None of them deserve any comment from you and it is no longer welcome. Please cease this stalking campaign now.Gateman1997 21:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relax and have a nice day. -- JJay 21:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep interesting and easily verifiable. Grue 15:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN daft listcruft. Stifle 00:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete come onnnnnnnnnnnnn....Paul 18:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 17:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Discussion blanked as a courtesy to article's subject. Ral315 (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic compensation

This is an advertisment for a product by hcms. if you google the first line you can tell that this was taken direct from an advertisment pdf. note as well there are no links to this page J E Bailey 17:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Deltabeignet 20:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per nom. --Thephotoman 21:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or blank with {{copyvio}} and send to WP:CV. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 22:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio. Stifle 00:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. His being signed to Metalheadz would qualify him under WP:MUSIC. howch e ng {chat} 17:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vector Burn

Not notable. Few significant google results or allmusic.com info. NicM 17:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Has released quite a few singles, no big chart hits [49], currently signed to Metalheadz (big drum and bass label) however I'm not sure if that fits in to WP:MUSIC Agnte 19:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stifle 00:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. IMHO this looks like a cleanup candidate, not a deletion candidate. howch e ng {chat} 17:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Design methods

"...holistic solutions to improve the lives of people...", reads like a promotion for a fringe cult. Only contributor is User:Design methods; this was originally a user page, but it doesn't fit there either. Delete Owen× ☎ 18:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep certainly suffers from POV and some inappropriate content, such as the contact me part, but the concept that there is an art/science to design and hence methods is certainly appropriate. Since this primarily focuses on the work of John Christopher Jones it may be more appropriate to move it an article of that name and reorg it to be more consistent with standards J E Bailey 18:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This document is about design methods and starts with John Christopher Jones. It should not be deleted as it is an important topic of discussion. It is not "cult" or "partisan", but is a valid area to articulate. As for the e-mail, I have taken it down as it seems as if it is culturally not in keeping with Wikipedia User:design_methods Thank you for the commentary. If you go to design methods, it has been expanded to discuss the development of design research and design studies as a response to the work of the original group from design methods. I disagree that the content should be broken up, and give this a chance. This page is not promoting any specific group, but trying to demonstrate the development of design methods. Owen and HappyCamper, if you would let me know what to improve to bring it in line with what your vision of Wikipedia is, I would appreciate it. User:design_methods
- This is your second vote here. Please limit yourself to one vote per AfD. If you wish to edit your previous comment, feel free to do so, but stuffing the ballot won't get you anywhere. Owen× ☎ 03:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC) (retracted after user fixed double vote. Owen× ☎ 04:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Owen. I am all ears on how to improve Wikipedia. Do you have any constructive suggestions? Design methods
  - Firstly, the article is missing a definition. What is "Design methods"? An organization? An idea? A methodology? Check out other articles here to see examples of how a defining paragraph should look like, or read WP:MOS. Secondly, and more importantly, I find it amazing that a 3,000-word article about something that existed for 40 years wouldn't have a single bit of criticism. This is exactly what differentiates an encyclopedic entry from a sales pitch. (Design Methods 17:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    - Thank you Owen for the comments. I will clarify the definition of design methods and make sure it is known as a definition. I am all open for criticism, but also believe that the criticism should be followed by fixes, either by others (which I have invited others to do so) or by generalists who improve syntax. I think we all want to avoid terms like "fringe cult". Our collective goal should be to create a dynamic resource and assume contributors are trying to do the right thing and be specific on how to improve the content. Owen× ☎
      - You're still avoiding the issue. I wasn't talking about criticism of your article; I was talking about criticism of John Christopher Jones and his movement/cult/whatever it is (you still haven't defined it). If you tell us that in 40 years he and his ideas haven't received any criticism, then you've proven my claims. Owen× ☎ 13:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am sorry if you think I am avoiding the issue. Please read the revised introduction. John Christopher Jones is not the issue as design methods is much larger than one person. He was an important founder of the idea of design methods and he did receive a share of criticism. If you read down the article, I have tried to discuss how design methods expanded and changed. Design methods
Keep. Editor is very new to Wikipedia; article needs some work but is not deletion material. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 23:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Design methods is a unique addition to Wikipedia. Not only does it establish a visible place for this important and evolving topic, it also contributes to the growing thought and demonstration of design as a critical discipline in developing meaningful products and services. Business concepts such as "innovation fulcrum" and "product life-cycle management" directly connect to the use of Design methods by current companies for both competitive advantage and human capital. And this practice is becoming more pervasive as the forces of economy and empathy converge. Design methods is completely relevant to the present-day realities of our consumer-driven environment. User:Design_Methods_Advocate, 18 December 2005
- The above is user's first edit ever. Owen× ☎ 00:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is very misleading - it is at best an essay on a particular interpretation of design methods in the Western world. I might even suggest that we merge relevant portions of the article into others, but I lack the time to do so. Although generally well written, it is subtlely promoting a particular group formed in 1962. If the content is kept, it should be renamed to something appropriate which specifically highlights this. --HappyCamper 01:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How does Design Methods prove itself to be taken off the "delete" list? (Design Methods 15:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
I'll answer this question on your talk page. --HappyCamper 00:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete--Shanel 03:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PKF

A NN gaming clan MNewnham 18:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Flyboy Will 19:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agnte 21:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clancruft. Stifle 00:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 23:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Blackadder episodes

Recreating information already covered in Blackadder must make the long winter evenings fly by MNewnham 19:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly redirect. Redundant information. --StoatBringer 19:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The blackadder page people have agreed to split this as the main page is out control (sorry) MNewnham 19:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I explained on the Blackadder discussion, some people feel this page is getting too big. Since there don't seem to be any objections, I am moving this info across to List of Blackadder episodes. I will of course remove the redundant information from Blackadder once I finish! --Lox (t,c) 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Blackadder, Blackadder, do not delete his page! Blackadder, Blackadder, a bunch of geeks will rage! Flyboy Will 20:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legitimate effort to reduce the size of the main article. There are plenty of other shows with episode list articles. 23skidoo 20:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — finite, well-defined list of a notable TV series (at least to me) that gives information not available in a category. — RJH 21:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is done for other notable TV shows, too. --Thephotoman 21:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as noted above Nfitz 02:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Great job. Very useful for researchers and fans -- JJay 08:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Duh - David Gerard 16:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was BJAODN and delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme dressing

The page cites no sources, and I can find no references to it on the web. The article hasn't been wikified. The user who created keeps removing deletion notices and/or wikification requests from the page JRawle 19:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I forsee this article being forever immortalized on the revolutionary encyclopedic genre known as Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. --D-Day 19:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — ultra-silly. — RJH 21:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers 23:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme Delete Wow, this really should go on Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. Tobyk777 06:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme BJAODN per D-Day. Stifle 00:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 17:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hammered Dr. Destructo

Delete - Seems a minor local band. Only 24 Google hits, mostly minor asides.
Delete per nom. Agnte 07:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to call this one. On the one hand it says the band has been on tour "all over the United States, Europe, Asia, and South America", which is more than enough to pass WP:MUSIC. On the other hand it's unverified. I'm going to abstain for the moment; if some verification is added to the article for the claimed tour then it's a solid keep. Stifle 00:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a picture from their world tour in Berlin: [50] and here's a picture from Paris: [51]. London: [52]. Quebec: [53]. Throw up any red flags? --Richfife 18:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. howch e ng {chat} 18:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Chisholm High School

nn high school Hirudo 19:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please put more effort into your nominations. "nn", which I assume here is intended as a stand-in for "non-notable", tells us nothing more than that you think the article should be deleted (we already know that, 'cos you nominated it!). Consider explaining why the subject of the article is non-notable, or pointing to passages in the deletion policy that support your view. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep For better or worse, there is well-established consensus that "nn high school" is an oxymoron. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there isn't. What we have is no consensus to delete schools, not consensus that schools are notable or that schools are valuable. However, the schools-are-inherently-worthy crowd are quite happy to flood AfD discussions with "keeps", while the schools-must-be-individually-notable crowd aren't willing to do the same when we clearly don't have the numbers. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said (ESkog). -- JJay 04:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I like schools. They attract young editors who make valuable contributions to the site. -- JJay 19:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I would really like to know your definition of "valuable". When I look at most school articles, I see substubs with little to merit them. Certainly, if people are coming looking for something of encyclopedic quality, they're going to go away disappointed. D e nni ☯ 03:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hello, it's you again. Thanks for affording me the opportunity to expand on my comments above. My dream is to see every English speaking kid in the entire world given the chance to add pertinent facts and pithy insights to a wikipedia article dedicated to their school. All contributions from these young scholars meet my definition of valuable, or even precious, for who better to contribute to school articles than the current inmates of those hallowed halls of learning? Wikipedia's higher calling is to encourage this participation, to stoke the intellectual fires of youth across the oceans. Yet, some of those articles, of necessity, will begin as stubs, or even sub-stubs. You must not view this as a cause of disappointment, but rather as an unavoidable consequence of Wikipedia's noble burden. My faith remains unshaken, though, that said stubs, with the passage of time, will form pearls that fully encapsulate the encyclopedic quality to warm the cockles of true blue wikipedians such as yourself. -- JJay 08:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I edited it for grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.107.113.67 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Schools stay in. Agnte 21:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid High Schools. — RJH 21:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason for deletion mentioned. CalJW 22:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Australian high school. Capitalistroadster 01:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination looks like trolling. Ambi 01:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP ditto to basically everything. And while we're at it, what about an article on my old school: Chisholm College, Braybrook! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.

Speedy keep. There is no consensus to delete schools, and everybody knows it. Continually nominating schools fosters bad feeling and prevents any worthwhile discussion from occurring while those participants who can still be bothered prepare to duke it out yet again. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per JJay. Cnwb 06:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or speedy keep if the nominator agrees to voluntarily remove this hurried nomination for deletion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCH, as it has sufficient information from independent reliable sources to meet content requirements for its own article (and there's sufficent info available to expand further). --Rob 09:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
k, n. (That's keep.) - David Gerard 16:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent and WP:SCH.Gateman1997 23:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into school district or town if article is both below three sentances and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture when AFD is closed. This school, like all others, is an important public institution and should be written about somewhere, even if it cannot sustain an article on it's own. Presently people do create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, I feel it is always preferable and takes much less energy to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district of local education authority of other school system, while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use. This is the baseline consensus that I feel was reached at WP:SCH. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I improved this article yesterday adding independently verifiable material as per WP:SCH. Capitalistroadster 03:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article presents two pieces of information which set this school apart from the mass of non-notable schools. That is two more than most articles do. D e nni ☯ 03:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please we should not have to be doing this anymore Yuckfoo 07:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - then don't do it. Seriously, enough people will vote keep, so if it bothers you so much, find something else to do that is productive around Wikipedia. Proto t c 15:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, close nomination as obvious consensus to keep. I'm sticking with the WP:SCH consensus on high schools, despite my own personal feelings. Proto t c 15:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yuckfoo is right, this nomination is a violation of the long standing precedent to keep articles about high schools. Silensor 19:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Should the nominator, or anyone else for that matter, wish to review a complete and comprehensive archive of schools listed for deletion on the English Wikipedia from April 2005 to present, please visit User:GRider/Schoolwatch/Archive. Approximately 350 schools are listed in total between then and now, ranging from the elementary to university level. Of those listed, not one single verifiable high school article has been deleted. No need to pile on here with another keep, this article is doing well. Bahn Mi 00:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And you are one of the editors who insist on adding substub after substub on schools for which absolutely nothing of note can be said. How about taking the time to write a few articles which say a great deal instead of a lot of articles which say nothing. D e nni ☯ 01:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is a pretty generalized statement to make, not to mention a borderline personal attack. Keep it civil. Silensor 01:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JJay and most of the keep comments above. Sarah Ewart 18:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Bananas" Foster

Has been listed as "no sources" since 11/11. Can't verify on Google. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can prove it's true. Too dangerous otherwise. -- JJay 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Google comes *completley* empty [54] [55] Agnte 20:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely hoax per Agnte's searches and my own. ×Meegs 22:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Longhair 22:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No hits per google, yahoo or webcrawler. Hoax.--Dakota ^? ^e 06:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the same reasons as everyone else. I can't find one shred of evidence to support this article. --nihon 08:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable. Stifle 23:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. howch e ng {chat} 17:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ewan bailey

This appears to be just a copied-and-pasted resume of the actor in question. I question the notability, first off, and also, the creator of the page has the username Ewanthomson, which is the real name of the actor, so he's either a very big fan or, more likely, the actor himself.

Delete for vanity. And even if we do determine the guy's notable enough, this page should be deleted and the content should be moved to Ewan Bailey. --ParkerHiggins 19:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's got a decent sized IMDB [56]. Even though most of it is bit parts, some of them are pretty notable like the one in Rome. Flyboy Will 20:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Stifle 23:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirected to AFF. - Mailer Diablo 19:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aff

Listed as "move to Wiktionary" for a month, but should probably just be deleted as a neologism. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom Agnte 21:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominated. Let's get rid of stuff like this. Madman 21:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the aff-ing thing. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 22:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly redirected to AFF, the TLA-disambiguation page for that combination of letters. Proto t c 15:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the redirection. Stifle 23:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aislinn Mara

7 google hits, can't verify any of the info listed in article. Very nearly nn-bio. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if it could be confirmed, this is very nn. Flyboy Will 20:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 5 Ghits (2 in Dutch) looks pretty unverifiable/non-notable. Dlyons493 Talk 20:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Flyboy Will Agnte 20:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete attack page. Stifle 23:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. I didn't send it to BJAODN, though someone else may have done so already. Mind matrix 00:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asshole Clothes

Not sourced, can't confirm with Google, seems like a neologism (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or maybe BJAODN as well Agnte 20:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. Funny, but not worthy of being a page. --Thephotoman 21:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- JJay 21:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN per Thephotoman. Stifle 23:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - (Erebus555 13:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Delete neologism -Dr Haggis - Talk 06:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Mascarenhas

Upper-level management in a company, was killed on 9/11. Sad, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Agnte 20:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Thephotoman 21:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dying in 9/11 does not make one notable. Stifle 23:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Izehar 22:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Solarmon

do we really need a page for each of these?Hirudo 20:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exterminate with extreme prejudice. Nuke it, nuke it, nuke it! Flyboy Will 20:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, Delete --Petros471 20:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agnte 20:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I've found at least a dozen pages exactly like this. If concensus is that this type of page should be deleted, is there an established procedure to nominate all of them simultaneously? Hirudo 20:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- List them all in a single new nomination I suppose? Flyboy Will 20:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep. Or merge the data onto one page as per WP:FICT. Agnte 20:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Merge is better than delete. But I think we should await the outcome of this discussion. I contacted the article creator. Punkmorten 20:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - There also exists at least two categories, Category:Dark Pokémon and Category:Fire Pokémon with articles about individual Pokemon. Has any of this come up before? Hirudo 22:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Individual Pokemon have been nominated before, and kept. Note that the qualitative difference between Solarmon and, say, Houndoom is astounding. Punkmorten 22:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        If it's being deleted because of lack of info then why don't we add information regarding its appearances in video games (see Ryo Akiyama and Jijimon)? N. Harmonik 03:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete r3m0t ^talk 21:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need for the page: this is not a Digimon fandom listing. --Thephotoman 21:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject could merit an article or list if it doesn't have one already. Durova 22:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, I think the reason that all the digimon should not have their own page while all the pokémon should is probably because of the astounding difference in interest between the two franchises. Stifle 23:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Occultists United

I'm not sure if this qualifies as a speedy, but the text on the template (so far the only real text on the page) suggests this might be an attempt at creating a home page within Wikipedia. It's marked as "under construction" so I decided to give benefit of the doubt and AFD instead of speedy. If the vote is to delete, note there is a template connected to this article which will also need to be deleted. 23skidoo 20:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Zero google hits, so no notability. Flyboy Will 20:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Non-notable, no encyclopedic info in article, non-verifyable. --Thephotoman 21:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOT: “Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider.” •DanMS 04:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already on user's page. -- JJay 21:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a free host. Stifle 23:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee Time, Yonge and Cummer

orphaned page, no context, extremely nn to the point of being unverifiable (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A single sentance about a dry goods store from the 1880s. Delete. Saberwyn 21:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete r3m0t ^talk 21:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Thephotoman 21:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing to go on here-- JJay 21:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable and no context. Stifle 23:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDIED. r3m0t ^talk 21:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom mobile device vibratione

Utter garbage, incomprehensible, not serving a purpose, poorly formatted, not seemingly about anything. Me677 20:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been speedied. r3m0t ^talk 21:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was duh, delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same sex marriage essay

You guessed it; essay. Punkmorten 21:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for obvious reasons.--nixie 21:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; WP:NOT. Antandrus (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — personal research, non-neutral PoV essay. — RJH 21:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original stuff, non-NPOV --Thephotoman 21:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOR. --Angr (t·c) 21:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT + WP:NOR. Enkrates 23:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NaconKantari 23:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Metropolitan90 01:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the title makes this one easy. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOR, what Wikisource is for. Tom Foolery 14:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- JJay 21:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nomination. Gaius Cornelius 17:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no-brainer - FrancisTyers 16:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 00:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dracomancy

Nonsence / original research, unsourced save for a single unrelated link. Flyboy Will 21:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it really is nonsense. --Thephotoman 21:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not {{nonsense}} enough to speedy, it's actually quite easy to understand. But it's also bollocks, so delete. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 22:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All this appears a part of the User:KoL's effort to create some sort of occultist webpage. Exhibit A; Exhibit B. Flyboy Will 22:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. Stifle 23:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Hedley (CSD G4 -- recreation of previously deleted content). howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 16:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magiran.com: Iranian Magazines Reference

no claim of notability(specifically, none of those listed in WP:WEB). If this is deleted, also delete Image:magiran.jpg, as it's a screenshot from this website, and if the website article is deleted, so should it's associated picture. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and Expand. PLenty of google hits on 'magiran.com', so it seems pretty notable on a national scale. We can't really use Alexa ratings for third world countries with small populations and less widespread internet access. To me, it seems quite notable as far as Iranian websites go. Flyboy Will 21:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, due to being international, Alexa cannot be trusted, due to it's US-centric work. However, the page needs major work. --Thephotoman 21:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The same content (with another name) is already up for afd here. - Bobet 22:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
...and was deleted. •DanMS 04:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4 (recreated content). Have tagged as such. howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 23:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Metalstudio.co.uk

Non-notable. Poorly written. Promotional Compu ter Joe 21:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a badly written advert. Possibly a candidate for speedy. Tim Fellows 21:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, advert/nonsense. --Thephotoman 21:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SPeedy Delete, advert Agnte 21:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, advert. --Thelb ⁴ 21:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as what? Nonsese? Vandalism? Close, but not quite, IMO. But delete for sure, as spam. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 22:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any article written in ALL CAPITALS. •DanMS 04:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- JJay 21:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete patent nonsense. Stifle 23:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (4 delete, 2 merge votes). This passed my threshold for delete on the basis that two votes were to merge, not keep. Mind matrix 00:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle Croquet

Nonsense article on very obscure sport variation which seems to have originated and is restricted to a single club. Google test lists 397 results. Mecanismo | Talk 21:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. Madman 21:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, ~~because I can't see any precentdents for deleting oddball sports like this, and we've kept Trugo, can change my vote if theres some sort of precedent.~~ as per JJay Agnte 21:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Less than 10 unique Google hits including Wikipedia. No press coverage. Durova 22:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything missing and redirect to Croquet, which already discusses the sport. -- JJay 03:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verified. Stifle 23:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. There were three users, all of whom voted keep, that have only edited this AfD; another that edited this AfD and the article itself, who also voted keep; and a fifth user (Cptjeff)who edited this AfD and an unrelated article, who also voted keep. Only the latter was included in the tally, and marginally at that. Note that I didn't discount the comments these users made, but they weren't sufficient to sway the result. Mind matrix 00:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Section 47

NN fan website. Part or all of text seems to be copied from the siteKalsermar 21:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created by a member of the site, not the site owner. Also, currently parts of the text are copied from the site, but that is because it needs something to begin with whilst it is expanded. I personally was looking at expanding on what a Somma class is and I know others are looking at putting up things relevant to the site but which are not on the site. Part of the trouble is that the site has been running long enough that it has become encyclopaedic of itself, however that cannot be considered here because this is a seperate central encyclopaedia, not an individual site. I would expect the article to be given the decency of opportunity to be finished before being nominated for deletion. After all, it would be in the spirit of freedom of speech, and as we all know, the desire for freedom resides in every human heart.

user:Sir Brutus

Exactly. It outlines storys in the Star Trek world, albeit non offical ones. I belive that if Bravo Fleet, which has had their article up for quite some time, is allowed, then Section 47 should be permitted as well. Precident has been established that this is permitted. Let it stay. Cptjeff 04:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really a fan website, it is a sim. There is a wikipedia entry for Bravo Fleet which is a sim site similar to Section 47. If Bravo Fleet is to be allowed a Wikipedia page, then I believe that Section 47 should be allowed one too. Part of the article is copied from the site, however it is relevant and as this article is a work in progress, I don't believe that this will remain true for the whole article. Hero1701 00:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please put your comments below the nomination to keep things clear. As nominator I of course vote to delete as per nomination below.--Kalsermar 15:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo Fleet is written as an encyclopedia article should be, and establishes notability for having thousands of players. This one is written as if it were real and gives no indication that it's notable in any way. DreamGuy 16:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NN fan website. Part or all of text seems to be copied from the siteKalsermar 21:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. Madman 21:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. R adiant _>|< 15:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete page as currently stands as copyvio to remove the violating text from history, especially since this is a nonnotable roleplaying game collaborative fiction thing per Wikipedia is not a place to store your fantasy life entertainment needs (what, that's not a real page? well, you know it's a real rule even if the page isn't named that). After it's gone, if the Section 47 is the name of the Starfleet Black Ops group on the Deep Space 9 TV show, then it might deserve a real article or a redirect to a mention. Not sure if that was the right number though. But as copyvio this has to go. DreamGuy 15:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have blanked the existing page and replaced it with a copyvio notice. Above and beyond that, this site just isn't notable. Nandesuka 17:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a sim, as Bravo Fleet is, not a fan site. This is not Section 31. As for it note being a notable site, how do you define notable? This site is one of the most noted Star Trek RPGs on the Internet, outranking even Bravo Fleet on some award sites. If this page must be deleted, why is Bravo Fleet allowed to stay? Hero1701 19:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both the site founder and current owner have been alerted to the accusation of copyright infringement so they can verify that this is not copyright infringement. If and when they deny the accusations, the delete votes based on copyright violation will not be valid. As for being a sim, then it is a notable simulation in being one of the few trivia sims around and with a concise history and current structure. People looking up Simming Organization probably want to see what sorts of site are around and how they are run. Section 47 already appears there alongside Bravo Fleet and so is just as valid for inclusion within Wikipedia and arguably more so because of the unique nature of promotion within the sim based on trivia.user:Sir Brutus

~~Keep~~ Abstain I agree that the article needs to be rewritten, but it should not be deleted. Section 47 is a notable Star Trek sim site, even if it doesn't meet the WP:WEB criteria. It was the second site to combine trivia and simming in one, and with the first site to do that having closed down some time ago, it is now the longest running site with this concept. Many sites have been created since featuring the same concept. (So maybe Section 47 does meet the WP:WEB criteria after all.) Furthermore, Section 47 is not just a website, it is an organization, with an extended management system. I think there are many articles on Wikipedia about much smaller and less organized organizations. Finally, as the original creator (founder) of Section 47, I have no problem with parts of the text from the Section 47 website being used on Wikipedia. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 20:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it notable? Cite any claim to notability with references please.--Kalsermar 00:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think we have different ideas of what 'notable' constitutes in this case. I cannot cite any references to claim Section 47 meets the WP:WEB criteria, because it probably doesn't meet them. However, I believe Section 47 is a notable organization within the Star Trek RPG community, for reasons mentioned in my original "Keep" post. I also believe that's sufficient to warrant a (properly written) Wikipedia article; to me, the WP:WEB criteria are too strict. Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge. Why would there be no place for organizations like Section 47? ··· rWd · Talk ··· 09:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure that sites of this type should be here at all -- maybe Bravo Fleet should be deleted as well.--SarekOfVulcan 21:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarek, could you tell us why you don't think sites/organizations like Section 47 and Bravo Fleet should be listed on Wikipedia? I respect your opinion... just curious what it is based on! Thanks. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 23:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - In this case, instinct. I didn't have time to do proper research on WP policies on this sort of site. However, if all that can be said at this point is material that's already been listed on the original site, it's not encyclopedic. I'll be watching this debate, and I may clarify my position one way or another, with cites, when I have more time.--SarekOfVulcan 23:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have the approval of material use by the site's founder, so there is no copyright issue. Also, in a court system Precedent is given priority. As the Bravo Fleet Site Exists and has existed without complaints, it stands to reason that a similar site should be allowed to be listed. --Cptjeff 23:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bear in mind that relying too heavily on this argument might get you both deleted. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 23:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes the original poster would do well to remember that for many residents of Wikipedia's AfD, "winning" debates by any means necessary is more important than keeping decent enough content in the encyclopedia :(. Pcb21 Pete 11:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with WarekofVulcan that perhaps both should be deleted but this one is up for debate right now and no-one has given any proof of notability. Apart from that, all sites of this nature are themselves violating Paramount's Star Trek Copyright. This site does not meet WP:WEB criteria and is not listed on Alexia as far as I could tell at all. Heavy commenting by the site's members make it seem like Vanity, advertising or both to me.--Kalsermar 00:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN. No claims of notibilty. ~~Does not meet WP:WEB in any way. Does not come close.~~ Wikipedia is not a listing of star trek ~~fansites~~ role-playing groups. (Isn't there a star trek wiki?) Agnte 11:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Then why is Bravo Fleet allowed? 88.106.198.49 14:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't see how that is in any way encyclopedic either. These things belong in Memory Alpha Agnte 15:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've nominated it for deletion as well. Agnte 16:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Simming Organization <--Someone felt we were notable enough for inclusion there. Also, S47 is based on a Paramount game, it wasn't just made up out of nothing. Heavy commenting is because we feel that it deserves inclusion in Wikipedia. What else are we meant to do? Let anyone who wants bandy their opinions around without us defending our own? Only we have something to lose here. If the article remains then Wikipedia will not have lost anything. Drizzt Do'Urden is hardly a notable literary character outside the D&D Forgotten Realms community and by your definition violates the copyright of both Wizards of the Coast and Salvatore. Yet because it is present on an information sharing site and not being used for profit then copyright is technically kept. The writer of that article, like the writers of the Star Trek ones, are merely relaying information, not trying to market an idea. Thoosa is a non-notable character from Greek mythology, but nonetheless she has an article, albeit a stub, about her. Would you say the stories made up thousands of years ago are more relevant today than those made up today?user:Sir Brutus

Comment Most of the people opposed to this article, cite the fact that the Section 47 website doesn't meet the WP:WEB criteria as an important reason. However, Section 47 is not primarily a Star Trek-related website (and certainly not a fansite, Agnte), it is an international organization that brings people together to share their love for writing fiction in the Star Trek universe. Yes, it does use a website to reach that goal, but the website is only a means, not the goal itself. If Section 47 conducted all its business without a website, would the article be allowed? I think that's the question that should be answered. Don't judge Section 47 against the WP:WEB criteria, because they don't apply. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 15:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I would say as a star trek role playing group it isnt notable either. Theres nothing in the article that claims notibilty. Deletion precedents indicate: "Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable." Agnte 16:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Agnte's statement of lack of notability, there's only 280+ odd members but loking through the site less than half of them active, maybe a few dozen regular people active at most. To rWd, No, it wouldn't just like I don't think any other likewise group is notable enough. There's hundreds of such sites, do we include them all? What about bookclubs and such?--Kalsermar 19:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are quite a few book clubs listed on wikipedia. several hundred. perhaps you should delete all of those as well? I don't think so. as for the notability criteria, well, those don't mention simming organizations. At all. message boards, yes. Fan fic? no. In fact, there are quite a few fan fic pages... take a look at all of the links from this page... Fan Fiction are you going to get rid of all of them? If efverything had to follow those guidlines, there would be nothing left. on the main page, I see articles displayed that I wouldn't classify as notable. who needs to know what the world record is for balancing cups on ones head? or when they did it?

There is something known as being reasonable. the only critera right now is wether or not it's notable. Well, It is for the people that read the article, isn't that what counts? Notable is entirely subjective.--Cptjeff 04:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course notability is very subjective. However, I agree with Kalsermar and Agnte that Section 47 probably isn't notable enough by any criteria used on Wikipedia. Just have a look at the pages in Category:Wikipedia notability criteria. We may not all agree with those criteria, but many Wikipedians do, so it's a bit unfair to suggest Kalsermar and Agnte are being unreasonable. Does that mean the Section 47 article should be deleted? No, I still don't think so. Wikipedia:Notability contains arguments for and against deleting non-notable articles. I think the arguments against are more important. Unfortunately for us, it looks like most Wikipedia admins think the arguments for are. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 08:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel sad about this because I always used to think of Wikipedia as a place to put information. I didn't realise the arguments for removing information were regarded by the admin as being stronger than those for keeping it. Maybe if the admin had a love for Star Trek then we would be kept along with all the book clubs which were probably checked by admins who have a love of reading. As it is, we appear to be less notable than entirely fictional obscure literary characters simply because we're not in paperback. user:Sir Brutus
- I must say I am deeply troubled by the tone and demeanor of some of the people from the site in question and their dismissives and defiance against this legitimate procedure by the WP community.--Kalsermar 15:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sir Brutus, note my username, and note that I voted against keeping this. Love of Star Trek has nothing to do with it.--SarekOfVulcan 15:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To Kalsermar: we do not feel this page should have beennominated for deletion. Defending that veiw is part of the process. the tone is confidence as we belive in what we're talking about. it is not defiance nor is it contempt. We are simply aruguing our point of veiw: that as wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of unlimited knowlege, then we should be able to add some knowlege, hoever small, to the mix. --Cptjeff 19:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is, the majority of the Wikipedia community does not believe Wikipedia is an unlimited repository, and there are some good arguments for that view. The nomination for deletion was perfectly acceptable by almost any Wikipedia policy, if not all. Some have said the people in favour of deletion don't know Section 47 well enough to make a good judgment. In turn, I think most people in favour of keeping don't know Wikipedia well enough to make judgment, and that probably includes myself. I've only been active here for a few weeks, and I'm still learning the rules. I've changed my vote above to abstain; I'm still in favour of keeping, but I'm too biased and I don't think I've been on Wikipedia long enough for my vote to count. By the way, Kalsermar was right about some comments being dismissive and defiant, and I'm sorry to see that coming from the community that I set up. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 07:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To Kalsermar: I'd like to just point out that your member count is inaccurate. The ranks list does not display all members since the site opened in the year 2000. Only recent trivia only members are kept on the inactive ranks page. {Section 47 Member}
KEEP

As a member of the site, I don't believe that it is a fansite, but more of an ongoing story. We don't just talk about how much we love the show, we create NON-CANNON stories, and missions, that are enjoyable to read, and enjoyable to participate in. We are one of the largest sites of this form of Star Trek Sim, so that I think that having give or take 200 members is fairly significant. I am not under the impression that it is in any way a copyright violation, but I am not a lawyer. Keep this article. BlAsTeR89 06:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Rye[reply]

Keep

I agree with the commenter above "BlAsTeR89" The member count is inaccurate. There are actually 167 active members, so more then a few dozen, in actuality. (Research done by looking through Section 47 proboards. Linkszwo 5:08, 25 December 2005

Delete per nom TheRingess 02:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. howch e ng {chat} 18:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tanjung Gemuk

Tanjung Gemuk is a small coastal village in Malaysia. Although this article is seemingly done in good faith, and seems to provide an interesting update (it looks like there are now turtles hatching there after the tsunami), it is not good enough for an encyclopedia without significant time, effort, and knowledge. Madman 21:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barring major rewrite. --Kalsermar 22:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep can be improved. -- JJay 02:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a long precedent that verifiable places are kept. Article certainly needs some work. Dlyons493 Talk 17:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I first came across this arctile I put it up for speedy deletion, but then RHaworth rescued it and added a bunch of tags ({{wikify}}{{cleanup}}{{context}}{{catNeeded}}) and nothing else, I then went back to the article and improved it (added a stub, a cat and wikilinks). The article about a real place in Malaysia and a real incident that happend, why delete it? I am working on it and will improve it in the future. --DelftUser 19:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can improve it, DelftUser, then go for it! I would vote for Keep in that case. Madman 19:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of hits on Google with information which can be used to expand the article. Rhion 19:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid stub. Q Q 00:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Quaque - FrancisTyers 16:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Croft clinic

This may be a legitimate medical establishment, but this is pure advertising MNewnham 22:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Thephotoman 04:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. The dead giveaway: “Our goal is to provide effective and lasting solutions to your problems...” •DanMS 04:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisment. Agnte 11:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 00:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slew

Wikipedia is not a slang guide. Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 22:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as bollocks. "Slew" already has a correct enttry on wiktionary. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 23:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MRBUTTONZ;this should be left as it is because the following is a correct and widely used term amongst all londoners

Delete its home is on wiktionary. And as a londoner I've never heard it. Agnte 00:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary and/or delete and/or BJAODN. Stifle 23:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Hitchhiker89 17:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 17:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bhinderanwala Tiger Force

Poorly written article filled with nonsense Mecanismo | Talk 22:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete incoherent article.--Kalsermar 22:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, patent nonsense. Flyboy Will 22:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps speedy as {{nocontext}} or {{nonsense}}. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 23:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify. This group is a known terrorist organization as listed at List of terrorist organisations. -- JJay 02:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Listed in Wikipedia per JJay above and also listed in GlobalSecurity.org here as a Sikh terrorist group. Badly needs cleaning up, though—almost incomprehensible as is. I fixed the link in List of terrorist organizations. •DanMS 04:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, if someone who actually knows what they're on about can rewrite it it will be welcome. Stifle 23:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect to Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. --Pamri • Talk 09:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:..There is a typo in the title. It should be Bhindranwale rather than Bhinderanwala, so the redirect should be titled Bhinderanwala Tiger Force & this should be deleted. --Pamri • Talk 13:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - poorly written article - Ganeshk 22:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 17:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voya Nui Resistance Team

NN Bio of a series of Lego Characters MNewnham 22:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense. Note that the author User:Janucrio has been removing the AfD tag. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 23:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Bionicle. -- JJay 01:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~advert~~ err I mean fancruft. Stifle 23:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 16:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bi-County Collaborative

Article reads like the official site of this very obscure organization. Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine nor a webspace provider. Google test lists 218 results. Mecanismo | Talk 22:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advert. Stifle 23:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leon armstrong

This page looks suspicious to me. It had been previously speedied, then subsequently recreated a few hours later. While the article makes claims to notability, there are no references and I was unable to verify any of the claims (For the sake of full disclosure, I never left my house in my attempt to verify). D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 22:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. 0 google hits for '"Leon armstrong" +"St Helens"', so hoax / nonsense. Flyboy Will 22:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. Can't speedy as {{nn-bio}} / CSD A7 or {{db-repost}} / CSD G4 since article now claims notability. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 23:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and protect. If it was recreated within a few hours, there's someone ensuring its existance. --Thephotoman 04:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — appears to be a slightly disguised rant. Even if true, there appears little about this individual to suggest notability: just a peeved local citizen who made some noises in the council meetings. :) — RJH 15:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as repost. Stifle 23:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Hero Without a Grave

Direct copy from http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/?en/wallenberg/610.htm although I think User:IRWF may be ok with that. The article itself doesn't seem particularly notable. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some sort of essay. We already have a page on Raoul Wallenberg. Flyboy Will 22:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure POV commentary, not encyclopedic at all. --MisterHand 15:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- JJay 21:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MisterHand and potential copyvio. Stifle 23:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to chubby bunny. howch e ng {chat} 17:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy wuzzy bunnies

Non-notable game. 17,500 unrelated google hits for it. Fails WP:V Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does not fail the "Google test", and whether it fails WP:V has yet to be determined, since Google is not the final source for all verifiability. In any case, notability is not a deletion criterion, and certainly not a criterion for nomination for deletion. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 22:37
- More expanded search. [57] Fails WP:V --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Show me the word "Google" or the phrase "search engine" in that policy. Just because something is not on Google doesn't mean it is not verifiable. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 23:13
Speedy Delete. Nonsense. Googling for the proper search term, which would be "Fuzzy Wuzzy Bunnies" +grape, gives exactly 2 results, one of them being the wiki page. Flyboy Will 22:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone considered contacting the author of the article to ask for sources? Isn't that how content is verified? (hint: yes) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 23:16
Delete - Utter nonsense. FCYTravis 23:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear..." I know well, I don't believe this has impacted our culture sufficently to merit an article. Alf ^melmac 23:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense/goofiness. H e rmione1980 00:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to chubby bunny, on which this seems to be a variation. — Dan | talk 00:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP is not a collection of random things you decided to do one day. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 03:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly ridiculous. Andrew_pmk | Talk 03:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chubby bunny, as per prior nom. --Thephotoman 04:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's 2 google hits this game though so I don't see how this is a variation --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google is not necessarily the best means of determining whether one thing is a variant of another. In fact, both games involve stuffing one's mouth with objects and then trying to say certain fairly hard-to-say phrases, which qualifies as related to me. --Thephotoman 04:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Chubby bunny, as a variation of the game. --kotra 23:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN seems to be the place for this. Stifle 23:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vibe/Ration

meet zero of the criteria for WP:MUSIC MNewnham 22:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I disagree. Vibe/Ration is a great upcoming American Band, deleting this could affect their growing process. This is called the free Encyclopedia, not the delete whatever the heck you want encyclopedia. Many people have requested that i put this page out there, so dont delete it without discussing your problems with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase Eversol (talk • contribs)
- Wikipedia is not a place to advertise. Ideally, a Wiki article should not have any affect on a band's growing process, as they should be grown enough to get by without the attention that Wikipedia would bring. Until that time, this band does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for the inclusion of a band. Come back and recreate the page after they meet the standards. (See also your user talk page, where I shall make a comment.) Delete as per nom. --Thephotoman 03:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I speedied this for good reason on Dec. 13th. I am re-speedying this now. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Cleared as filed. 05:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Achievement in British Education

This article has a rather nebulous title that is poorly defined in the article, is poorly written, is one-sided and is absolutely full of POV assertions with no sources. Unless someone with enough knowledge of the subject steps up to do a balanced rewrite, I think it should be deleted. NicM 22:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I am studying this right now in my Sociology classes. It is quite clear somebody has simply taken the textbook! All our sources seem to be highly critical of IQ and claim that it is "not a sociological explanation" (wtf?). Somebody apparently decided to totally reverse the bias of the article, too [58]. I will add some sources but the article may be beyond repair. r3m0t ^talk 00:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (provided more sources added) I would say the article was a fair summary of what British "experts" say on the subject. I imagine its based on the intro of some longer tome which goes on to discuss each point in detail with sources/studies identified. Whether or not one agrees with it you can't really put it down as one contributor's POV - its just summarising the mainstream view of sociologists. Jameswilson 04:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put it down as one contributor's point of view. Much of it may well be true, but it is still poorly defined and POV. NicM 08:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

The article is definitely not a fair summary of what British experts say. If it were, British expert opinion claims that UK education is a sociological disaster! At best, this article is what one sociologist says, without attribution, and so fails to be NPOV. It also fails to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia except perhaps as 'Conclusions of the X Report into British Education' (where X is whoever's POV this article represents). In all, content is thoroughly misleading and of dubious merit. Delete 84.67.190.181 21:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

There was a serious amount of research behind many of the points in the article, and the whole thing in fact forms a major part of an AS Unit for Sociology. Dammit, if the people writing the qualifications admit the system is seriously screwed up, surely this is not just one person's POV? :P r3m0t ^talk 22:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exaactly so. But User:84.67.190.181 is misinformed. The consensus of British expert opinion does claim exactly that - that UK education is a disaster for working-class children! Their published work and textbooks reflect that and every new government initiative starts from that assumption. I will concede that the article should be retitled "Disparities in Educational Achievement" or some such to make it clearer what the point at issue is. Jameswilson 23:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep probably needs renaming and sourcing (having been through British education). - FrancisTyers 16:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime you are putting in an encyclopedia a "point at issue" you are not doing the correct thing. Writing an article which has as its sole purpose the advocacy of a particular view, even when phrased neutrally, is not what this project is about. I recommend it be deleteed. --DSYoungEsq 22:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research and hopelessly POV. Stifle 23:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Can probably be cleaned up nicely. -- JJay 23:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless references, sources, external links, etc can be put in place pronto, in which case Rename and make more NPOV, especially opening section. David Kernow 06:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to what exactly? r3m0t ^talk 23:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simply placing "Factors affecting" before the rest of title begins to clarify what the article is about; but, depending on what sources, references et al can be provided, a prefix such as "Studies of" may be more accurate. Providing sources, references et al and rephrasing parts of the article to (try to) defuse potential POV claims should indicate what kind of title is most representative. Happy Christmas! David Kernow 06:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Team 1114

Non-noteworthy amateur sports team. Not referenced anywhere within Wikipedia, yields only 650 hits through Google. Thephotoman

Delete per nom, amateur sports team, no notibilty. Agnte 10:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a sports team, it is a high school robotics team. Ground Zero | t 16:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stifle 23:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyzzle

Advertisement for NN software MNewnham 22:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant advertisement r3m0t ^talk 00:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Thephotoman 03:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. Stifle 23:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Vehicle Blueprints

Delete. Appears to be a vanity page. This entry was created by the author of the site. This is the only entry the author has made. Epolk 22:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopaedic firetruckcruft and advertising for a non-notable website. Eddie.willers 23:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thats the first time anyone has used the word firetruckcruft [59] Agnte 17:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agnte 17:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jussenadv 02:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eddie.willers. Stifle 23:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. howch e ng {chat} 16:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bible thumper

Article on slang dictionary entry. Delete from precedent -- Mecanismo | Talk 22:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a common phrase in the language. the article needs expanding, not deletion. fuzzywolfenburger
Transwiki to Wiktionary r3m0t ^talk 00:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a very well known expression. Could be expanded through literary references. -- JJay 01:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not only there are precedents justifying the article's deletion but you should also know that Wikipedia is not a dictionary --Mecanismo | Talk 10:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is useful and should be kept and expanded. I get +95,000 hits for this [60]and the term has been in use since at least the 1930s. The article also discusses software. Furthermore, I would appreciate if you refrained from throwing wikipedia links in my face. I have not talked about the repeated mistaken Afd noms I have seen lately. Please try to contribute constructively to the discussion. -- JJay 21:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:NOT.Gateman1997 21:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So does trolling. -- JJay 21:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who is trolling? You're the one stalking my every vote...Gateman1997 21:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm affraid you are not alone. JJay seems to be a bit too obsessive --Mecanismo | Talk 00:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki per R3mot. Stifle 23:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per R3mot. SailorfromNH 02:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Quidam65 04:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudslice

Plug for a forum with 39 members... fails WP:WEB proposal. W.marsh 22:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete r3m0t ^talk 00:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Thephotoman 03:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- JJay 21:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert. Stifle 23:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Billie L Garrett

I can find no evidence that this filmmaker has ever actually made a film MNewnham 23:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for non-notability. No Google hits for 'Billie L Garrett' and the only film-connected hit for 'Billie Garrett' was as an extra. Eddie.willers 23:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, IMDb search turns up nothing. --Thephotoman 03:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable and exceptionally likely to be non-notable too. Stifle 23:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 23:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bicester group

List article of obscure bands which originated on an obscure town. Completely void of encyclopedia value. Mecanismo | Talk 23:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failure to meet WP:MUSIC. Eddie.willers 23:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge important parts with Bicester. -- JJay 01:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:MUSIC. --Thephotoman 03:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete random listcruft and nn bands. Stifle 23:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 23:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clown Samurai

Plug for a webcomic, fails WP:WEB's proposed guidelines for webcomics. No Alexa rank, [61], 90 members in forum [62], no evidence that it meets the other critera. --W.marsh 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Thephotoman 03:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 10:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Comixpedia (if the licenses are compatible, which I think they are). -Colin Kimbrell 22:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing webcomic guidelines. Stifle 23:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep Ral315 (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg Carey

NN 'Survivor' contestant MNewnham 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure if we have a policy on this, but I guess Survivor makes one prominent. -- JJay 01:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Being on "Survivor" is notable due to the continued popularity of the series (however tasteless it may be). --Thephotoman 03:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the concensus is keep on this, would all these types of entry not be better placed on a 'Survivor Contestants' page, as it would seem that for all these people, their only notability is that they are contestants, and they are probably more locatable under that heading. MNewnham 14:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That could be a good idea, but the page might be too long. Also, don't some of these people go on to other things after Survivor? -- JJay 20:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Survivor or delete. Being a contestant on reality television does not make one notable except to a very tiny subgroup of people. And for that, they have "People" magazine. D e nni ☯ 04:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for extended/signficant appearance on hit show. An actor with comparable air time on a hit show, would be in pretty easily. As disappointing as it may be, far more people have seen this person, followed his activities (on the show, and reading in the press) than have any concern for most of the persons accepted in Wikipedia. The question is, are we picking who has been found notable by others (demonstrated in published national media coverage of them), or who should be. One shouldn't be notable for being on such a show, but one is (personally I don't understand the concern with these contestants, and wish reality tv would largely go away). Also, I think a practical rule of thumb for hit national reality shows, is about ten top contestants (if they're more than just a few episodes, and there's ample coverage specifically of them) are usually (not always) getting articles. For such contestants, rather than doing an AFD, a simpler approach is to redirect/unredirect based on completeness of article. --Rob 11:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete per Denni. Stifle 23:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. —Cleared as filed. 05:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EasyEnglish

Advertising MNewnham 23:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Doesn't seem to be all that relevant to anything. --Thephotoman 03:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain for now. The article indeed has an advertising character, but I'm not convinced yet that the language is irrelevant. The impression I get from the article is that Easy English is essentially a variation of Basic English. Perhaps a merge and redirect would be in place? I'd like to hear some discussion first! --IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 07:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wycliffe Bible Translators who seem to have invented or use this system. If that's not possible because of length, then Keep -- JJay 08:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wycliffe Bible Translators or Delete - apparently they're the only ones who use it, so it belongs in their article if anywhere. DenisMoskowitz 02:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Based on the argumentation above: Merge and redirect to Wycliffe Bible Translators. A note about the language should be made on Basic English as well. --IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 07:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert. Stifle 23:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Club-mc-chisel

Invented word, no evidence it's ever been used outside of Wikipedia, probable joke article. W.marsh 23:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonsense. --Thephotoman 03:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- JJay 21:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete patent nonsense. Stifle 23:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Feel free to boldly merge things. —Cleared as filed. 05:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur Transplants and Fitness to Practice

del nonnotable band and their downloadable album, however charitable they ae. mikka (t) 23:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete r3m0t ^talk 00:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Thephotoman 03:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge and Redirect to London Underground (song). The song is very notable, something of a pop-culture phenomenon/fad in the UK, i think the band is notable enough to get an article, but failing that at least merge the information into the article for the song. Jdcooper 19:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' or 'Merge and Redirect' to London Underground (song) or Fitness to Practice album not completely downloadable. Relevant to people with medical background. ged3000
Keep or Merge and Redirect Rob 14:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge and Redirect to ~~London Underground (song) or~~ Fitness to Practice, per Jdcooper. While I see the significance of "London Underground" in a part of the Interweb to warrant a keep, I find it more fitting to simply merge the artist's article to the album's article, unless there is something about the artists themselves that is noteworthy and notable of mention. ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 15:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC) ╫[reply]
Speedy delete the band as nn-band, and keep the song. Stifle 23:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems crazy you're suggesting it should be deleted because they have a 'downloadable album'. What a piece of nonsense - I thought Wiki would be promoting the use of the internet? KJC.
Merge and redirect The JPS 12:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Faria Salman

NN, vanity, zero google hits on 'Faria Salman' +fashion MNewnham 23:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete r3m0t ^talk 00:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Melchoir 00:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and no sources. --Thephotoman 03:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity, nn. Agnte 14:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- JJay 21:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nn-bio. Stifle 23:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus - Izehar 22:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paste (story)

~~Personal Essay Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)~~ Keep after JJay Rewrite. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete r3m0t ^talk 23:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and clean-up. What is the problem here? This is about a Henry James story. -- JJay 01:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned this up a bit. Delete voters should note we have 27 articles on Henry James fiction. Is there something objectionable about this story? -- JJay 04:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as per nom. --Thephotoman 03:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay and nom Agnte 10:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess. Needs cleanup, which I've been doing on the entries for James' major works. But Paste is such a minor story, though it's charming enough. Are we going to have articles for every single tale by James? He wrote 112 of them. I can understand articles for major tales like The Turn of the Screw, The Beast in the Jungle and The Aspern Papers. But Paste? Oh well, I'll fix it up a little when I get done with the more important entries. Casey Abell 14:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(this comment was really made by 165.125.144.16 (talk • contribs) Johnleemk | Talk 16:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
165.125.144.16 is me. Sometimes I don't bother to log in, though I have to when I create an article. Casey Abell 16:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about Henry James, but I also don't see anything wrong, per se, with having articles on each short story, if editors want to submit them. Wasn't James known for his short stories? In any case, for organizational purposes, the short-story articles could eventually be combined into larger pieces on the collected short stories. -- JJay 18:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some of James' most important writing is found in his stories, so I don't have any problem with people wrting articles about them. We already have entries on Daisy Miller, The Aspern Papers, The Turn of the Screw, In the Cage, Paste and The Beast in the Jungle. Another article is on the way for The Jolly Corner. I've made a separate category for entries about the stories on the main Henry James article. (Which is now starting to turn into the Henry James Portal for all the entries on his individual works.) But if we do articles on all James' 112 tales, that's gonna be a whole lot of articles goin' on. (wink) Casey Abell 13:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Henry James does deserve pretty thorough coverage on his writing, although articles on all the stories are obviously a long ways off. I actually just cleaned up Paste, which someone else (a student maybe) submitted. -- JJay 13:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article should be kept. It has been cleaned up.

Link 13:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some commentary and criticism to the article, and generally tidied things up. The article is a definite keeper now, if I say so myself. Casey Abell 14:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per r3m0t. Stifle 23:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gamerstrike

Non-noteable gaming clan website. Complete advertisement. WP:NOT KC. 23:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and it's a new site, too... r3m0t ^talk 00:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AFD notice has now been removed by user several times. Will continue to replace until this is resolved. KC.
Delete Per nom. Also fails WP:WEB. Agnte 11:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- JJay 21:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Zzzzz 19:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable gaming clan. -- Natalinasmpf 02:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I took off the speedy tag because discussion had started here already, but I don't think this is a suitable article for Wikipedia. This is CRAP (Completely Repulsive Attempt of Propaganda), not an encyclopedic article. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stifle 23:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. howch e ng {chat} 18:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Worms weapons and tools

Fancruft. r3m0t ^talk 23:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Worms is an extremely popular game. The weapons from the game are covered in an encyclopaedic fashion and form a useful resource. Incidentally, quoting from Fancruft, Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its deletion, but it is rarely the sole factor. If this was a list of levels in Worms, or character names, or documentation of minute details of gameplay, I might agree. But a picture and simple description of each weapon? Harmless. Stevage 00:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --ZeroOne 00:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are not GameFAQs. --Apostrophe 01:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wonderful page. A major addition to Worms scholarship. Why would we want to delete this? -- JJay 01:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reasons as above Run! 10:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Worms is a rather popular game, and one article for ALL its weapons that are featured in ALL its games is the least we can do for it. -- SoothingR^(pour) 15:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article is well worth the space. -- Raelus 19:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See Pokémon move, Pokémon damage formula and Pokémon Abilities for some reference. Yikes...Stevage 03:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!, As per above. Popular game & if the main worms article is ever separated into singular game articles, this article will prove most invaluable. Spawn Man 02:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. howch e ng {chat} 18:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arackal

Delete for a total failure to establish notability - even in stub form. Eddie.willers 23:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Looks like it could relate to something important. [63] -- JJay 01:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable - Royalty. Not Christian, Muslim (i've changed it). The Arackal Palace is the sole Royal household of Muslims in Kerala.[64]. Also a mention in Rediff [65]. Agnte 14:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and the royal family has a long history. Tintin 15:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Agante.--Raghu 15:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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