Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 13 November 15 >

Purge server cache

November 14

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 PaRappa the Rapper after merge. Robert T | @ | C 00:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All Master's Rap (Bathroom Rap)

[edit]

As with Chop Chop Master Onion's Rap above: Video games are notable, but single levels from video games? To be fair, this is also a song from the PaRappa the Rapper soundtrack. But I still don't think it needs its own article. Delete or Merge with PaRappa the Rapper. BrianSmithson

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amioba

[edit]

Article cites "Eragian mythology." There is, as far as I can determine, no such thing. Chick Bowen 01:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 07:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina v England (2005)

[edit]

Article about friendly match between Argentina national football team and England national football team seams to me not important enough to have its own article. The match was just a friendly match with no special incidents. Mariano(t/c) 09:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've now moved the piece to the main namespace, where it resides, unsurprisingly, at England and Argentina football rivalry. It's got references, etc now, but is sadly lacking an image — I tried in vain to find a free image of one of the games or even separate ones of England and Argentina teams and / or notable players from these matches, but haven't had any luck. Anyone know of such images? Angmering 13:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like Argentina has rivalries all over the place. :) Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Wile E. Heresiarch. Mo0[talk] 09:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arun isaac

[edit]

Clear vanity page, but the newspaper article is an assertion of notability so I figured it wasn't a speedy deletion candidate. Chick Bowen 03:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bad business

[edit]

Had a speedy delete tag but not a speedy so placing it here. My vote is Delete for failing WP:MUSIC --JAranda | watz sup 01:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Joss

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article cites no sources, and research turns up no published works dealing with this person, that are sourced independently from the subject, aside from one sentence mentions in articles about Germaine Greer's candidacy. The only source of information about the subject is the subject himself, in an interview. The source of the purported Germaine Greer quotation is also the subject himself, and its accuracy has already been disputed by other people. The WP:BIO criteria are not satisified. It appears that this person has not had any independently sourced press coverage, let alone as much as Mike McCue (AfD discussion) has. Delete. Uncle G 15:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability sufficient for WP:BIO. — Haeleth Talk 18:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain, even a google search turns up dozens of mentions other than this election incl the result, its incomplete not unnecessary. 21:04, 18 November 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. —Cleared as filed. 07:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

berate

[edit]

dicdef already in Wiktionary Savant1984 04:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blank programming language

[edit]

Not notable. The only Google hits for this seem to be the author's web site and many Wikiedia mirrors. Dalbury (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Past VFD archived here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blogosphere2

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

blogosphere

[edit]

Not notable, should be merged with blog at the very least. Skrewler 03:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep after rewrite.--Shreshth91 13:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blounts Creek

[edit]

I'm not sure what this is. I was tempted to speedy it as an attack page, but probably it's some mixture of opinion, original research, and personal attack. In any case, non-encyclopedic as written. --Alan Au 06:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 797

[edit]

Speculation on an unannounced aircraft. How do we know whether the 797 will be a 747 replacement or a 737 replacement? Andros 1337 03:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Weinberger

[edit]

Vanity biography for a non-notable hacker. I would expect someone running a 25-man company would get some Google hits. Delete and clean out all the references he's made to himself. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention the suspicious talk page... —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note further that another IP address in Illinois (where Weinberger is purportedly from) is trying to dodge this AfD.[4][5] —HorsePunchKid→龜 19:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm afraid that I can't see my way to a vandalism speedy. While we may all believe that it's patently false, the IP creator/commentator might be a school, and all we're left with is something entirely unverifiable. Geogre 18:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 23:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Corney

[edit]

Only two Google hits. --Ixfd64 08:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. The only keep votes are by a user whose only contributions ever are to this AfD debate. — JIP | Talk 16:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Britlist

[edit]

Non-notable website. Few google hits (39 unique), Alexa ranking stops just short of 500,000. Little more than advertising. Francs2000 17:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. One of many such sites in the UK that linkfarm to boost their Google rating. Hence, lots of Google results, but only around 40 unique hits. Nothing unique about this site to jstify it's inclusion. --GraemeL (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article. It's not actually link farming that gives them so many google results - it's the fact that they have so many unique pages. A lot of the results are a combination of the number of sections and towns that they cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.6.234.29 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 November 2005
  • Delete. I responded to a message yesterday on the help desk from Timp of Britlist wondering what had happened to an article he had posted. I checked the records and noticed that we had an article created by Tim Patterson of November 9 and I assume that Tim P of Britlist and Tim Patterson are one and the same. I did a search and discovered 109,000 hits so I put a notice on the UK Wikipedians notice board talk page see [[7]]. The general concensus was that this was of little value and should be listed. Further, there were only 39 unique hits for this company and it fails to meet WP:CORP. Capitalistroadster 18:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For reasons above Maccoinnich 16:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete I'd keep the article on the site - this site's big in the UK and is used by a lot of people for buying and selling who don't like to pay the fees on ebay. It's also nominated for website of the year 2005. Website of the year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.6.234.29 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 16 November 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Budgetax

[edit]

Vanity, non-notable company Swamp Ig 08:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC) (Originaly nominated by User:Rkevins82 without creating a votes page/log ect)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a simple re-creation of content discussed before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buluran/2004-11-15. The article was the same content as before, simply in a different language. Uncle G 03:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buluran

[edit]

Genealogical and/or vanity Chris the speller 03:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Basketball

[edit]

Delete. This is a product of someone’s imagination. See the last sentence in the article. The same user contributed the related article Phillip Hambright, which is also on AFD. ♠DanMS 06:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cabury

[edit]

Don't know if it's a real person, certainly doubtful if he is notable, googling 'cadbury Harold Earl Wessex godwin godfrey' yielded these results, none seem to be about the person i question. By the way, it seems to be a typo in the article title, since the text refers to "Cadbury" - Akamad 09:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus D/K/M -- 12/13/4. More at talk page. Karmafist 16:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian_blogosphere

[edit]

Not notable, should be merged with blog at the very least. Skrewler 03:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete without merging. Canadian blogosphere = that part of the blogosphere in Canada. So what? Wile E. Heresiarch 04:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as introductory article to Category:Canadian bloggers. --maclean25 06:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but maybe move few sentences to Category:Canadian bloggers. I don't think categories for people by nationality need any corresponding introductory articles in most cases. jni 07:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, that's a great idea.
  • Delete unnecessarily specific. Dottore So 12:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a fairly decent introduction to the topic. - SimonP 13:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, putting this in vfd shows the systemic bias towards non-American entries that has been identified in Wikipedia. The blogosphere in Canada has significant characteristics that are distinct and notable. --Simon.Pole 16:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wile E. Heresiarch. Nonsense. --Timecop 01:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't systemic bias. A similiar article about any country's blogs would have similiar problems. Certain blogs are apparently being used as primary sources, but there are no secondary sources. If sufficient secondary sources cannot be found and used, this article should go away for lack of verifiability. It's not that the article is bad, but to me it looks like original research, and as such should be deleted. I could change my mind if sources are found. Friday [[User_talk:Friday|(talk)]] 02:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is non-American systemic bias. The main articles on blog topics almost exclusively concern the situation in the USA. They are essentially national US articles. I know this is hard for some people to see, like fish seeing the water, but please try to treat other countries fairly.--Simon.Pole 04:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is thinly-veiled vanity. Of no encyclopedic value. The Tangent 00:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. -- You have got to be kidding, right? Not notable whatsoever. 65.34.232.136 05:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article at blog is presently very US-centric, and coverage of Canadian bloggers is required in some manner. Either keep or merge into blog as a Canadian section; the topic is most certainly not any less encyclopedic than the exclusively American examples currently cited at blog. Bearcat 06:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then perhaps cleanup of blog is in order. Not saying I should do it, but why exactly are there *examples of blogs* in an article about blogs, you've seen one, you've seen them all, a simple one-paragraph description of what a blog is should suffice. The whole blog thing is blown out of proportion. --Timecop 06:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do we need something describing what blogs are for every country? What makes Canada so special? All of this information is just repeatative of what blogging in general is. 131.128.142.226 06:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a no-brainer in the Canadian media; this is used as part of any good barometer of Canadian public opinion. Deleting this article would be a mistake, and I think significantly demonstrates an offhand US systemic bias on Wikipedia. It *is* tantamount to saying that Canadian political debate (which naturally contains a lot of debate about US policy, for reasons any Canadian would see as obvious (US policy has arguably as much effect on Canada as Canadian policy)) is irrelevant. As a Canadian, I'm inclined to object to that. References to PB or 'Canadian Blogosphere' as 'non-notable' here seem to be offhand and poorly informed. I don't hesitate to say that an American isn't going to be naturally inclined to make an informed choice about this. There are, after all, only 30 million Canadians. . . for US perspective, that's NYC and surrounding areas, and we're a pretty politically splintered group. That said, the Alexa rankings make perfect sense, and actually don't justify deletion based on overall popularity. Overall popularity among whom? Americans interested in Canadian political scandals? "What makes Canada so special?" What makes the US so special that most references in 'blogging' are pulled from the US (and refer to it)? Is there a US or pan-global content requirement for a Wikipedia article to be relevant? I wasn't aware that there was.
    • You're making an argument to fix the U.S. bias in the other articles, not to keep this particular one. There is nothing special about Canadian blogs, and there is also nothing special about U.S. blogs, so no article should be biased towards either. Incidentally, before you go assuming I'm demonstrating bias here myself, let me add that I'm British... and I would vote to delete British Blogosphere, if it existed. — Haeleth Talk 17:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm actually making the argument that this is a form of political dialogue that is rather important in Canada, and that if, perhaps, the article ought to be about anything other than what it is (which is bewildering, IMO), it ought to be about or include a distinct section about the mechanism by which the Canadian media interacts with this specific set of blogs, and the reason why they have such an effect on the political debate in Canada. That is notable, IMO. These sites are simply not what these delete votes claim. Sigma-6
  • Keep, The article is well written, I agree with Simon.Pole, it is bias to non-Amercian articles, if there was a article of Amercian blogospheres it wouldn't of been vfd'd. To 131.128.142.226's comments, what makes Amercians so special? They bomb countries for oil? Thats all they seem noteable for. --supers 06:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with blogging? unnecessarily subcategorising an already over-publicised subject Adamn 08:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't want to speculate on the suitability of this article itself, but I'd be a happy man if we could move this to Canadian blogs or somewhere similar. Blogosphere is such an awful, awful word, really. We shouldn't encourage its use by acknowledging its existence -- and this from a committed descriptivist. Someone think of the kittens. - Randwicked 08:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per maclean25 and SimonP above. Luigizanasi 14:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really, really hope people will explain their reasoning for keeping or deleting as it relates to editorial policies and the objections to the content. Assuming sinister anti-left or anti-Canada motives is not helpful. Also, just because there are equally unverifiable articles on other topics does not make this a proper article. This isn't written as an article, it's written as a personal essay. I'm willing to accept that blogs are significant to Canadian politics. But, this is a recent movement, and if no proper sources are available on this topic, there's no way to have an article about it. Making it neutral and verifiable is impossible without a sufficient number of reliable sources. Friday (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I fail to see how the blogosphere is a "recent movement". The word was coined at the latest in 2002, and one assumes what it describes was going on for some time before that. I also fail to see why a Canadian article somehow needs to be rolled into a larger American article to be valid.--Simon.Pole 20:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Has absolutely nothing to say other than "hey, there are bloggers in Canada, and they do the same stuff as bloggers everywhere else!" Except when it makes unsupported and unverifiable claims like "weblogs of a political nature have a particularly high visibility in Canada, perhaps more so than other countries". Merge any useful content into other articles like Blogosphere and Blog, to counter the U.S. bias perceived there, but there is no reason to keep this as an article in its own right. — Haeleth Talk 17:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Femmina 22:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Haeleth. All this article does is assert that Canadians blog, just like people in dozens of other countries do. Andrew Levine 22:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This article does more than just "assert that Canadians blog". The article actually discusses the importance of blogs in Canada as opposed to other countries, citing examples. Is it too much to ask that people read entries before voting to delete them?--Simon.Pole 23:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs some claenup, but covers a surprisingly broad topic rather well. Radagast 23:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is another pointless, irrelevant, non noteworthy, redundant, self righteous blog. Take it outside and shoot it please. --Impi.za 00:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is clearly notable. It also analyzes the Canadian blog culture, not just describes blogging in general. -Hapsiainen 00:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is getting silly. There is systemic bias on Wikipedia in favor of all things internet-related. This article's existance is helped by the bias, not hurt by it. This is not an "American article versus Canadian article" issue- Wikipedia is meant for the whole world, not just two particular countries. There should be no such thing as an American article or Canadian article, they're all just articles. But, the big issue here is the lack of verifiability. This is a broad, new topic. I don't see how it's going to be possible to write a proper article (rather than a personal essay) on this topic unless there are good secondary sources available. Friday 00:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Until there's a consensus that there should be no country specific blogosphere article, this is a reasonable entry. If specific facts in the article are disputed or not verifiable, those items can be hammered out on the talk page. Samw 01:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone, and strong rename to something more dignified. - Randwicked 02:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As for the country specific blogosphere articles, to me this is a no-brainer. Blogs, by their very nature as websites, are global. You can group them together sensibly only by their subject matter. Should we have an article about the "Pizza blogosphere" (blogs about pizza)? Until reliable sources are talking about the "Canadian blogosphere" as an identifiable thing, I still can't see how this could be verifiable. Friday 03:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One of Wikipedia's recognised strengths is that it is up-to-date, especially on recent phenomena. We have articles on every single imaginable video game, most music albums you care to mention, practically every single piece of software out there, a number of usenet newsgroups, Wikipedia did better than the regular news media on recent events such as the London bombings and Hurricane Katrina, and so on. Where else but Wikipedia can people find hopefully neutral information on the recent and increasingly important phenomenon of blogging, especially political blogs, which are not neutral by their very nature. NPOV articles on Blogging groups (not necessarily individual blogs, mind you), perform a vital service to the world at large. Luigizanasi 04:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A group of users is systematically going through and deleting all blog-related entries. This is operating in bad faith. You can see the organizing page here. They even targetted J.D. Lasica's entry. These people are living in a cave. I'm surprised they have digits to type at their keyboards.--Simon.Pole 08:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Nemer

[edit]

Looks very much like a autobiographical piece by a, apparently, non-notable person. This ought to be moved to user space, or deleted. It's disturbing that it has not been noticed until now. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:10, 14 November 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.  Grue  18:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cdghost

[edit]

Most likely autobiographical, and non-notable. Gets 955 google hits. Interiot 19:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems like vanity and non-notable. On a side note... it google really a good way to measure an articles worthiness in terms of AfD? Deskana 19:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a good way per-se. The best way is for someone who is familiar enough with the material to not just be making a "I've never heard of this" assessment, yet is detached enough to make an honest judgement. In lieu of someone like that who can make an authoritate assessment, it's better than simply saying "I've never heard of it before". *shrug* --Interiot 20:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. There are at least two problems with google hits: link exchange and the presence of unrelated topic. In this case, a search for " cdghost -site:diaryland.com" (pages mentioning cdghost but not on the site diaryland.com) gives 700 hits, but most seem to be related to Net CD Ghost V5.0 - Multimedia network virtual CD cabinet. A search for "link:cdghost.diaryland.com" (links to the site) gives 1 hit. As Interiot correctly pointed out, the opinion of an expert would be the best thing. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the best way is to not count hits at all, but instead to read what the Google Web search turns up, and look to see whether anyone else, apart from its own author, has written about this journal. Multiple published works about the subject from sources that are independent of the subject itself are a clear indicator of notability, as they demonstrate that other people have found the subject notable enough that they have gone to the effort of writing and publishing stuff of their own about it. No experts and their opinions are required for this method. Uncle G 00:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Uncle G is correct - in part. He is correct in saying that other people having written about the journal is more relevant than the number hits. However, if there are basically no links to the journal site (besides those from the same site), it is probably safe to assume that the journal is not notable (not vice versa; I think this is his point). I assume that Uncle G is only proposing "this method" for articles on web sites/blogs/journals and similar things. If he is proposing to use it in general, I strongly disagree with him: there are some notable topics that are not covered well on the Internet (I remember a past AfD about a town in India with a population of over 100.000 and with a little web coverage). I am saying this because the original question was about using Google in general, not in particular for this kind of articles. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 11:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  18:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Censored comic's

[edit]

An almost unverifiable comic book publisher which does, I think, not meet our standards for the inclusion of corporations. This is one of very few relevant Google hits I've found: [12] Adding this article was that user's only contribution. I had hoped I could clean this up but with no contact and no reliable source it seems hopeless. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect Marskell 12:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheapskate

[edit]
See also Cheapskating (AfD discussion).

Dictionary definition (Wikipedia is not a dictionary). Keithlaw (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chewbacca Gambit

[edit]

Not notable, fails google test. Fancruft - Dr Haggis - Talk 18:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to PaRappa the Rapper after merging. Robert T | @ | C 03:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chop Chop Master Onion's Rap

[edit]

Video games are notable, but single levels from video games? To be fair, this is also a song from the PaRappa the Rapper soundtrack. But I still don't think it needs its own article. Delete or Merge with PaRappa the Rapper. —BrianSmithson 14:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Burns (musician)

[edit]

Non-notable bio. "...slated for future release". I couldn't find an external bio.

Delete as noted. --Bookandcoffee(Leave msg.) 03:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao restaurant

[edit]

This article could be about any Italian restaurant called "Ciao," anywhere in the world, and the article doesn't provide enough information for anybody (including other editors) to tell which of the potentially thousands of Ciao restaurants it is talking about. AdelaMae 07:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"co-pilot"

[edit]

Wiktionary already has an entry for copilot [14]; for the second usage, WP:NOT a slang dictionary. --Alan Au 07:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was MOOT. The previous article, a one-liner that failed to even explain where the school is, was a clear-cut CSD A1 candidate, and I'm sorry I didn't speedy it when I first saw it. That non-stub has been replaced with a redirect to an actual stub, mooting the grand majority of the delete arguments, so I am closing this particular discussion as resolved, as neither the title nor the contents of that less-than-a-stub now exist anywhere on Wikipedia save buried in page history somewhere.

That said, this is not intended to be an endorsement of the stub at Colin's Performing Arts School, as that stub did not exist during the bulk of this discussion. If someone wishes to list that stub on AFD (Eris help them), this is not a relevant precedent to protect that stub and should not be cited as such. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colin's Performing Arts School

[edit]

Article is a review, not an encyclopedia entry. Plus I don't know if its notable since googling "Colins performing arts school" only came up with 12 results. Akamad 10:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colin's Performing Arts Ltd
The Studios, 219b, North St, Romford, Essex RM1 4QA
Tel: 01708 766007
Classification:
Dancing Schools
Hey, would you believe that apostrophe makes ALL the difference? Google on "Colin's Performing Arts School" and you find: http://www.colinsperformingarts.co.uk/school.htm
  • Delete no sources --redstucco 09:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now that I know what it is, it is clear that it is not notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A school. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A school.  Grue  18:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It exists, doesn't it? Furthermore, the nominator (and many of the deletionist vandals wishing to delete) fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of deletion. Deletion is not a judgment on the content of the article; if there are problems with the content then the article should be revised, not deleted. Deletion policy even says as much, although the deletionist vandals conveniently ignore that part of their holy book. Deletion is a judgment on the worthiness of the topic of the article itself for inclusion--and anything that exists is worthy for inclusion. Kurt Weber 14:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delay please. Can I ask this AFD not be closed until at least five days after DBsmith found the web site. I think there was good basis of deletion early on, but now I think there probably is a basis for keeping it; yet I haven't had time to know that for sure (I only noticed the fix just now). Rather than just vote "keep" I'ld rather we just pause and review what's now known (as I haven't had time evaluate what info I've read, its verifiability, and its signficance). --Rob 20:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Cleared as filed. 07:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Executive Board

[edit]

Nn 24.54.208.177 23:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Custom deluxe

[edit]

Not notable and probably not encyclopedic ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Geelong Grammar School. The target already contains all the relevant information ("one of" is there because several were founded at the same time: but the source includes dates of foundation). -Splashtalk 00:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cuthbertson House (formerly known as Cuthbertson)

[edit]

Non-notable student house, should be merged with Geelong Grammar School Cnwb 02:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  18:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Differation

[edit]

no vote yet as nominator but this has a strong OR feel. "differation wehner" (without the quotes) gets 34 Google hits, and a lot of them look like they're either of WP origin, or link back to Wehner himself. Anyone know anything about this? --Trovatore 23:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  18:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dooced

[edit]

Wictionary entry or speedy Adam 19:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eight Orange Orchard

[edit]

minor band. one indie ep. no media profile. noizyboy 00:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate wasRedirect to Alfred Stieglitz.--Shreshth91 12:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emmeline Obermeyer

[edit]

Non-notable on own. Husband famous. ERcheck 04:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was dammit, what's Dutch for "delete"? DS 03:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erard Oldtimersweb

[edit]

this article is not only a blatant advertisement and non-notable, it's completely incoherent wikipediatrix 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evo magazine forum

[edit]

Non-notable forum, fails guidelines at WP:WEB and contains little useful content. Hitchhiker89

Rubbish. I learned everything I know about lifting and rwd from the Evo forum.


It's the best, least moderated car forum out there, and a very interesting extension to the best car magazine in the UK. Keep it in.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 03:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extra of the maximum

[edit]

Non-notable band. No Google hits. No mention of albums. ERcheck 23:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete and speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 00:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flango and Ironlion

[edit]

MMORPG characters are not notable. Delete (Articles are related and created by the same author.) --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These pages have inspired me to keep using Wikipedia for all of my reaserch needs, keep up the good work and keep these articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.108.171.130 (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  18:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fondusi's

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 07:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Foolcut, Dusan vanco

[edit]

NN bandity. According to information in article, fails WP:MUSIC. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forever faithful

[edit]

Obvious vanity... WB 08:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 03:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fun with 4C

[edit]

Vanity page


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Galexo

[edit]

Adcruft by an SEO Spammer, same as Advanet, recently speedied. This may qualify for Speedy also, I'm not sure. KillerChihuahua 19:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. (per WP:NOT although this could be easily replaced with a category) -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

WP:NOT a image gallery. Transwiki to commons and Delete --JAranda | watz sup 00:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep Marskell 12:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic sexual attraction

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Groiset

[edit]

Unverifiable: no links on Google except Wikipedia mirrors Ze miguel 09:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 07:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Wenzeled

[edit]

neologism ERcheck 05:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being Wenzeled will be as widely known as being Owned, Pwned, Own3d, ect. It is a needed reminder to scam artist that the e-community will not stand for dishonesty.


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ghettofabulous

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a slang dictonary. Delete --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Grand Theft Auto. Just wanted to note that "newbie shock" isn't a good reason to redirect: that discussion belong on WP:XD or somewhere else, but it doesn't have any bearing on an AfD, imo. -Splashtalk 00:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theft Auto wanted star system

[edit]

Unencyclopedic -- too much unnecessary detail. If the consensus is that the article should be kept, info could be merged into Grand Theft Auto (series). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 23:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greyweather_productions

[edit]

Seems to be a mix of advert and vanity. Correct me if I'm wrong RattusMaximus 00:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)RattusMaximus[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, since the nom indicates that the term is used, and the seconder allows for redirection. Given that this is probably an ideal case for a redirect, I'm not going to relist it. -Splashtalk 00:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hegelian principle

[edit]

the article is just a capsule restatement of what's in the Hegel article and adds no new information; the phrase "Hegelian principle" is not in common usage; the only thing that links to this article is the Talk page for the philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel; Hegel's ideas are also discussed in the article on dialectics Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Toastmasters seems likely to satisfy all equally. -Splashtalk 00:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hellfire Toastmasters Dublin

[edit]

This might be a major and well-respected toastmasters club in Ireland, but I don't believe toastmasters clubs of mostly local interest deserve their own articles on wikipedia. I don't think there are any other articles on toastmasters clubs, so what's the point of keeping this one? Graham/pianoman87 talk 02:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

[edit]

An article about a single song that hasn't even been released yet. —Cryptic (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 03:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holotruck

[edit]

Appears to be ad-spam, a quick Google search reveals that this is identical to text pasted to several message boards. Therefore, I'm recommending Delete on principle. While the game itself may eventually warrant an article, this isn't it. --Alan Au 06:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperactive forums

[edit]

NN web forum with "close to 300 members." --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Integrating Lessons

[edit]

The article is an opinion piece on how to make use of "Wiki" as a teaching resource. It's now in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia wikibook. Uncle G 17:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ipselon

[edit]

This is completely unethical and shameless self promotion and spamming of Wikipedia on behalf of a useless, amateurish, and nondistinctive site called Ipselon that has just recently been launched. The person who wrote the articles, judging from the username (Ipselon), is the person who runs the very site s/he is advertising (Ipselon), and furthermore, the article is filled with simple grammatical and spelling mistakes. This spammer should be banned. 86.133.187.235 01:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete spam. --Bachrach44 01:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Not just the wikipedia article but also the advertised website itself is full of grammatical errors. Menyoung Lee 02:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising (but not spam, which would be a speedy) and cheese. Geogre 03:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or not Delete and make changes* I'm Antonio Cantallops the person that wrote the wikipedia article about Ipselon, first of all I feel much but I confused the username with nickname when I registered myself in wikipedia I'm sorry my poor english and also i like to say you i'm sorry if you think i'm spammer but i'm not spammer, i hate spammers.

I write you here my job and you judge me: when i was 14 years old my birthday present was my first computer "Spectrum Sinclair 32k", I am a self-taught person and now i have 30 years old. I like to much the computers and i like to much internet.

I had a idea to create a metasearch engine without publicity inside the results and include results of my own engine (a version based on nutch) and last 2 years i designed and created ipselon, a very hard job and many hours of job.

I do not have million dollars as other company's that have personal for create the enterprise, nobody has helped me to create ipselon only my parents and my wife. I have made meta-search engine with my own design and logo and i'm running 4 servers with my search engine version based on nutch that crawl internet web (the first version was an average year ago Ipselonbot 0.17 and now i'm running my version 0.53). Ipselon results are the combination of meta-search (Only this engines: Google, Yahoo, Msn and Teoma/Ask) + search engine based on Nutch. Ipselon Ranking results are combination of: Google results position, Yahoo results position, Msn results position, Teoma/Ask results position and my search engine version (based on Nutch)ranking position results.

When i wrote about ipselon in wikipedia I was not thinking to promote ipselon, i just was think to write a objective information about my company ipselon similar to other internet company's as clusty or dogpile.

I tried to wrote a similar article as clusty in wikipedia (internet open enciclopedia) with information about ipselon not for my own publicity. I haven't publicity at any place because i can't pay it and i don't send millions of e-mails to the people who do not wish to receive e-mails advertising also because i hate spammers (i have 2 ipselon e-mail accounts daily full of spam), the only publicity of ipselon it was the launching of press release with prweb.com and i haven't doing any more publicity.

I'm sorry again for my ipselon article (my first article on Wikipedia) and my bad english. If you want delete my article i understand you, but try to understand to me and my job, personally i prefer you don't delete my article but it's it is truth that is necessary to make a few changes to ipselon article for it be more objective and without language mistakes.

Thanks very much for your attention, my personal e-mail is toni.cantallops@ipselon.es if you want to tell me something about it. Antonio Cantallops 22:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC) emasculate and retain[reply]

Gastrich, or one of his supporters clearly wrote the original entry... Cut down, emasculated, and with a healthy dose of scepticism added I think it's worth leaving a page here on him if only to provide a voice that counters the enormous spin-machine that he runs through his ministry... He's clearly an important figure in North American fundamentalism which sadly twists real Christian teaching and attitudes through power abuse, ignorance, manipulation and personal ambition... I'm sorry... from the tone of the original article, Gastrich is clearly no different... so if he wants a presence in wikipedia, so be it, and let the article 'testify' to that...

DiegoJones

Jason Gastrich

[edit]
  • DeleteThis entry will not improve the Wikipedia resource.Delete

This is simply a vanity page, as far as I can see. The level of debate he has managed to stir up is actually quite limited, and his "debating" with Usenet and other users is not particularly erudite. He has been as guilty of mis-representation as some of the tele-evangelists referenced below, often quoting at length arguments made by other creationists that have been thoroughly discredited, often years ago.

If Mr Gastrich deserves a Wikepedia article about himself, then I am afraid that the whole resource may as well degenerate into a free-for-all of vanity articles and ego-massaging entries.

Please delete this article.

Rob Naylor


  • RetainThis entry will improve the Wikipedia resource.Retain

While it is true that Jason is still at a fairly early stage in his life and career for God, he already has managed to stir up so much discussion and debate about the Christian faith in the net, running one of the most visited Christian resources, and facilitating online work for many other Christians, as well as actively debating the most zealous and high profile atheists of America in Usenet and Bulletin Board discussions, so that he has actually become very high profile among them.

There exists a sizeable campaign among them to shut his mouth and make him look bad, and they usually use their overwhelming number on their forums to flood out his posts with bad posts about him, which actually in my view have no serious substance other than to serve as an excuse not to listen to the Message.

The existence of a few regrettable frauds in the tele-evangelists have enabled people to paint even sincere people in the worst possible colours, and they have been leveraging this to the hilt in defaming Gastrich, who is innocent of the matters they alledge and insinuate against him.

The existence of an officially sanctioned by Jason article about him on a resource of authority like Wikipedia would be a useful way to offer a balanced view about him, and would not detract from the quality and authority of this online encyclopedia. On the contrary, it would enhance it.

David J. James (aka "Uncle Davey) http://www.usenetposts.com

    • No, Davey, there is no "so much discussion" nor "most visited site" nor "sizeable campagin" nor any such thing involved. It's a relatively minor sideshow in the online world. Nothing to get excited about. Face it, if Gastrich were of any real significance, he and his merry band of sycophants wouldn't have to try to wedge a vanity page into the Wikipedia. Fact is, this system is not meant for self-promotion. You can whine about "persecution" all you want but there exist page after page after page here explaining what the Wikipedia is for and how it works. Deliberately breaking the rules then whining "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" only makes you look foolish. Mark K. Bilbo 17:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though at an early stage in his "career for God," the only reason this "evangelist" has "managed to stir up so much discussion," which is mostly *not* about the Christian faith, is because of his underhanded and dishonest tactics as well as his methods of self-promotion. This "officially sanctioned" article does nothing more than repeat a number of his own self-aggrandizing claims. Like most such articles, it leaves more questions unanswered than answered.
  • This Entry Should Stay. Duncharris is biased and has been against Gastrich for some time. See http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Skeptic%27s_Annotated_Bible&action=history where he edited the entry so that someone wouldn't create a page for Gastrich (and he also made a negative comment about Gastrich in the attributions, indicating a personal bias against him).

    The Jason Gastrich entry is informative and he is notable as an author of several books, former gubernatorial candidate, college professor, etc. He is also mentioned and linked on several other Wikipedia pages. See:

    • Results of the 2003 California recall
    • Farrell Till
    • Reggie Finley
    • Skeptic's Annotated Bible
    • Louisiana Baptist University
      • Gastrich complains about bias in others, but would pretend that he has no bias. People are biased against him because of his actions and tactics, and the issues about an encyclopedia entry are just more examples of Gastrich's arrogance. Gastrich is not notable and did not author "several" books. There are two of record, one of them in three editions. Of those, both are amateurish, self-published, and self-promoted (just as all of this is about selling those books). He is not a "college professor." Having taught at a tech/trade college in undergraduate courses, assuming that's even true, does not make one a "college professor." His run for Governor of California was a joke. He got 11 votes, despite a fairly vigorous campaign. He couldn't even get the support of his local churches and fellow Christians, and that was so infuriating to him that he issued a press release, whining about it.
  • On the Internet Infidels Discussion Board, Gastrich has had several debates. IIDB's top two most popular debates of all time belong to Gastrich. They've been read tens of thousands of times and so has the commentary thread(also most popular of all time). Among the commentary threads and debate threads, there are well over 60,000 reads; more than any other member or debater or thread.
    • It should be kept in mind that part of the reason for this is Gastrich arrogance, and the general desire among the readers to see Gastrich properly roasted in these debates, which is, of course, exactly what happened.
  • On the Infidel Guy forum, Gastrich's debate is also the most popular of all time. And so is its commentary thread with tens of thousands of reads.
    • I don't know how the "debate" was determined to "the most popular of all time." It was fairly universally panned, with neither participant gaining much in the way of praise, and it's said that Gastrich charged (and, amazingly, was paid) $1,000 for his "performance." Gastrich's arguments, as usual, were eviscerated in the "Peanut Gallery" and Gastrich, himself, was unable to answer many pertinent questions about his position and about things related to him. If this was a "popular" debate, it was because there is some satisfaction in seeing one such as Gastrich humbled.
  • This certainly isn't a vanity page and even if Gastrich is a nutjob, that isn't reason to remove this entry. I'm not an admin, but I vote to keep it. --Big Daddy 11:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Big Daddy is Jason Gastrich, so it's disingenuous, but common, for Gastrich to refer to himself as we see above, just as it's quite normal for Gastrich to take on a name like "Big Daddy" and refer to himself in the third person. Wiki does not keep articles by every narcissist that comes down the pike, and Gastrich should be no different. DELETE
    • The links were added, today, by you. As for college professor!?!?!?! That's a new one Jason, a step up from the diploma mill phds eh (you can find more about Jason's academic credentials here). The books appear to be from vanity presses. You are also aware that it's going to have to comply with WP:NPOV guidelines, right? Dunc|☺ 11:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gastrich teaching college courses at Coleman College (a nationally accredited technical school) in Psychology and Sociology is not new information. According to archive.org, while his resume was online, it was mentioned there. In fact, it's (ironically) linked from the durangobill.com site Duncharris cited above. --Big Daddy 10:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jason, you are known liar. Did you perchance, get that job with your "degree" from Louisiana Baptist University? Do you think your bosses should know about this? — Dunc|☺ 10:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Coleman College is a small trade/tech college near San Diego, and teaching classes there does not make one a "professor." Usually the granting of the title, "Professor," has a specific criteria and meaning. Gastrich has always been impressed with the use of titles--"Doctor," "Professor," "counselor," and so on, even when he hasn't really earned the right to use those titles.
  • Delete With points for trolling other pages to create apparent encyclopedic depth, lol. Clearly nn, vanity, self-promo page. Dottore So 13:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gastrich earned only 11 votes in the California gubernatorial election. Amazon.com does list his books but his best selling work is at rank 1,961,734 in sales.[17] Two out of three user reviews are scathing. The other looks like it was written by the author or a friend. Durova 14:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If positive book reviews on Amazon.com are actually a criteria for keeping a Wikipedia article, then the article should remain. There are far more positive reviews than negative ones. There are 26 total reviews and the book has received an average of 4 out of 5 stars. --Big Daddy 01:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gastrich, you wrote most of those positive reviews with sock puppet accounts at Amazon. Harvestdancer 05:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, there are more positive reviews, many clearly written by Gastrich. However, anyone who bothers to give the issue any thought can see that the negative reviews are clearly the more objective and substantial, and so have the most value. Even many Christians have steered clear of Gastrich and his controversies, and of those who comment, most find is methods offensive.
  • Delete per nom. Or replace with the text "this guy is a loser and a whacknut" and lock the sucker :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Ze miguel 14:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Avalon 16:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jason Gastrich LEAVE IT,,, we live in a world where everyone has a right to freedom of speech. Nothing he has done is vulgar or should not be heard. Protect the right of everyone to be heard. Just because you don't agree with him you shouldn't make him take it down. Ralph by 68.7.3.138 19:44, 14 November 2005 [18]
    • That's ironic, since he's apparently resorted to the legal system himself to shut up opponents or criticism. --Calton - Talk 02:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's true. Gastrich has attempted to use the legal system to shut down critics, at least once through a frivolous lawsuit, and when it came to court, Gastrich couldn't even be bothered to show up! And Ralph...I know what you're saying about "free speech," and no one is denying Gastrich free speech, but encyclopedias are not about free speech, they are about information, and that means all the information that is pertinent, not just what the subject of the article would like you to know.
  • Delete. Self-promotion (music lessons?). -Willmcw 22:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like an orchestrated effort to create notability for a non-notable subject. Jasmol 00:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per everyone Ashibaka (tock) 01:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious nn vanity (11 votes for Governor?!?). --Calton - Talk 02:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gastrich is non-notable and a perennial troublemaker, here and elsewhere. FeloniousMonk 02:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This Entry Should Stay. --Vera Six Dr. Jason Gastrich, college professor and internationally known even here in Germany, is an author of several books and should not be insulted here but kept and petted. He surely is an enrichment, and people love him for his numerous Wikipedia entries, e-mail devotionals, or his wonderful web site. He should really be listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.134.120.26 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT> 12:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • this entry should stay. even in the uk dr. gastrich is a respected christian author. i love his websites and the enrichment he brings to christian life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.48.47 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Probably not notable enough an author. Most of the info provided (40 day fast, soccer coach, etc.) seems superfluous. If the article remains, it should at least be scaled down, perhaps only mentioning his few published works and governor run. Everything else is clearly a vanity piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.199.237 (talk • contribs)
  • Retain. Dr. Jason Gastrich, through his writings and debates and web pages, has become a force in Christian apologetics and evangelism. One correction seems needed, however. A few years ago he wrote of changing his middle name to "Jesus." The article should include his full legal name. -- FH, Nov. 15, 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.36.126 (talk • contribs)
  • retain this entry should remain, As an author and lecturer we need to hear all viewpoints and not quash some because we do not agree. keep the debate going... what do you fear?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.200 (talk • contribs)
  • Why is this entry even being debated? It doesn't matter whether Jason Gastrich is on here or not, because it doesn't matter who is on here! Why is anybody saying he shouldn't? Do you want a totally controlled and bised site? Do you want only entries that you approve of? That is at the least, the socialistic LIMITING of free speech. The same thing happened in Germany, Russia, North Korea,even Canada and Sweden are entering that same preliminary controlling of the free press. Whoever opposes Jason Gastrich's entries here, are entering a dark and forboding realm of communistic limiting of not only free speech, but the controlling of the dissemination of knowledge...from all areas. To limit knowledge is dispicable, and robs people of the freedm to choose their path based on ALL viewpoints. --68.248.11.90 03:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)onewhoknowswhatmatters.[reply]
  • This entry should stay. Jason Gastrich has ministered to many and has had a positive impact on people in this world. He is a noteable writer and is passionate about what he believes in, for the good of all. Again, my vote is that the entry stays...
  • PLEASE ALLOW JASON TO KEEP HIS PAGE.. !! PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW IT TO BE DELETED.. THANX Rinu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.2.22 (talk • contribs)
  • Added some comments. I hope this is all that was required or should I also email the admins?
    • I think Jason is a cool dude. He stands for the truth and opposes the Atheists lies. Many of the Atheists hate him and this is a sure sign that Jason is being persecuted for the truth.
    • Matt. 5:11 ¶ “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
    • Matt. 5:12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
    • If you want to chat about Jason please do not hesitate to email me. You may find my address on my web page.
    • http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.126.198.22 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. Is it a personal attack to say that on good evidence, i.e., direct revelations, every time you do not form a possessive correctly God kills a kitten? Anville 11:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these partisan rants by supporters of keeping him have swayed me. PatGallacher 19:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity page for minor religious figure, apparent "notability" pumped up by sockpuppets. MCB 20:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already voted to Keep the entry, so I won't vote again. It should be noted though that "Jason Gastrich" has over 58,000 search results in Google, over 40,000 results in Usenet, and over 51,000 in Yahoo. Not to mention, the organization that he directs (Jesus Christ Saves Ministries) has over 221,000 search results in Google.--Big Daddy 01:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. Google only shows 196 unique hits for "Jason Gastrich". The tens of thousands of other hits may be mirrors, etc. -Willmcw 09:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While he might possibly be infamous, the sockpuppets have muddied the waters so much it's difficult to tell, and clearly it's going to be difficult sustaining an objective article when the only Wikipedia editor interested in the man is himself. Naturally AfD is not cleanup, but I don't think Wikipedia is really going to miss this article, so I err on the side of deletion. --Last Malthusian 09:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • These certainly don't look like sockpuppets. Anyhow, there are two points to consider. First, the ruling admins will be able to see everyone's IP address and he or she will know whether or not these are sockpuppets or people from all over the country and the world who are weighing in on this issue. Next, voting to delete simply on the assumption that these are sockpuppets is absolutely absurd. Votes such as these should be significantly devalued.--Big Daddy 18:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, "all over the country and the world" as in "open proxies." 213.42.0.0/16 contains a number of open proxies and at least one unsigned comment in support of this page has come through 213.42.2.22 which is very interesting don't you think? Mark K. Bilbo 20:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain: It is not difficult understanding why some people want this entry deleted. Even if some people feel they have personal problems with the entry, the information given in the entry is beneficial for many. Has someone noted the vulgar and hate speech some of those who want the entry deleted have resorted to?--Cilmin, 18 November, 2005.
  • Hi! Thank You so much for letting us be apart of the in-put! Jason as usual has gone to great lengths to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ! Yes you will have opposition. What would faith be without it in our world?. But at the same time Our great Nation depends on differences of opinion and allows each party to talk,show,discuss, But NEVER DELETES or ILLIMINATES the other opinion!Its what makes our country so great! If you know anything about any of his sites -You know the time effort and personal touch that goes into his information and discussions and sharing of Faith! Jason's site should be allowed to stay and let more people see for themselves. Thank You! - 64.136.27.225 http://TheHelpMeets.com
  • Delete Per nom --DanielCD 20:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete VERY non-notable, VERY vanity, VERY self-promotion. I wouldn't be surprised if several of those voting to keep were Gastrich himself. It is not of encyclopedic value, and sould be SPEEDY deleted. The most notable thing about Gastrich is when he was involved in the edit war at Antony Flew and he tried to insert a link to his website there. Harvestdancer 05:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Harvestdancer's comments aren't only absurd, but they're willfully dishonest. Click here and see how Harvestdancer almost daily talks about Jason Gastrich (in a Google Group designed just to talk about Gastrich) and has it out for him.--Big Daddy 06:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC) "Big Daddy" is Gastrich, and there are several comments in this "discussion" written by Gastrich.[reply]
  • Delete Definitely a vanity entry, designed to promote and sell a product (the e-book) using Wiki as a free advertising platform.
  • Delete If he deserves an article it's only because he's a well-known self-promoting Usenet kook. — B.Bryant 06:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very self serving and I find the fasting claim both erroneous and mildly offensive. Erroneous because the first time he only fasted for 36 days according to the text, not 40, further, how on earth does anyone know that only a few have doen this. Offensve because there are people starving to death every day who undoubtedly beat his 40 day record hands down.

  • RetainYes it's something of a vanity page, but Jason is a coming man and Wikipedia maintains pages about many flamboyant religious figures. Both leaders and frauds, Jason will probably be one of them in a few years.

Retain.

  • Delete The only reason Gastrich posted this page is to promote his web sites and sell his "book."
  • Delete per nomination. If someone wants a vanity page, there are plenty of web hosts out there. Mark K. Bilbo 15:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gastrich is not an important figure in North American Fundamentalist. That's how he sees himself, and I don't think it does any good to inflate his importance.

Delete********** This guy seems to be on a ego trip. He has very little credibility.

  • Delete Tuohirulla 20:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it until it stays deleted, and then Delete it again just to be sure. wikipediatrix 21:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and protect the page or something. What a mess! The information in the article is clearly not encyclopedic in the least. - squibix 22:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, we agree on at least one thing, Squibix. With the addition of Dave Horn's (138.162.140.45) soap opera/editorial/opinions/conjecture, the article isn't very encyclopedic. However, before he tampered with it, it did resemble other Wiki entries on authors, evangelists, professors, etc.--Big Daddy 22:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, Jason, what it looked like was an advertising and promotion piece for your ministry and yourself. Can you imagine an article about Peter Popoff that didn't include his exposure as a fraud, or one about Jimmy Swaggart that did not include his famous "I have sinned" speech after being caught with prostitutes? An encyclopedia entry is not one that must needs be limited to whatever the subject wants others to see. Sometimes, it has to include things that the subject may wish to have hidden.
      • Jason, I notice you want us to believe that you have a degree in psychology, but here, on your campaign site, you tell us that your degree is in "Liberal Arts and Sciences (Psychology)," which tells me that the degree is not in psych, but in a more general area, and you probably took quite a few courses in psych, just not enough to get a degree in it. You do understand the difference, don't you?
  • Delete User:Ejrrjs says What? 23:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and lock, provisions, "vanity," and "not notable."
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Coventry

[edit]

Vanity page, but may just have enough claim to notability that I wouldn't tag it as A7 speedy. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge with Unification Church. Anyone can and should be bold and perform the move at their leisure. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus and John the Baptist

[edit]

This article should either be incorporated into articles about Jesus and John the Baptist, or should be retitled. I move for the former. --tomf688{talk} 19:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, non-notable bio. — Phil Welch 21:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John bohman

[edit]

NN bio Josh Parris # 04:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just Me and the Lonely Road

[edit]

Article about a book which is "still in progress." howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO. If it's a copyvio, copyvio it. Non-commercial doesn't matter. -Splashtalk 00:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kamakshi Amman Temple

[edit]

copyright violation (probably non commercial)[19] but no original content. Only one real author 203.91.201.4 with a bad track record. Ben Aveling 10:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 02:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Paultur

[edit]

No hits for Keith Paultur found on Google that aren't Wikipedia mirrors. Seems unlikely, considering the popularity of Goldberg and Goldberg-esque devices. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep (5/1).--Shreshth91 13:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kintetsu Corporation

[edit]

Please delete it after this version for a slander article. A Japanese version is similar, too.Shinkansen 09:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Klop

[edit]

Neologism, probably an attack page. Delete abakharev 05:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Labuan independence Movement

[edit]

This page is a hoax. No evidence from internet, media or, library search. Labuan is very real but there has been no independence movement. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_11#Republic_of_Labuan for more details. LuiKhuntek 00:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lance-Kashian & Company

[edit]

appears to be an advertisement for a not notable company Avalon 16:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Five Iron Frenzy. -Splashtalk 00:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leanor Till

[edit]

Low number of Google hits and no Allmusic entry; I'm not sure this musician meets the criteria for WP:MUSIC. --Alan Au 01:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lesson 1

[edit]

This is apparently a stub for a teaching course module in operating systems, not an encyclopaedia article. Wikibooks already has plenty of far more complete modules on operating systems. See the Wikibooks:Computing bookshelf. Uncle G 17:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 02:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of casino resorts in Atlantic City

[edit]

Page is unnecessary because the same information is found at Atlantic City, New Jersey which BTW is updated more frequently then this page. Misterrick 17:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current Vote Count - For Delete: 5 / To Keep: 3 / Abstain: 0


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 02:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragon Riders

[edit]

Obviously something to do with some work of fiction, but since it isn't any I recognise and is so seriously lacking in context I think it belongs here. And if it doesn't get deleted please fix the capitalisation. DJ Clayworth 22:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_songs_published_as_live_versions

[edit]

This list would simply be absurd. You would be talking about tons and tons of albums. Live versions of songs, except in certain cases, are not extraordinary. It is rather the norm to have a song be released live. The scope of this list would just be so immense that it would simply be useless. THollan 16:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 02:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of villains

[edit]

Due to the amount of literature created it isn't very logical to make a list of villains with no restrictions. Maybe a list of evil mythologycal cratures, a list of Disney, DC Comics, Cartoon Network or whatever company villains, a list Famous Villains of Classic European Literature or even a list of historical characters considered as villains by most people; would be logic, but mixing all of them in one same list is not very smart. It looks dumb! 201.144.142.8 09:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

List of villains

[edit]

This list potentially contains approximately 50% of all names in popular culture. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Leicester

[edit]

Suspected self-promotion - the article originated from Florida, the subject has connections with Florida. The subject is a non-notable person (who works in public relations), and there is no evidence that he's entitled to the title "Lord Leicester" (see the article's talk page for discussion of this).   ajn (talk) 08:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lords of the Rhymes

[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC, only releases are MP3 files, only play is on Internet. Dalbury (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Bachrach44 01:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (bah! nasty hobbits). --noizyboy 02:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Cnwb 02:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Do not Delete"' I will have you know as per WP:MUSIC, the Lords have played a national tour in the US, have been written about in the Village Voice and Esquire (not sure why those are not in major media publications), one member of the band authored and played on the Windows 98 install music (which sold more than a million copies in the first few months), and whilst not winning a Oscar, they played at the Lords of the Ring party after winning 11 Oscars.

They are clearly an internet phenomena, (as is Wiki), give them their due. (This is 69.86.92.184's first edit.) - Dalbury (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's why there's an article on Nerdcore hip hop. That doesn't mean that every nerdcore artist is noteworthy. —HorsePunchKid→龜 23:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as patent nonsense. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Baldrige

[edit]

Nonsensical vanity page. Bjones 14:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; see above.Bjones 14:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Madarchod

[edit]

Foreign language dictdef (and apparently vandalism magnet). Not useful to Wiktionary without the original script. —Cryptic (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dicdef. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Metasphere

[edit]

Not notable. —Ashley Y 01:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 04:39 (UTC)

MicroAge

[edit]

Ad, Vanity (username of creator is same as officer). Word for word from "About" page on linked website WCFrancis 29 June 2005 00:32 (UTC)

Note that this was marked for speedy deletion but the creator of the page removed this without comment. --Yamla June 29, 2005 19:37 (UTC)
Note that the linked site is currently down. --WCFrancis 30 June 2005 13:56 (UTC)
  • Delete as ad or speedy as copyvio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 29, 2005 01:22 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Starblind. Bubamara 29 June 2005 09:35 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. To be thrown into the bowels of Wiki-Hell! Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 29 June 2005 11:55 (UTC)
  • Delete copyvio/ad, nuff said -Harmil 29 June 2005 12:15 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. Reads like a copyvio, but MicroAge is a well known company with a long history in Canada. I remember buying Windows/286 from a MicroAge store. Pburka 29 June 2005 18:25 (UTC)
    • I suspect that this is not the same MicroAge. The one you remember is probably this MicroAge in Canada. --WCFrancis 30 June 2005 14:03 (UTC)
      • You're right. I've withdrawn my vote. Pburka 2 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)
  • Delete as ad. --Yamla June 29, 2005 19:35 (UTC)
  • Delete ad. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 22:35 (UTC)
  • Delete as ad unless the contributor wants to rewrite/show notability. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 13:32 (UTC)
Uhh...the original contributor registered as Markmckeever. This person also created Mark McKeever (also on VfD as vanity page), identifying Mr. McKeever as the Chief Operating Officer of MicroAge. I understand that it is preferred that any rewrite be from someone not a part of the company. --WCFrancis 30 June 2005 13:51 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. —Cryptic (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MicroAge

[edit]

It would seem that the page has been resurrected, with the same problem. (ad). Menyoung Lee 02:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft and Wireless technologies

[edit]

There is almost nothing here about wireless tech. It is essentially a product review.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. This is a real character but not notable enough on the English Wikipedia. — JIP | Talk 17:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Overboiled Lettuce

[edit]

Short bio of a fictional character from a Swedish-language programme. Much as I'd like to fight systemic bias, there is no evidence this programme has been seen in the English-speaking world, and even if it had this article would be appropriate to merge to it (no such article exists). There is apparently an article in sv.wikipedia. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mixtaping.com

[edit]

Brand-new website, with no Alexa ranking at all. Fails WP:WEB. Indium 05:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Movement Against Religious Terrorism

[edit]

Article is a mission statement, which Wikipedia does not accomodate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.

I'm deleting this now. There's an overwhelming consensus for deletion, and I don't think a single legit keep vote was cast. With all the socks and vandalism, there's no point in continuing. Several legit delete votes were removed (as if there weren't enough anyway), and rather than try to go back and cut and paste them back in, I'm going to close this to save everyone grief before the process becomes any more tainted. -R. fiend 14:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Next Gen Gaming

[edit]

Anyone sent here from the forum in question. Please read: Wikipedia:Guide_to_Articles_for_deletion#Sockpuppets_are_bad and our policies at WP:NOT, WP:VAIN, WP:WEB. This is primarily a discussion and votes without comments based in policy especially by new users who don't know our policies will be discounted. - Mgm|(talk) 13:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-notable forum participants. Maclaine 03:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Biographies of web forum participants should appear on that web forum (if anywhere) -- not in an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 06:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Geogre. Mo0[talk] 09:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Ortiz

[edit]

googling for nicolas ortiz Pomparius yields no results. As far as I can tell this is rubbish. --Bachrach44 02:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Cleared as filed. 02:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Niki Ashton

[edit]

This article was previously speedied under CSD A7, but it was overturned and is now listed here for discussion. No vote Titoxd(?!?) 22:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure looks like vanity to me. Talking about a group she started in high school?? Come on now. However, if she wins the election, possibly there will be verifiable information about her. Can anyone comment on how important a politician she would be, if she won? Unless someone provides evidence of verifiability and significance, I'd say delete. Friday (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. Smart young lady with an impressive CV (all the claims in the article are repeated in her bio on the linked site, so I assume we could verify them if we tried), but I'm not sure she's achieved anything that meets WP:BIO yet. Let's come back in five or ten years when she's started her career properly and see whether there's anything to write about then. — Haeleth Talk 23:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doubt this is vanity. This is in the news because the current MP recently quit the NDP caucus over her repudiation due to the same sex marriage bill (see [21]). If she wins, keep her, but for now I suspect she and Desjarlais will split the NDP vote and the Grits or (possibly) Tories will come through. Dottore So 23:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This news article verifies that she is running for political office. She is running for the House of Commons for the Churchill Riding against the incumbent and at least one other. The House of Commons has 308 members - making it similar to the US House of Representatives. The electoral district itself has only 48k voters making it, I believe, one of the smallest districts in Canada. According to our own article, it can take as few as 50 signatures to run for this office. Taken together, those factors indicate to me that merely being a candidate for this office is not sufficient. Niki Ashton is already mentioned (in greater detail) in the section on elections in the Churchill (electoral district) article. If she wins the election, I believe she will qualify under the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. As a candidate, I do not think she yet qualifies. Delete but without prejudice against re-creation if she is elected. Rossami (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if it can be NPOV'd; otherwise delete as vanity. It seems she won nomination by a notable political party and is not just a student politician FRS 23:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge With Steve Ashton.

Strong Keep Is a notable candidate for next Federal election. Canadianism 04:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if any of the keep votes come from Canadians, but I have to doubt it. The NDP is a national party, but let's be honest: in the VAST majority of ridings, they are no-hopers and should not be considered notable, per WP:BIO or anything else. The notability of this story comes from the same-sex marriage issue and the expulsion of Bev Desjarlais from caucus. Since the Liberals have recruited star candidate Tina Keeper [22] (from North of 60 blech), the likelihood of Ms. Ashton's winning, what with Desjarlais committed to stand again, is roughly, although not precisely, nil. A redirect to her father Steve Ashton, who is a provincial cabinet minister (and which may be related to how she managed to secure nomination form the riding association in the first place), might work if one is really bent on retaining something. Dottore So 17:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I might agree with you in many ridings, but the NDP won this one last time around. Plus, I don't want to be in the business of determining where the party has a chance and where it doesn't. -- Mwalcoff 03:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oeunism

[edit]

Non notable belief system Ze miguel 11:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. -R. fiend 03:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oisin O'Donovan

[edit]

NN Bio

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Has been extended and still received no support. -Splashtalk 00:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OUTTALINE

[edit]

Please see this version. This article is a copy from another website and is currently tagged as copyvio. However, someone claims permission on the talk page. Rather than soliciting permission only for it to later be deleted, we are now posting questionable pages here before soliciting permission. (See our discussion.) As it is I don't think this band meets WP:MUSIC, they have only one album and don't seem to have been on tour. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 00:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extended due to no input. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patay Gutom Gang

[edit]

Nnanity that should be speediable as A7 except that the current wording excludes groups of non-notable people. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with notability, which is not part of deletion critera. This information is unverifiable in the sense that wikipedia policy means it, and so can already be removed without the need for new policy creep. Trollderella 08:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. The Land 10:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but lack of verifiability is not a speedy criterion (nor should it be). --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 07:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some people use "notability" to mean exactly the point you made about verifiability (subjects analyzed sufficiently for there to be a body of work for Wikipedia to review and summarize), Trollderella, but I agree that expanding A7 wouldn't be a good idea, for different reasons. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted under CSD A7. Titoxd(?!?) 05:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul warren

[edit]

18 year old drummer. No mention of notability. Delete Rasmus (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Shreshth91 13:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacists for life international

[edit]

Article is rather sparse and feels a bit like a promotional piece. Was tempted to speedy it under A3, but thought I'd send it to regular AfD for consideration in case anyone thinks it can be improved. --Alan Au 07:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://fr.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pharmacists_for_life_international&action=history


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Hambright

[edit]

This appears to be a fabrication. I can't find any evidence that there is a TV show called "Byron Basketball", much less that Phillip Hambright is a character on it. If not a fabrication, it is subtrivial fancruft. Delete either way. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phyiscs lab

[edit]

Not an encyclopedia article. It's just a copy of someone's physics lab. Also, name of article is misspelled. 67.131.249.103 09:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plan patriot

[edit]

POV essay. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 03:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Veldin

[edit]

Non-notable web forum. Google brings up only 105 results [24] Thunderbrand 22:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Geogre. Mo0[talk] 09:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pomparius

[edit]

googline for pomparius Nicolas Ortiz yields no results. As far as I can tell this is all rubbish. --Bachrach44 02:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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


This article was speedily deleted three times:

  1. by Moriori at 00:32, with the summary "content was: 'Pond Scum is a beggining rock band that resides in Tampa Florida.' (and the only contributor was 'Fabricsoftner')"
  2. by Francs2000 at 00:43, with the same summary, and
  3. again by Moriori at 08:09, with the summary "already deleted today".

This AFD is closed. encephalon 08:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pond scum band

[edit]

Non-notable band, has only written a handful of songs according to the article and (quote) "popular arround their High School" - hasn't released an album yet. -- Francs2000 01:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Some of the delete votes are by sock puppets, but even ignoring them, there's a consensus to delete here. — JIP | Talk 18:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Boink

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If this page stays, we might as well have a page for every website on the internet filled with private in-jokes, insults directed at others and pretentious 'hilarious' fake webpages. Have you any idea how many that would be? This site offers nothing that you can't find anywhere else.Mammal Nitrate
  • Delete I can put the word "lesbian" on a website and get thousands of hits via Google too. AMAZING! XavierVE
  • Delete I have to agree with Haeleth. The fact that the site is clearly using this entry as a way to get themselves off seals this one as a DELETE. CSendak
  • Delete Aside from the way the entry is advertising the site, the write-up itself stinks. It pretty much outlines the pointlessness of the submission with its total lack of content. Unlike the X-E/Seanbaby entries, it just SOUNDS like someone blowing their own horn.
  • Delete, Alexa ranking 74,327, 22 rated sites linking in. Sounds pretty non-notable to me. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. PB gets over 16k google hits for "progressive boink," has recievied tens of thousands of page hits for many of their articles (like the "rating the lesbians" series), and features like The Dugout have recieved a decent cult following. Plus, it's a spinoff/replacement for Whatever-dude.com, an X-Entertainment-style e/n site that I believe was fairly popular back in the day. Article still needs significant cleanup ('ve already tried to do a little, but I've been away for a few days and will continue), and I'm fairly certain that authors of the website created this article, but it is a notable website that should be kept. Also, original nominee, on article's talk page, nominated for the following: "I am recommending this for deletion, it's a pretty sad excuse for an article." Worth noting. --badlydrawnjeff 17:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, I suppose. I admit to being possibly the worst googler in existence, I've never heard of that. For the sake of discussion, "link:x-entertainment.com" gets 275, dropping to a whopping 9 when "-wikipedia" is added. It's apparent I'm the vocal minority here, but I'm honestly surprised at the amount of opposition on this one. Perhaps I just know a lot of people who read it, or simply remember it better when it was whatever-dude. --badlydrawnjeff 14:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. On the one hand it doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB; on the other hand I've actually heard of this site, unlike many that do meet WP:WEB. On the third and ultimately decisive hand, however, they've got a link to "Progressive Boink's official Wikipedia entry (Humor us while we talk about ourselves, please.)" on their front page, and that earns them a big black mark for vanity. — Haeleth Talk 18:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to play the "but but" game, but notable sites like X-Entertainment do not meet WP:WEB either, and that proposal should keep that in mind. And yes, the site does appear to have written itself, and I've already done some cleanup to rectify the apparent advertising, and hopefully we can vote with what's in the article in mind. --badlydrawnjeff 18:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reyk 19:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP is not a webdir, this entry adds nothing which is not basically site advertising. KillerChihuahua 20:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I've seen worse articles and things far less notable on Wikipedia. Sure, the article may have been started by staffers of the site the article examines, but it is not as if they are vainly watching over it hawk-like in Pro-Boi propoganda manner. It is a rather popular website, notable enough for Wikipedia, and has no reason to be deleted. Cleaned up, maybe, but a delete would be just plain malicious. 71.131.66.179 05:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Psychobyte

[edit]

Appears to be ad-spam, company may eventually warrant an article, but this isn't it. --Alan Au 06:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was gone. DS 13:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quackulus

[edit]

Possible joke article, irrelevant Google hits. --Ixfd64 09:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Racetrac Gas Station in Miami Gardens

[edit]

Its obvious --JAranda | watz sup 02:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkumar Kishor Shah

[edit]

According to the creator's talk page, this article was apparently made by the subject's fifth grade son. There are no sources and it appears to be vanity. Carbonite | Talk 13:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ramu doraisamy

[edit]

No google hits for "Ramu doraisamy". Unverifiable and probably hoax. Saint Midge 22:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 02:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reba McLane

[edit]

This is an article about a major Character in Red Dragon. One problem is that it's basically duplicate content of the Red Dragon and Manhunter articles (any content that isn't already in those articles will be by the time I've finished with them). A bigger problem is that her name's not Reba McLane - it's Reba McClane. There may be an argument for moving the content to Reba McClane, but I'd favour redirecting Reba McClane to Red Dragon. I see no reason to keep this article, and I vote to Delete. TheMadBaron 16:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 00:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ReCoe

[edit]

Non-notable blog (barely begun) with hints of advertising Jasmol 23:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

R.J Peers

[edit]

This article describes a theoretical series of books which may or may not be released in the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article was created by User:82.35.220.191 who has also edited articles on A Series of Unfortunate Events which this hypothetical book series closely mirrors. It could possibly be a vanity page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, but agreement that if kept, that this shall be merged with Robinson Secondary School. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robinson Rams (football)

[edit]

Much to my chagrin, I know that school deletions almost never succeed, but do we really need a separate page dedicated to a high school's football team? Delete. (I also posted {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} as an alternative, but I really think that it strains the credibility of Wikipedia to pay this much attention to a school team. --Nlu 03:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan krishnamurthy

[edit]

Despite the hyperbole, which is unsourced, this artist has no entries at allmusic or artistdirect, and only 147 unique Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SchMutzStaffel

[edit]

Seems to be a vanity article by a band that doesn't appear to meet the music standards. Nothing I could find at allmusic, and google wasn't terribly enlightening. Their website has 3 downloadable songs, and that's it. -R. fiend 03:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scienticity

[edit]

I checked this out and found that there are a good few hits for scienticity, but the majority of them make no mention of Donald Black, and those which do are mainly publicising him and his lectures and publications. I can't make out whether this is vanity masquerading as science, a genuine article which exaggerates the importance of one person, or genuine. The anonymous user Special:Contributions/24.75.97.69 has contributed to only two articles, this and Social space which also claims to have been originated by Donald Black, which article also credits him with having "invented" several concepts which, to my untutored eye, look to have been around for a long time. His web page at the university where he teaches does not make such claims. This article reads to me like original research, but I really can't make up my mind whether I am just being over-sceptical because of the gratingly effusive style of the various Black articles. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Cleared as filed. 01:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slim K

[edit]

No articles in the main namespace link to it. Google returns less than 1,000 results. --Ixfd64 08:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, passes WP:MUSIC if the article is correct. Kappa 11:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strangely unverifiable given the degree to whcih notability is asserted. From Handel und Hanse [25]: SLIM K., Gewinner der Rudi Carrell Show. Er ist in Tunesien ein großer Popstar und kehrt ... mit seinem neuen Programm zur Handel & Hanse in die Hansestadt zurück. However, beyond winning the contest on the Carrell show, there is little to suggest that he really is much more than an extra in movies and a Michael Jackson imitator. I can find no references to his being a Big popstar in Tunisia. Also google searches on Slim K with terms like Rudi Carrell [26], Musiker [27], Popstar etc turn up very few hits. Delete therefore, pending evidence that this is more than just a vanity/promo page, either self-written (likely) or by an agent. At the very least, it needs to be wholly rewritten. Dottore So 13:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Social space

[edit]

Pseudoscientific theory, possibly original research. Listing here for basically the same reasons as scienticity above. Anville 15:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. "Social space" is a term loosely used, primarily in psychology, not merely this narrow "concept". KillerChihuahua 16:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR. Edwardian 00:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, not-widely-accepted social theory. I don't think it's OR as such, since it comes from a book cited in the Donald Black article (but for some reason omitted from this one). And I don't think it's strictly pseudoscience in the sense usually used on Wikipedia, but something more like "academic bullshit", as in the kind of so-called research that academics publish in great quantity, purportedly to explain various social/cultural phenomena. MCB 21:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Mo0[talk] 00:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign Kingdom of Kemetia

[edit]

Nominated as a speedy, but doesn't comply with WP:CSD. Really can't see it surviving this AFD, but we may as well go through the motions. Delete as an impressively unsuitable topic, arguable hoax, all the usual "I have just created a new micronation in my bedroom. Also, I am sixteen" issues. Shimgray | talk | 17:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (speedy if possible; I think this fit under G1 and A7 and have added tags accordingly). --Nlu 17:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. I'll second the "speedy delete" nom as well. | Keithlaw (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spondooly

[edit]

Non-notable neologism Delete --JAranda | watz sup 01:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 00:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Alexander

[edit]

NN author whose first novel is to be released next year. Google gets a lot of results for "Stacey Alexander" but none of them seem to be this person (perhaps I didn't look hard enough, but I went through several pages of results without a relevant hit). --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus = keep' (11/11).--Shreshth91 12:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Collage

[edit]

Non notable, "college" is spelt wrong, virtually no content. Reyk 00:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was WITHDRAWN. Haeleth replaced the neologism with a spiffy stub. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teelin

[edit]

Neologism -Rholton 16:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Coral Reefers

[edit]

Non-notable acc. to WP:MUSIC, only one self-release. feydey 20:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as an A1. See also The Fairly OddParents/SpongeBob crossover (AfD discussion). —Cryptic (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Fairly OddParents/SpongeBob SquarePants crossover

[edit]

This needs to be deleted, any info about this can be written in the SpongeBob and FoP articles, there is not enough information, also it is a rumor and nothing else, It's also likely a rumor because the year it is coming out is "2005, 2006, 2007, or 2008" Instead of writing 2005-2008. three years is pretty far off, I mean "Uh-Oh! We might make it in 2005, but look! I think we should wait 'till 2008" --FlareNUKE 01:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Nate Rowlan Project

[edit]

Vanity. CDC (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 19:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. As the article says: “Copies were distributed throughout the campus”. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' be gone with you doktorb 22:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete! This is an actual band, with an actual CD. The events in the article are completely true. If it needs Editing then comment on what is either offensive, or out of bounds, and it can be changed and/or ammended. Also, at leat have enough gumption to list reasons why it should be deleted. Rowlan 21:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's explained in WP:MUSIC. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 21:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article WP:MUSIC is vague. The close connection between The Nate Rowlan Project and the community life of Evangel University should constitute notariaty. Yes there are many small bands and groups who will never sign a major label record deal, or win an award or have an top 100 song, but this does not mean that they did not exist and that they do not hold importance to any one person and/or group of people. Furthermore it is up to us (the collective society) to establish what is History. If we do not mention it, then it dies as if it never were. Because of these reasons and because of the belief that this band in particular and the album in question had an impact on a minor community, I feel that it should be allowed to stay as a source of reference for those members of the pre-stated minor community (that being the community of Evangel University). Rowlan 21:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 01:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thevap

[edit]

Other articles have defaced with ads for the site, following up on that lead me to this, which seems to be another ad for the site. Falcorian 08:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. — brighterorange (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas M. Reid

[edit]

vanity page

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trident Swim club

[edit]

Non-notable swim club. - squibix 02:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without providing the reader a proper detailed analysis of exactly what items are available at their snack bar, including prices with state tax, this article is useless ;) wikipediatrix 02:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO with no consensus here, so to WP:CP it goes. -Splashtalk 00:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Varadharaja Perumal Temple

[edit]

copyright violation (probably non commercial)[40] but no original content. Only one real author 203.91.201.4 with a bad track record. Ben Aveling 10:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extended due to low input. brenneman(t)(c) 06:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 00:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voice Covered

[edit]

Apparently an album of John Farnham covers. Appears to be a hoax. Google search for "john farnham" + "voice covered" results in 3 hits (2 of which are from Wikipedia). This album apparently has some big names; such as Tina Arena, Stevie Wonder, Tom Jones, Stevie Nicks etc, so one would expect a few more Google hits. Cnwb 22:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed Duets With The Voice at AFD. --Martyman-(talk) 02:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 01:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vzryv

[edit]

This is an unneccessary nelogism. Vzryv in Russian have exactly the same meaning as Explosion in English. Search [42] does not show many English references, mostly the transliterated Russian ones, so I do not think the term is widespread even among Stalinist polytologists. Delete abakharev 06:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism, virtually unknown in English. Vzryv is the Russian for "blast". If we start adding Russian words to this project, there will be no end to it. --Ghirlandajo 07:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's a neologism. That looks just like a random jumble of letters to me. Mo0[talk] 09:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, concept in Russian politics and not a neologism, since it was coined by Stalin who died in 1953. Wikipedia is not a English-only encyclopedia. Kappa 11:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Baloney. KNewman 12:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree, baloney. This is not even a neologism, just a word. Dottore So 13:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This is the English Wikipedia. I can't find any evidence that vzryv has been incorporated into English, unlike, say, glasnost and perestroika. --Metropolitan90 15:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Are you saying that if glasnost hadn't been incorporated into English I would have to learn Russian in order to read about it? What if it hasn't been incorporated into Swahili? They have to learn Russian too? Kappa 16:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. But if glasnost had not been incorporated into English, hardly any non-Russian-speaking English speakers would have heard of it, and they wouldn't need to look it up in an encyclopedia. I can't find any significant use of vzryv in English-language texts (based on Googling), which means that there isn't much need for English-speakers to look it up in an English-language encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 04:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del. There was no special Stalin teaching about this word. I, a staunch stalinist :-), am telling you. The expression "social explosion" in many european languages predates both stalin and lenin, although there is some interesting discussion about this in Talk:Vzryv between me and the author of "vzryv". (No, he is not Stalin :-) mikka (t) 21:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep see my reasons here Talk:Vzryv, it is a term used in English literature, just not yet on google. Whether or not Stalin put special meaning in his native language to the word is meaningless, as it came over to the English in several major books on the subject as describing his form of idea about Capitalist upheaval in particular, contrasting socialist progression. It doesn't even mean "revolution" it means any change toward or away from socialism which alters a society, which is unique to the mode of great change in Capitalism, so it is not a repetition or twin concept with 'revolution.' I am not interpretating it this way, this is what the book 'Dialectical Materialism' told me, which in itself sources many English works. Google is not an end all, there is a lot of well circulated literature which has zero representation through google.Nagelfar 05:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless more evidence turns up. To me, Nagelfar's citations look like typical translator bet-hedging, not proof that this word is used in English. --William Pietri 06:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The best I can do it cite English works & books, there is nothing online, which to me, is the most valuable use for wikipedia; adding citations of uses unfindable elsewhere on the internet, among the sources I listed in English were; "K. Mehnerts Stalin versus Marx: The Stalinist Historical Doctrine (London, 1952), The New Gospel of Stalinism, in Problems of Communism, Washington, Jan. 1953. Boris Souvarine Stalin. A Critical Survey of Bolshevism (London 1939). Which use the word 'vyzryv' in an English context to describe Stalins 'Capitalist social interruption'" Nagelfar 17:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what I was saying in the article talk page, but the guy simply does not hear, in best practices of communists. mikka (t) 06:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although I understand you're frustrated, Mikka, that comes across as a bit snarky. Especially with formal actions like AfDs, it's important to strive for civility. Thanks, -- William Pietri 14:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think what is more frustrating is having works before you, many decades old, which cite something in a particular way, but because people only believe the internet anymore, its considered nonsense if it isn't there "first". Nagelfar 17:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The arguments presented in the talk page have nothing to do with internet. And by the way, FUI, all Stalin's works are on internet. mikka (t) 18:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • This has nothing to do with Stalins works, it has to do with English academic use of Stalins theories putting a key Russian word therein as an English loan word. Otherwise I'd be a place for the Russian Wikipedia. Nagelfar 18:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also I agree it is of historical interest and quite educating to present a picture how Stalin's disciples tried to squeeze water from rock and show great theoretical contributions of Stalin into the communist theory. But this particular article is not only improper, it is even incorrect. mikka (t) 18:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • This has nothing to do with "Stalins disciples", it has to do with Anglo-western academic use, most certainly NPOV if not anti-Communist, in a great many works from the '40s & '50s, based on the Russian terminology. Nagelfar 19:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am speaking exactly about Stalin's disciples, regardless Anglo-academics. 22:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Sorry, Nagelfar. I went and looked again at your citations, and I can't see them other than as the very common trick in writing about translated works where you use the original word parenthetically to make it clear what you're referring to. Also, it would be swell if you could assume good faith regarding editors' familiarity with the merits of books. --William Pietri 21:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am very familiar with this use of parenthetically quoting foreign terms, and wouldn't have added it if I had believed it to be that this was the case. Besides however that in the instances provided being unnecessary for those ends (i. e. there is no need to clarify there), it wasn't just used "parenthetically" in that work or others, in the overall contexts of the works presented they used 'vzryv' especially, as that moment of change, qualified as meaning a philosophically based social instability in capitalist systems, but not elsewhere as a social revolution. I only took the initative to add it for it seemed rather entrenched in Anglo-American works on the subject in the late 40's & early 50's, but maybe not thereafter. So that was my reasoning. I suppose that would make it a half-century old paleologism. Nagelfar 23:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • In other words, a neologism that did not survive. If you are so sure about this, please write an article into a reputable journal, get it peer reviewed, then come back here. At the moment we have a problem of "wikipedia:Verifiability" of your theory. Especially since your article speaks about "Russian", not "English" usage of the word. As I wrote, Stalin "discovered" exactly the opposite: "non-vzryv". And I can explain you why, although this is not the place, but for the sake of archiving; may be in future I will write the article. The "non-vzryv" was invented to resolve an apparent paradox of communism. By marxist's religion of dialectical materialism, the driving force of progress, motion and development is internal contradictions in things. In application to society, this would mean contradiction betwen classes and contradiciton between "means of production" and "relations of production". Now, communism's greatest fit would be to eliminate both and to becume an ultimate, ideal form of society. But this would leave communism without drive to progress (and you know, Marx turned out to be right after all!:-). For this reason it was necessary to invent another, non-catastrophic philosophical driving force of change. That's what Stalin's invention was about. mikka (t) 00:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Udalit' not verifiable neologism.  Grue 


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 01:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sydney IT Cluster

[edit]

Advertising cruft. The only entries in the list with pages are Advanet, currently up for Speedy, and Galexo, created by the same user as Advanet and this page, also adcruft. KillerChihuahua 15:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalistroadster 17:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if consensus is "keep", should have the list of companies removed and a cleanup tag added: this aricle was created by an editorial group who have been banned en masse for SEO entries; as the article is it is adcruft, but if the group is determined noteable certainly it should stay and be improved. KillerChihuahua 12:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 01:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is a number system

[edit]

Delete essay. --Trovatore 06:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wolodymir Dushko

[edit]

Wolodymir Dushko

Google hits: [43]

Most likely a fictional character.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 to Commons. Think that's the best course of action. - Mailer Diablo 00:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woodrow Wilson Bridge/pictures

[edit]

Somebody's collections of images of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. The bridge is already adequately illustrated in the main article. I'm voting to delete due to consensus policy, WP:NOT: Collections of photographs or media files. RJH 18:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zap! FM, streaming all formats, playing almost every type of pop music

[edit]

Blatant spam. We really need a speedy deletion criterion for this sort of article. Reyk 03:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_14&oldid=1234127171"