Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 20

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< December 19 December 21 >

Purge server cache

December 20

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

The result was Withdrawn. Mhiji 22:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical makeup of the human body

Seems superfluous, I am convinced thaty this article addresses things already present in Wikipedia and there is no reason to keep it. The title does nothing for me. If you all decide to keep it, it needs to be cleaned up and merged to an article relating to human anatomy. Thanks.

αίδεια* 22:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

My idea is now that the article can be kept, or should be redirected or merged, somethings need to be added. Don't delete on second thought. This is on the border.

αίδεια* 22:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

I withdraw this nomination.
αίδεια* 22:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Ese Ceazah

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (as are all accountants) and almost empty article. -- RHaworth 02:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Busch

Blatant vanity page on non-notable former accountant for a wrestling organization Mecanismo | Talk 00:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I tagged it for speedy, claiming to be an accountant is not claiming to be notable Chris the speller 00:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 01:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -

Mailer Diablo 02:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Nutmeg (football)

Dicdef of a slang term in football/soccer Daveb 00:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, real technique, and readers should be able to find examples of players who are known for using it.
    Kappa 00:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep The standard term for this move and used by broadcasters all the time. Calsicol 01:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments above. -- JJay 02:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it is a real and well-known football technique. Carioca 02:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per other commnets. --Thephotoman 02:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or Merge/Redirect into List of Football terms or some such. This is purely a dicdef as it stands, and probably could not be anything more. Moreover, a list of players noted for using the move does not IMHO constitute encyclopaedic material. Zunaid 08:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you're going to delete this you might as well delete Dribbling, Tackle (football) etc. «LordViD» 09:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The terms tackle and dribble are generic and apply to many sports as their articles show. W.r.t. tackle, many sports (including all types of football) have specific laws dealing with the legality of certain means of tackling an opponent (in some cases it goes further to define what constitutes a tackle and what laws apply when a tackle takes place etc.). "Tackle" is part of the official vocabulary of the sport. Nutmeg is exclusive to soccer and is a slang term which would not be found in any rule book. Consequently there does not seem to be much to say about it besides describing what it is. Zunaid 11:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Outside the U.S. "soccer" is about as important as all the other sports in the world put together. We're not talking about a korfball term here. Bhoeble 12:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but article needs to be expanded greatly. --MisterHand 15:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. {{footy-stub}} the article and allow for expansion. —gorgan_almighty 15:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per comments above Jcuk 22:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no good reason to delete, apart from overzealous editing. This is not Britannica, things are changing for the worst. The editors obviously dont like football.
  • Comment-in-reply: I put up this AFD and can safely say that I love football: the bulk of the current article
    dicdef with a tagged on non-verifiable POV list); I don't think the recent alterations make it any more encyclopaedic. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia afterall. --Daveb 00:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Ral315 (talk) 06:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smithtadism

Delete One google hit, guess where it leads? I'm No Parking and I approved this message 00:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Josh Parris#: 01:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should have been speedied as nonsenseTheRingess 01:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, it's still not too late. - Bobet 01:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, I think we are in nonsense territory. -- JJay 02:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as silly vandalism. Capitalistroadster 02:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as per unfunny vandalism. --Thephotoman 02:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete It may be vandalism but I think it's funny. Think I'm gonna go add that to bjaodn.--pielover87 04:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tobyk777 05:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Quest of the moon breed

Does not meet

WP:Music. Durova 00:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Suspyre

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep as bad faith nomination. Capitalistroadster 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-phishing software

On behalf of User:62.31.82.51 "minor part of phishing, constant target of spam"


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep (no delete votes, nomination withdrawn). --Stormie 09:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redemption 87

Does not meet

WP:Music. Durova 00:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Tyler News

plus a sub-site thereof: Christians Coasters. Added -- RHaworth 04:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity -- Garfield226 00:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Francesco Bori

NN actor Melaen 00:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Really, he's more of a non-notable director. IMDb hasn't heard of him. Google results are unencouraging for notability. Entry at the BBC film network page (where you apparently register yourself, before you leap on that as evidence of notability) describes himself as an "art student", which is not a notable occupation. *Delete. Lord Bob 00:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 00:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Abstain - not really sure at this stage. But we should also be looking at his "friends", Behzad Yahaghi and Sebastian Wuttke. Whilst Behzad at least has an IMDB entry, I don't think that Sebastian Wuttke has anything. Francesco Bori seems more notable than those two. Would need to confirm whether his biography is true too. If he really is in production of that many movies, then he's notable enough, even if they are big flops. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Francesco Bori - associate producer - The 1 Second Film (2007) - special thanks - Matters of Life and Death (2006)

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 17:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Dowdy

Article is shameless vanity page Mecanismo | Talk 00:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • True, but it's just a start. -- JJay 04:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    t c 12:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. I don't know anything about him, but the presence of an Allmusic.com reference (the choice of many a "notability tester") leaves me satisfied that he's notable. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 13:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd like to see more about his music career in the article, however. --MisterHand 15:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Jporcaro 15:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 17:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Lade

NN. Being a candidate in an election doesn't make you notable. Josh Parris#: 00:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 17:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Baird

NN. Being a candidate in an election doesn't make you notable. Josh Parris#: 00:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - according to his electoral web site [7] his activities have been reported in at least 7 national news reports. That makes him notable. Also you should note that he's written his own autobiography on his site, which should be used as reference. [8] Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is very similar to his campaign bio and may be a possible copyvio. Has some Google News entries mainly from local papers related to the race [9]. However, I am yet to be convinced that he crosses the notability bar. Capitalistroadster 02:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a pure copy and paste, save a "ssmall[sic]" spelling error, from http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/riding/304. Since this is just a list of facts, I don't know if copyright applies. I'll let others decide. --Rob 12:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major-party candidate for ongoing national election. Article might be of interest to many people. Verifiable information should be available from local media. -- Mwalcoff 03:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as with all other major party candidates. - SimonP 14:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepSjc 15:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with
    Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. (even though I wikified it, I'm not in favor of keeping this as a separate article unless some notability beyond being a candidate is shown). --GrantNeufeld 06:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. As long as he's in a list of Conservative candidates somewhere that's more than enough. --NormanEinstein 21:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -

Mailer Diablo 02:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Mice

Band vanity article. Fails every guideline of

WP:MUSIC Mecanismo | Talk 00:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep because they are sold on amazong...although it's not at all encyclopedic-sounding. Jporcaro 15:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 17:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Fox

Vanity article on very obscure and very non-notable singer Mecanismo | Talk 00:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. -

Mailer Diablo 02:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

KXRZ-FM

Advertising. Obviously. KC. 00:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain - what's the rules for radio stations? Do they have to have a certain popularity? How high does it have to be? The article looks okay advertising wise. I know that Triple J radio's article stays up, and is written in much the same way. But then again Triple J has an audience in the millions. Zordrac (talk)
    • Triple J is world famous, not least for Live At The Wireless. --kingboyk 05:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC) (UK)[reply]

Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • keep. mikka (t) 00:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've seen lots of radio station articles around with this title format. You're right, though, it is advertising, so it needs to be rewritten. JHMM13 (T | C) 00:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deletion is for articles that do not belong on Wikipedia in any form. Radio and television stations are notable; an encyclopedia of U.S. radio stations would include an entry on KXRZ-FM. It just needs a clean-up to remove irrelevant content (which is an easier process than nominating an article for deletion). Davodd 00:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 02:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons stated. Calsicol 04:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Davodd is exactly right. ×Meegs 07:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. If anyone thinks the article is too ad-like, be bold and revise it. 23skidoo 12:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty of other radio station articles out there with similar content. I agree with the cleanup tag. --MisterHand 15:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • <I'm gonna go for Merge - unless a rewrite can be done to make it less of an advert. As it stands, I don't think it's of wikipedic value. 9cds 17:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My initial thought are
List of American radio networks 9cds 17:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
That merge would create a factual error. The station's parent company would be a better choice, if a merge is used. - Davodd 09:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all the reasons stated above. -- DS1953 talk 19:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno, it seems strange to me that a radio station is an automatic keep but a school isn't. (No vote). --kingboyk 05:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard caro

Comments ("Argument")

Promotional puff piece about the CEO of a corporation of dubious notability. Just 32 Google hits for "richard caro" "cmc associates". Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 00:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • quoting: at age of ten...amazing things by creating a turbine automobile design. puff-puff-puff. mikka (t) 00:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Fine then, delete that part. I'm sorry for mentioning a turbine automobile design that he made at ten. This is my first article for Wikipedia and instead of deleting it, maybe you guys could try cleaning it up instead of deleting my article? -AlexJohnc3



  • Note to AlexJohnc3 Could you please use the same standard as everyone else when adding your comments? It's impossible to sift through all you've written up above and discern your newer comments from the older ones. Add your stuff below other's comments, in chronological order, use the star symbol in the beginning of each paragraph, etc. Honestly, it's not that hard, just look at every other AfD. You're making this one into a huge mess. Flyboy Will 02:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Sorry, maybe if someone else had made a list before I could have added to it (by looking at the code used), like I am now.-AlexJohnc3
  • Comment to all experienced Wikipedians "DONT BITE THE NEWBIES". AlexJohnc3, welcome aboard, sorry your first outings been a bit rough! Jcuk 22:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Life and death brigade

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

X-EP

Not notable - it's only a demo. Delete CLW 00:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete KC. 00:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 01:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete demos have no place here, except maybe for artists who later become hugely famous. --MisterHand 15:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect (a new version of a known tool). mikka (t) 07:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rpg maker xp

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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 14:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Ray Stolz

  • del nonnotable/nonverifiable. Announcer. mikka (t) 01:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.--Shanel 20:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paragone

Delete - dicdef, almost no content GTBacchus(talk) 01:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete is it just me, or is the article incoherent? Josh Parris#: 01:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - It's not just you. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if someone is a paragon, he's a standard of comparison, and that comes from this word in Italian. Huh; I did not know that. Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, if more information on the practice can be found. It's actually a relevant discussion in aesthetics as that field pertains to art, though there is not enough info here.--Thephotoman 03:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, or if thats not possible merge with Italian renaissance. Jcuk 22:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I couldn't make sense of it at first, or I wouldn't have nominated it. Now it's cleaned up a bit. Probably plenty of room for expansion. Other noted paragones? Techniques used? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move seems more wiktionary-ish to me. --Pboyd04 03:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think. It can't go into Wiktionary, which (I think) only would include English words or foreign words in common use. It could go into an Italian Wiktionary. But if it's real literary device -- the old-timey equivilant of "Death Metal RULZ! And all other music SUCKS!", I guess -- then keep it. Herostratus 20:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Sebastian Vilas

Delete. Notability not asserted, doesn't meet

Colonel Tom 01:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete

NaconKantari 02:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was move to

Cleared as filed. 21:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Peter Campbell

Vanity article by fairly not notabgle green candidate. Page also created user called Peter Campbell Jgritz 01:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment - the federal seat of Kooyong is still certainly considered to be a safe liberal seat; Peter Campbell's candidacy has not affected that status. I would suggest that he hasn't affected the balance of power, and that his achievements aren't notable - unlike, say,
Colonel Tom 03:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Userfy. --Thephotoman 03:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy if it is the same Peter Campbell. The only notable Green candidate to stand for Kooyong was Peter Singer. Kooyong is still safe for the Liberals and I doubt Petro Georgiou is losing too much sleep about him. Capitalistroadster 03:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)"[reply]
  • comment. Peter Campbell 03:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC) I wrote this article before I was aware of the autobiography guidelines, so sorry about the breach of protocol in creating this page. Note that Kooyong has in fact changed from "safe Liberal status" in 2001 to "fairly safe liberal" now - as per the AEC website entry for Kooyong which is referenced in the article. If you have any doubts about whether Petro Georgiou thinks the Greens are a threat then you could ask him. During the 2002 State Election the Greens polled 19% in Hawthorn & 17% in Kew (lower house). I polled 15% in the upper house seat of East Yarra (now defunct). I have only included content that has been previously published rather than any "original content". Having said all this, I don't mind if the article is deleted.[reply]
  • Delete or userfy. Ambi 08:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If he gets elected, then he can write an article about himself. --Roisterer 12:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USERNEW: Vanity articles should be deleted. This man is trying to get preselected for the Greens again and now looks like he will lose!

And it will not be speedy deleted as recreated deleted article? Hrm. Well, I am nowhere near Kooyong and have never been to Kooyong, and I have heard of this guy. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He's stood for 2 federal elections and possibly had some political impact. That said, I think the article is slightly POV, so I think a re-write or some editing would help it. - James Foster 13:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - a candidate that has yet to score more than 20% of the vote in any election doesn't make it in the notability department, regardless of country, on running for office alone. The article looks like a political party policy paper. If the survives the vote, I'd suggest a dismabiguation since more people are familiar with another Peter Campbell: the character in the TV series Soap whose murder midway in the first season propels the events of the next two years of the popular 1970s sitcom. B.Wind 16:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have updated the article to remove POV and party political content. I have also removed the personal website link and added several links to external verifiable information sources and articles. I have also added this content to my user page in anticipation of its deletion. Peter Campbell 00:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now that it has been userfied. nn and vanity. Sarah Ewart 19:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As a new contributor, I think there is a problem with the process in train here. I checked the
    Help:Starting a new_page information prior to creating the page. There is no information there about criteria for page creation that is being applied in this discussion; namely that a page can only be created for a person deemed as notable, and that a person should not create their own page for vanity reasons. A Wikipedia search on "notable" and "vanity" yields no meaningful information on what these criteria are and how they are applied. Both appear to be very subjective and open to interpretation, and therefore considerably open to debate and dissent. I think this process needs to be made much clearer. Personally, I think any Greens candidate who scores the highest Green primary vote in any conservative held seat in Australia (in 2001) and the tenth highest Green primary vote for any lower house seat in Australia (in 2004) is notable. I think the top ten Greens seats (and candidates) would all be "notable". I bet each of the top 10 Liberal and Labor seats and candidates are. On the subject of vanity, the page now contains only information from verifiable sources, so I don't think it is "vain". Peter Campbell 21:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - I did some searching and found the
    Vanity Page Guidelines
    . Some quotes relevant to this process is:
"vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is (whether or not defined by the proposed Wikipedia:Importance)" .
"An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity. Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject."
"The word vain derives from the Latin word vanus meaning: empty."

I believe the article is not "empty" and not unimportant, author bias notwithstanding Peter Campbell 11:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

  • Userfy or delete, not elected = not notable. Note that the word "vanity" means something different in Latin as it does in English; its derivation is irrelevant, we're using the English meaning here. Radiant_>|< 13:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Merchantcircle

Commercial entity less than a year old. Not notable, or important. If it revolutionizes its industry or niche, write the article then.

Airumel 02:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete, 8 to 2, (discounted unsigned votes) -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chumbly Biscuits

Non notable band turns up zero google hits.--MONGO 02:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What does charting on garageband.com assert? It certainly provides no indication that they have an impact inside of their genre or community in any real way. Looking at the rating given to the group's single on the site (rated at 2 stars) puts them somewhere down the line after #140 (out of some 1800). We'll need a little more than that to go on.DeathThoreau 03:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"It certainly provides no indcation that they have an impact inside of their genre or community in any real way." - Is it fair to imply that because they are not a household name like U2 or Coldplay, their existence doesn't matter?

  • Comment - Hey, I made this page for this band because the concert that I saw them in was unreal. All bands come from relative obscurity. Who's to say that they will not be the next big thing. I have personally had conversations with the drummer Bix Jackets and he gave me his permission to make such a page documenting there history. User:Kaox02
  • Delete. Wikipedia doesn't cover 'the next big thing': see
    WP:MUSIC. --Last Malthusian 15:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - you can't delete something just because the rest of the world has yet to take notice of it. get out of here with your conservative attitude, i just want other fans of this band to know who they are and where they come from.
  • Keep - Harland sanders was 68 when he founded KFC. He had been making his origional recipe chicken his whole life and finally went public in his silver years. I bet your faces will be red when you delete this entry and they become the next George Michael. We as Chumbly fans are trying to save you the embarrasment of having gotten rid of their history as they were on the brink of success. Shame on you Wikipedia. have a nice day.
  • Keep. Mga 19:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under
    WP:NMG and not a crystal ball. If and when, they are the next big thing or at least meet at least one of our musical criterion, they can have an article. Capitalistroadster 22:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - Just so you understand something, by my count, I show 5 votes to delete, and 5 votes to keep. One of them is mine, and if I wanted to "stuff the ballots" as you so call it, I would have a hell of a lot more votes than 4. Not to mention, you voted to keep this page! As for the record label, I believe they are part of Eagle Records, but because I don't remember, I didn't want to put it in there. But they are legit CD's, I can get you one for 10 dolla.User:Kaox02
  • Delete. No allmusic entry, no google hits except from garageband.com. Sorry, Kaox, but we can reinstate the article when they do get big -- after all, encyclopedias don't predict, and
    Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Note: I cleaned up a spurious signature by Thephotoman, but didn't touch his vote. Bikeable 03:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Reasons stated by others above. Mark272 11:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You can check my IP to verify that I am not the guy stuffing the ballot here. I understand that your buisness is to verify info, but the way you're treating this guy is not all together fair. As an innocent bystander of the situation, I've visited garageband.com, read their story and believe what I see. Wiki's purpose is not to predict the future, that much I agree with, but I believe it has a responsibility to report facts big or small. Maybe they don't have the large budget of U2, but they do exist as shown by the garageband.com entry and downloadable music from them. If I were voting, I'd vote keep.
  • Comment. By the way, for all of you that are using the "Wiki is not a crystal ball" arguement, please read the info on that rule provided by the hypertext. You are suggesting that Chumbly Biscuits has not existed in the past, when clearly they have released material, with songs provided on garageband.com and diskography dates given. Please stop using this as your basis for voting them off. I vote KEEP.
  • KEEP! - "after all, encyclopedias don't predict ..." - True. Encyclopedias state that which does exist or has otherwise been theorised to become established experience. I think this band has proven that they do in fact, exist by virtue of its garageband.com entry.
  • Question - So when do I find out if my page will be deleted or kept? I want to know if I should keep adding all that I know about the band?


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Stormie 09:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American Optomtometric Association

Spelling mistake Natebw 02:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete (even if it is real, it's a copyvio - translations are copyrighted) Renata3 07:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discourse on dispassion

Is this an original source or a copyvio? In either case, it is not an article and has no place on Wikipedia. Delete. Kusma (討論) 02:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete perhaps it's sophisticated Markov chain text generation, doesn't appear to be a copyvio of any online text Josh Parris#: 03:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research, no google hits. Flyboy Will 03:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like original material. Delete. --Apostrophe 04:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikisource - this is Hindu mythology, I believe. -- RHaworth 05:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not the place to self-publish short stories. --MisterHand 15:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikisource if this is real. Delete otherwise.
    chat} 01:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Yoga Vasistha

yes, this is an excerpt from the book "Yoga Vasistha" --Sadartha

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as blank page formerly A1 short article without context. Capitalistroadster 03:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The superbowl is gay

Looks like there is a new "is gay" vandal... -- Jbamb 03:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • reluctant Delete - article is still a stub and fails to provide references, I suspect a hoax Josh Parris#: 03:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was a redirect to a biography page, I cleared that to put in the delete tag.-- Jbamb 03:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was article sent to

e ] 00:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Stuart Gary

NN Australian audio journalist, copyvio with no pages linking to the article. Josh Parris#: 03:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Ukcashbacksites

Blatant advertisement Kareeser|Talk! 03:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Live music artists of Christchurch, New Zealand

A huge list of bands which, if they had individual articles, would all be AfD'd for failing

WP:MUSIC. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Consensus is clear, no reason to continue with this silliness.--

Black 06:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

AppleAddict Forums

nn webforums. Only 97 unique Google hits for AppleAddict, let alone its forums. And all of appleaddict.com, forums and all, does not get a ranking from alexa. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However, the site has an extremely active user body. Where is the boundary drawn at how large a forum must be for it to merit a place on Wikipedia? Must it have over X amount of Google hits?
—the preceding
unsigned comment is by 24.13.227.241 (talk • contribs
)
Delete, as AppleAddict is not a major site. (See
historical fiction. SycthosTalk 03:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

How about you people leave it alone and let those of us who are members have our fun? "The Great Migration" is actually rooted in real events. Don't judge when you have no idea what you're talking about.

We have 1100 members with 469,000+ articles, I believe that meets the notability standard.

The Great Migration is a lyrical retelling of the events described in the History section. If you weren't around for you, of course it seems like nonsense.

  • Don't Delete* We have extremely valuable research potential. If you read up on our haikus, they are probably some of the finest minority poems on the web. Not only that, but the sound advice from our inhouse experts on finace, decorating, cunnilingus, and general debauchery (all Banky of course) would impress any would-be sophisticate. Our site is a valuable source for anyone interested in Apple Computing, automobiles, entertainment, and shovels.
  • Delete and that overview didn't help your case any. --194.215.208.5 09:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Exhibit A of everything that's wrong with forumcruft on Wikipedia. "Hey, we've got a neat0 forum. This is a bunch of fake stuff about how kewl we are, and here's all our l33t moderators, yeah awesome." Banish it from our shores.
    FCYTravis 05:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete as per nom.--
    nixie 05:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, fails
    WP:WEB. -- Megamix? 05:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Don't Delete* All components of the article are based on fact. There's no basis for deletion except very biased opinion of a few people. Absolutely none. Wikipedia doesn't have to be the bloodbath all you all make it out to be. Psychomonkey 05:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's 21st edit (most of which are user space edits)
  • Don't Delete -- sounds like Travis is a bit of a forum social outcast and has more than a little bit of an unfair bias. The whole forum's nature is very "inside-joke"-y as it is, and the entry reflects that quite well, while not being completely alien to the casual viewer.
    • Unsigned- could someone please find who this was?
      • I spend a lot of time on forums with thousands more users than AppleAddict ever wished it had. And no, none of those forums are encyclopedic either.
        FCYTravis 07:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Keep; Notable —499699787
    • User's second edit.
  • Keep; Notable —User:Smithmatt
    • User's 7th and 8th edits.
  • Keep; Unique —user:rgejman
    • User's first edit.
  • Delete even though being saucy and involving goats usually means automatic inclusion in any encyclopedia, we must make an exception here. Flyboy Will 07:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; That AppleAddict is smaller than other forums in itself should not be cause for deletion. A forum can be noteworthy for accomplishments other than the size of its membership. In this case, AAF was founded and initially populated by members of MacAddict magazine's online forum. Since it's founding, AAF's membership has grown while MacAddict's active membership has diminished. In addition, MacAddict's once highly useful and active website has diminished both in daily traffic and amount of regularly updated content. Daily news articles, weekly feature stories, and a tech-help section previously authored by Mac Addict's own editorial staff have all but disappeared in the years since the AAF migration. The departure of so many forum members is likely not the cause of MacAddict's significant decline, but it is an undeniable marker in the history of a once important Mac enthusiasts' website. In addition, the "Migration" passage is clearly written in an ironic tone meant to depict actual events in a humorous style and tone consistant with the sensibility of AAF. The forum is a small and growing gem of internet culture and, as such, merits inclusion in the Wikipedia. —user:BW
  • Delete Completely unencyclopedic and fails to meet
    WP:WEB
    Note to new posters:
    • Please see
      WP:WEB
    • This may sound obvious, but please read
      WP:WEB
    • Please read the big orange box at the top of this discussion. Multiple posts by new users (a.k.a.
      meat puppets
      ) will not count for much unless you can show that the articles meets the various inclusion criteria. The reasons provided above such as "notable" and "unique" are useless without evidence to back them up.
    • Please read
      WP:WEB
      .
    • Lastly, please read
      WP:WEB
      .

Zunaid 08:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we have more then proved why this page should be left on the wikipedia. All those that say "don't delete" seem to have to say is that it's not a big enough forum. I feel, however, that size of something as arbitrary as number of users is rather meaningless. It would not surprise me if there was a webforum on wiki that had many more users but less *active* users. The history of AppleAddict is very much important in the world of the web, espically related to macaddict. For evidence of this, I would suggest one to scroll up and read the comments left. While it is true that perhaps the headings and grammer used may need some modifications, it is policy of Wkipedia to not jump the gun and delete things rightaway; it's always a work in progress. Perhaps if those of you that say delete without really looking into or trying to understand how the forum is pertinent, you would see so more clearly. Also, I would like to say the little box at the top of the page made me laugh my ass off. I really doubt anybody thought this was a vote. I believe most people wrote that as a type of heading to their post; to declare their position clearly. Arguing that you have to have a lot of edits is moot as well: it makes absolutely no sense. Just because someone has edited a few hundred times more then someone else doesn't mean anything. Perhaps the user contributed when you didn't have to register to edit? Also, perhaps the user just found the site. Then what. Then your saying that those that have spent more time going and doing research to edit posts or those that make up their info or those that don't know what their talking about have more authoritah. And that is, quite frankly absolutely dumb. Also, the point is it was deleted once out of haste. We know that it was deleted before. We know, and it still doesn't matter. Psychomonkey 05:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anyone here who disputes that 472 users on at a time would mean that the number of actual unique users would be more than 5,000? And is there anyone that doubts that they have in fact a lot more than 1,100 users, since they do not require you to be a member in order to post and 90% of their posts are by non members? Anyone who doubts that? Meets
    WP:WEB. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Actually AAF does require that you be a member to post, and 100% of posts are by members. ~ Scott
    • I don't see the 472->5000 math. Even so, however, that criterion in
      WP:WEB has a second half you omitted: "A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community." (emphasis mine) So, to satisfy that criterion, you'd also have to demonstrate the impact beyond your own community. Given the insular nature of the article and the lack of meaningful non-forum content on the site, I don't believe the criterion has been satisfied. | Klaw ¡digame! 05:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • "A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community." - This is as ambiguous as the rest. What does verifiable impact mean in this case? An impact that can be verified? Ok, here you go: If the user community specified in
        WP:WEB is the user base at the AAF, and the AAF and MAF today exist as two separate entities (the user bases are not co-mingled) then the impact that the creation of the AAF has had on on the MAF is verifiable. i.e., it can be proven. Rgejman 07:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • One other point from
        WP:WEB "(A good rule of thumb is three times the number of unique members; so a forum with 5,500 members would need 16,500 posts.)" Using this rule of thumb, and defining the number of posts on the AAF at just over 270,000, we can solve backwards for the number of users, giving us roughly, 90,000. 1,100 users are posting enough for 90,000. That seems notable in it's own right. Rgejman 07:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • You need to read
          WP:WEB a bit more clearly. The point says first 5,000 or more apparently unique members applies to forums which anonymous users can read. I still have no idea where this "472 registered members means thousands upon thousands of unregistered ones" comes from, and the way I read the guideline is that since all anonymous users are necessarily impossible to call "apparently unique", you have to look at the registered user base. I admit that is merely my interpretation and that it is partially what I have based my judgement on. Secondly, the rest of the guideline states that measuring userbase on the number of postings is only for [f]orums which require a user to sign up to read or see messages, so I do not believe it should be applied here (and in fact stating that "1,100 users are posting enough for 90,000 is missing the fact that anonymous users can post). Thirdly and hopefully finally, and again a matter of my own interpretation of the guideline, a verifiable impact outside its own community needs to be a notable impact, and I don't consider the fact that it's taken a lot of users from another forum whose only notability is a weak association to a magazine to be notable in itself. A simple question: Has AppleAddict, or its forums, been mentioned in a newspaper or magazine, significant online news outlet, or by a prominent person? If so, then provide evidence, and then I will reconsider my vote. Confusing Manifestation 11:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
          ]

Comment: For such a small forum, it's impressive that they put up such a fuss over article deletion. - CorbinSimpson 09:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mostly because all the linked guidelines seem horribly arbitrary in what they deem "notable." As well as the people thinking Wikipedia is the intellectual equivalent to the Oxford English Dictionary or Encylopedia Brittanica. S0sumi 10:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. Poring over every new article like you're trying to cram the sum of human knowledge into ten leather-bound volumes is ludicrous considering what makes Wikipedia unique is that the marginal cost of each new article is so small; it's just extra bytes on a hard drive in Florida. The hostility towards new users and new content—clearly illustrated above—is completely inconsistent with Wikipedia's open philosophy. How many people will continue to contribute after having to battle this Afd process on each article they create? Especially when formerly anonymous users who register so that they can create articles have their opinions discounted simply because they have only a handful of edits. —499699787 11:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • People commonly cite our 'open philosophy' when they try to get what amounts to free webhosting to advertise their life/website/band. Wikipedia is about openness, but first and foremost it is an encyclopaedia. The most important thing, therefore, is that every article is
        complete bollocks, and even if the whole thing is pared down to that which is verifiable (very little), because this article is non-notable it's not worth Wikipedians who aren't part of the forums trying to keep unverified first-hand stories and suchlike out of the article. --Last Malthusian 11:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Advertising? Now your just making things up, malthusian.Psychomonkey 17:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails
    WP:WEB, meatpuppets. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The
      WP:WEB is a set of generic guidelines, not a test to be passed or failed. Just because the number of users is smaller (by the way: we don't allow anonymous/unregistered posting) doesn't mean that the forum does not deserve an historical entry. This seemingly small number of users have posted almost half a million articles. How can that not be noteworthy? Don't delete. Lumbergh 05:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to

estianpower háblame 16:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Snakehead (stargate)

Fictional dicdef or insult? Non-notable in any case. Delete. Kusma (討論) 03:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate wasKeep.--Shanel 20:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The dark prison

Neologism. That eight people called something something does not merit inclusion. Gets close to POV. --Quasipalm 17:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Merge (if apt.) into
    Guantanamo Bay a larger article. --Quasipalm 17:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Nonsense. A nomination is not a vote. It's a nomination. Sorry I forgot to sign. --Quasipalm 17:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep -- disclaimer, I started this article
  • POV is not grounds for deletion. Check the guidelines for deletion....
  • The article is well documented. "
    The White House
    the white house. Its official name is(was?) the executive mansion, or something like that.
  • I'm not convinced this article is well documented. If only eight people have seen this place, how can it meet Wikipedia:Verifiability? I could find eight people abducted by aliens on the subway yesterday morning. I know that's an absurd example, yes, and not to make light of the situation, but we need to only create articles that can be verified, not articles that rely on such weak grounds. --Quasipalm 17:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) I know you've admitted your analogy is weak, but it's worth bearing in mind that it's more likely that the Americans have a torture camp in Afghanistan than it is that people have been abducted by aliens. 2) We've verified that eight people have claimed that they were in this prison. They were given enough credence to have their claims printed in two sources whom we should have no problem treating as reliable. As long as we don't state as fact that this place exists, which we don't, I see no problem with verifiability. --Last Malthusian 21:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging this article with
    Guantanamo Bay
    is a bad idea. The prison is in Afghanistan for crying out loud. Merging with the geographical location Guantanamo Bay would be an invitation to have the material deleted, because it would be off-topic.
  • <pedantry>Actually it's in Cuba.</pedantry> --Last Malthusian 15:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC) Lol. My bad, you probably meant the dark prison was in Afghanistan. LM [reply]
  • Delete Way too speculative and narrow. We can't be putting in Wikipedia every phrase ever coined. Put it in Wikitionary if appropriate. Madman 05:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is about a prison, and not the prison's name. Do you have any other objections? Would you object to the article if it had a different name? -- Geo Swan 07:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Geo Swan, I see your point. Yes, I would think that this prison would be notable enough. I would also support Merge. Madman 14:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Secret torture centres run by a democracy are kinda notable. And as pointed out above, the spooks are unlikely to come and tell us its official name. --Squiddy 10:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with merging with
    US invasion of Afghanistan
    for the following reasons:
  1. Some of the detainees in this
    Jamil al-Banna
    , for instance, were captured thousands of miles away, in Gambia. They had never even travelled to Afghanistan, prior to their capture.
  2. I think every one of the prisons in the CIA's network of extra-judicial interrogation centres merits an article of its own.
  3. I know some of the regular followers of {afd} consider themselves followers of "mergism". I am not assuming that you Jamyskis are a "mergist". I am addressing this comment to those who consider themselves mergists. My idea of how the wikipedia should evolve are strongly influenced by the ideas of Ted Nelson. I strongly agree with him that computers free us from confining our knowledge to linear forms. Constellations of related small articles can serve the inherently anarchic nature of some topics far better than imprisoning them in linear monolithic articles. -- Geo Swan 15:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup/expand. --MisterHand 15:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well documented, by its nature it can't at this time have a more "official" name (ESkog)(Talk) 15:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs cleanup but verified and significant. --Last Malthusian 15:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
    — Jeandré, 15:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Dsol 17:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refresh whenever more details show up from the slush Nol Aders 21:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to me that this article clearly has enough merit to warrant it's presence, provided that emphasis is made of it's disputability. Credible sources, such as Human Rights Watch, are approaching this subject with the same attitude. -- Lukehought 17:20, 27 December 2005 (GMT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Gamedome

Forum with 126 members, failing to meet

WP:WEB. Delete. Kusma (討論) 03:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Indie:Indie Radio

This is just a small online radio station, and this seems like an advertisement. pielover87 03:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Sadorexia

This page seems very suspicious! The only hits on Google appear to reference the website at http://www.sadorexia.com , and the website itself seems to be some kind of joke/parody/spoof, trying to get at those in the BDSM lifestyle (and even if this is serious, it surely counts as original research). WANBULA seems to be a genuine organisation, but I can't find a reference of sadorexia on their pages (although I can't read Spanish to be certain). If this was a genuine eating disorder, there would surely be more references to it. (I'm also at a loss to see how masochism is a slimming technique...) Mdwh 04:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone can point to actual medical validity. OR, Vanity. I haven't heard of anyone using any form of sex as an appetite suppressant. Also, over-use of irrelevant NSFW images [13] makes me lean more heavily on thinking it's a hoax. --
    Interiot 04:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. We can probably shed this. -- JJay 11:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the talk page is to be believed, the entire article is an extract from http://www.sadorexia.com meaning that there is no GFDL content on this page at all. —gorgan_almighty 15:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. no official diagnostical category, only sources mentioned above, although WANBULA is definitly talking about it, but that is not enough for creating a new diagnostical category ... --Enfiladissa 15:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Non-Sonic Team Sonic Games

The whole article sounds like an essay more than an encyclopedic topic; also, it lacks neutral POV, and sounds rather crufty. The information about the Sonic games not developed by Sonic Team has gotten around well enough without this page (which, might I add, was unlinked to by anything until I made this AfD), so this article is unecessary. In short, Delete, unless anyone has any better ideas; I don't really think there's anything it can be merged into, or that would really benefit much from such an action. --Shadow Hog 04:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

have you seen this?) 18:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Christmas, Christmas

Theres more info

Nothing other than an infobox -- King of Hearts 04:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable vanity bandcruft etc. Formed in June 2005 and it's already world-famous, ah yeah right. Have already listed the band itself (and its "album" for AfD as well. Marblespire 08:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --

estianpower háblame 16:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Cosmic Pterodactyl Experience

Proposed delete: fails

WIN For Things Made Up In School One Day... Yeah. Let's just call this done. Marblespire 06:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Platinum (album)

Proposed delete: fails

WIN For Things Made Up In School One Day... Yeah. Let's just call this done. Marblespire 08:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete and redirect to

Mailer Diablo 02:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Captain Peacock

The band was the first to use Captain Peacock for its one and only page. THE FIRST PAGE FOR THE BAND THAT WAS DELETED DID NOT FAIL WP:MUSIC. A notification was never sent that the band's page would be deleted to a canceled british TV show. This would have allowed me time to create an alternative page for the band. I felt it only right to take claim of the page by removing Are You Being Served?'s redirect. Why does Are You Being Served need this redirect? Captain Peacock the band holds American copyright and trademark for the name. Perhaps the solution is that we are allowed the page since Are You Being Served? has countless other redirects and let us have this ONE page. Also, perhaps wikipedia should make a "wikipedia UK" (along with one for Australia), as british culture is apparently VERY different from American. That way, all of your "bold redirections" can fit in with the appropriate culture. THE MISSION AND GOAL OF WIKIPEDIA IS TO CREATE KNOWLEDGE AND PROVIDE INFORMATION. BY DELETING INFORMATION - YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THE ABSENCE OF KNOWLEDGE FOR OTHERS. NOBODY DELETED ARE YOU BEING SERVED? SHOW SOME RESPECT AND TREAT OTHERS THE SAME.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The TV-show-page creator made no attempt to contact the band-page creator that they would like a redirect. Band-page creator would have been happy to add one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.16 (talk • contribs)

WP:OWN is policy on Wikipedia. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 09:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The page makes no claim to notability, seems to fail

WP:MUSIC. Page was boldly redirected to Are You Being Served?, as one of the characters is named Captain Peacock. This makes sense to me. However, the page was reverted [14]. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 04:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --

estianpower háblame 16:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Aarella

Not a very notable surname; article appears to be a hoax due to lack of sources. Also, the first hit on google is this article. While google returns 387 hits, most of them are as surnames of some people. Several Indian surnames would easily cross 5000 hits but they are not notable as such Gurubrahma 09:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Too bad we can't speedy groups. Movementarian 11:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It has some interesting information (six fingers is cool), but it seems more likely to be a hoax than anything else. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 12:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it atleast has some info and context and lot better than other such articles like Andem --Vyzasatya 20:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep- Its not a hoax definately, cos its me who wrote it, yes it is not a common surname, but its got its history and if u go by surname Aarella's will be the first surname in whole of india.

So please consider keeping it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.65.177 (talk • contribs)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to

chat} 00:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Tactical chunder

neologism

אריאל יהודה

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • After thorough cleanup for encyclopedic tone and style, suggest any remaing information of value could be merged and redirected with vomiting. This is a behaviour that's been reported since ancient Rome at least. — Smerdis of Tlön 05:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Smerdis of Tlön Zunaid 09:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Smerdis of Tlön. Sliggy 12:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As someone who googled to find the meaning of the phrase Tactical Chunder I am very dissapointed to find that this article will be deleted. The subject matter is clearly quite vulgar but none the less a part of British culture. I believe the article could be rewritten in a more "encyclopedic manner" but it should not be deleted. With the exception of personal distaste, what reasons do people have for deleting this entry? I believe a merger would be acceptable as long as google can still find it relatively easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.72.113 (talk • contribs)
    • There is no one who has suggested deletion due to vulgar content (and honestly, we have pages based on much more vulgar things). The only reason so far provided for deletion is that the page is a simple definition, and
      אריאל יהודה
      • I disagree that this is purely a definition. I deliberately attempted to place some social context in the article. A definifition would be 'making oneself throw up in order to drink more' Mnd999

- I say keep also, very useful to find the meaning behind the term via google. Keep up the good work Wikipedia! 20:59 22 December 2005 (UK)

- I would be happy with a Merge with vomiting provided that this type of vomiting is clearly differentiated and the social context is kept. Would also be happy to keep. Mnd999

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Watson Twins

Seems to be a rip-off of some sleeve notes. Assuming the Watson Twins are notable eneough to warrant an entry, this can always be created in future. In the meantime, Delete CLW 21:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No AMG entry. Article contains an <img> tag from MySpace, which is always a good indication that it's a NN band.
    e ] 22:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a signed musical review with second person writing does not belong in Wikipedia. B.Wind 16:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nomination. Badly written too. Gaius Cornelius 17:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Per nom.Obina 10:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

BAD Crew

Vanity and void of encyclopedic value Mecanismo | Talk 21:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN. Google finds references only on a couple of graffiti-related sites (and one of them is down). Unverifiable.
    e ] 22:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm from Chicago, never heard of them. Short, unverifiable. Madman 05:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete..."Bomb and Destroy" this article. nn. --MisterHand 15:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Bad apple

Article reads too much as original research and copyright violation. Article is uncategorized and is orphan Mecanismo | Talk 21:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm not sure whether this research is copyvio or original, but the essay is too diffuse to merit inclusion or redirect. Seems to be talking about problem people in team structures. Durova 21:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Random cut and pastes under a random title.Obina 10:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's either copyvio or as above. {{test1}} the original author. —gorgan_almighty 13:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikify or Delete This material is really typical of a consultant group that promotes better practices in a workplace, meaning that ad hoc explanations are plentiful, references scarce, and big words abundant. Importance of the concept should be estabished, the context should be properly set up, and the content condensed to perhaps 1 or 2 paragraphs in plain english, not consultant-ish. Santtus
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

58th Seascout System of Volos, Greece.

It's just a youth club, nothing to make it somehow special or encyclopedic. feydey 21:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless expanded. -- JJay 22:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination, unless something pretty spectacular is brought to our attention. Saberwyn - 10:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.NN.Obina 10:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep Renata3 07:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mañana Será Otro Dia

This is an old page with no users attempting to justify its place, the film is not a notable release in the English speaking world, nor has the original author attempted to take non-English language information and provide it here. It is a non-notable film outside its home release country. doktorb 21:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, Tim, but for what reason? doktorb | words 15:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per
    Kappa. Its notability outside its home-release country is unimportant; there are certainly many MANY articles here with little importance outside of the United States. Mind you, I'm not stating that "we should keep" a', after all, look at all of the b we have" is a valid argument. Anyway, if you check the IMDB link, the television show had 120 episodes; although this is a short run for (what I think is) a telenovela, it's enough to be notable, whether or not it's of notice to Wikipedia users who speak primarily English. It is very much ideal for Wikipedia to combat systemic bias, especially in media, where the project has an extremely deep, although narrow (mostly English lang.) focus. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 04:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am actually in the UK. My point is that this is a non-notable movie/tv show for the English language Wiki, in my opinion. doktorb | words 15:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as both are notable in their respective countries. Also, we need more non-English language movies and television shows. Carioca 20:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 20:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bash.org/Draft

Draft article which was already implemented as the main article Mecanismo | Talk 22:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 20:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bash.org/Draft2

Abandoned draft Mecanismo | Talk 22:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per nom. Zunaid 09:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a draft subpage article, there's no need to request additional consensus, it's just clogging up AfD. Be bold and speedily delete it.
    t c 12:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy delete. 9cds 17:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Star Trek: Foundations

Non-notable, vanity. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 04:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above, possible advertising. Madman 06:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No listing at Memory-Alpha (the Star Trek Wiki) under "Star Trek: Foundations" [16] or "bDv" [17]. Movementarian 07:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR.Gateman1997 18:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Bwth

Dicdef for nn internet slang acronym. Kusma (討論) 04:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it's less than non-notable; it's non-existant. Doesn't even have an urbandictionary entry, much less a Google presence or people actually using it anywhere. Might even be a candidate for speedy delete.
    T C 04:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. -- Megamix? 05:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Jason Brown

nn musician whose only album is a demo. Article seems to be an autobiography, based on the name of the original author. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep, and I urge those who believe this article should be kept to cleanup and expand it. Ral315 (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cashback

This is not an encyclopedia article. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, trim it with a blowtorch and mold it with a hammer. Reward programmes are a common enough phenomenon to warrant an article, although this is in an atrocious state. Zunaid 09:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]
    • Comment: I've ever so slightly wikified the article and added an {{unreferenced}} tag. If the article is kept the title should be changed at some point to something like "cashback reward systems" or "loyalty programs". (On a side-note
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Fox 19:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Guntaas' Father

An article about someone's father. Relatives of notable people are often not themselves notable, and here we haven't even established that the daughter herself is notable. -- Curps 04:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nn-bio. Kusma (討論) 05:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Movementarian 13:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A 7 JoJan 14:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy. -- RHaworth 06:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fattymoo

This looks like it's just a bad joke. Possibly BJAODN? Egsan Bacon 04:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.

chat} 00:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

21 Society

Secret societies are, by their very nature, unverifiable. This one doesn't even seem particularly notable even if it weren't secret. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been verified and external links to references added. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 08:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. -- Megamix? 07:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Actually, many secret societies are verifiable. This one happens to be among them, given that its creation was announced in the UVA student newspaper. It is only six years old, but that does mean that it has demonstrated an ability to survive after its founding members have graduated. They have offered a scholarship and made donations to various UVA activities. Their traditional "gift" of 21 bottles of beer is controversial. People list 21 Society recognition on their CVs. The bottom line is,
    WP:ISNOT paper, and as that page says, "This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." This is verifiable and not deletable for any of the other reasons listed on that page. To people, like myself, who are fascinated by secret societies, it is interesting. To people interested in US college/university culture or in UVA history, it is interesting. There's no reason to delete this. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 08:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I don't know. Are student newspapers considered reliable sources on Wikipedia? -- Megamix? 08:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The society's existence and nature are verifiable without reference to the student newspaper. Note these links from above: [18] [19] [20] - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 08:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Verifiable or not, this is still NN. —gorgan_almighty 14:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Per nom. Agnte 14:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. University student organizations are rarely encyclopedic. Secret society status does not change that standard. Compare this to a notable student organization, the Columbia University Marching Band. The latter group received national press coverage and appeared on David Letterman. Durova 16:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment - It is verifiable and NPOV, which
seems to be enough for Jimbo. It is certainly not a vanity article (I have never been to Virginia and had never heard of this society before the AFD vote). It is not original research, as everything in the article is based on easily accessible sources. Somebody please explain to me how on earth it's going to hurt anyone to include this article in Wikipedia. Obviously, somebody who's not the creator of the article and is not personally related to its topic (me) finds it interesting. Why delete it? - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 20:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Then shouldn't the vote be to merge to University of Virginia? - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 23:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt this little student group merits equal attention with the architectural legacy of Thomas Jefferson. Mention doesn't mean merge. Durova 01:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a member of the secret Delete Crap Like That society, I must insist. Flyboy Will 21:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – agree with Momentarian and AdelaMae. Questionably interesting, but factual and verifiable. Certainly not "crap" if they've offered a scholarship. I'm sure that many would find it interesting even if I don't, just like many of the articles on Wikipedia. Who are we to say it is not notable if it is unbiased, factual, and someone has taken the time to painstakenly verify it? Uris 22:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians I suppose I would though....oh and As Per Uris too. Jcuk
  • Keep - ,remove personal attack - User:Zoe|(talk) 00:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)>. Piecraft 17:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Who cares if it's NN??? The point of Wikimedia is to collaboratively collect the "sum of all human knowledge". This article can be a resource for somebody that wants to know more about the 21 Society. It should be kept. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 06:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Fong pay

WP:NOT a dictionary (of rude Catntonese terms). -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 05:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Urbaniacs.com

nn website, nonsense article, 87 Google hits for "Urbaniacs". User:Zoe|(talk) 05:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's a new website -- 87 hits isn't so bad for something that's only been in existence for 7 months. Give it some time. (not sure how to put user name -- JenQ, maybe?)

  • Delete This is ad copy, not an WP article.
    Billbrock 07:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus.

chat} 00:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Hold The Horses moved to Hold your horses

This must be really rare! I went to law school in New York and I have been a lawyer in Texas since 1982 and I have never heard this phrase. I think the writer has confused it with "Hold your horses!", which is a common American phrase. Also, there is no source or references. RickReinckens 05:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think you are right, but I may be jumping your gun. -- JJay 05:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. A lot of dubious claims with no sources to back them up, probably because the claims are unverifiable.TheRingess 05:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Hold your horses which is the correct phrase. It means "Hold on" and is in very common use. [21]. Also what it says in there as to what it means needs to be referenced, as I don't believe it is correct. this dictionary suggests that its correct meaning is "If someone tells you to hold your horses. you are doing something too fast and they would like you to slow down.", while this idiom dictionary suggests that its correct meaning is "A U.S. origin which dates back to the 19th century which means to be patient and to wait." and "This pre dates even your brief history as well as most of Europe... even the Romans used to have a man to 'Hold your Horses' whilst a noisy battle was ensuing! It’s probably Chinese in origin as they invented gunpowder.", while this dictionary suggests "something that you say in order to tell someone to stop doing or saying something because they are going too fast. Just hold your horses, Bill. Let's think about this for a moment." Whoever wrote this clearly put in the wrong phrase. Should be renamed. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - is it possible to move this to Hold your horses and then have a vote on that? I don't think that there is any doubt that Hold the horses is the less common way to describe the phrase, and should be a redirect to Hold your horses. I think that there is an exceptionally strong case, however, that Hold your horses should remain. But can I move it during the AFD? P.S. I have rewritten the article using references, although it is still a bit sloppy right now. Feel free to clean it up. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Hold your horses and expand. --MisterHand 15:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hold your horses belongs in Wikitionary. It's an idiom with no particular cultural relevance. Durova 16:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC) Weak delete then. Cite sources for cultural relevance in Australia. It's common enough in the States, but merely as a somewhat dated idiom. Durova 23:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean no cultural reference? It means a totally different thing in Australia as compared to USA, and in Australia at least has a big cultural meaning. Its up there with mate and g'day. I can't say what it means in USA or England or anything else though. But its huge here. My grandpa used to say it all the time to us little uns, and my uncles did too. It was usually a kind of condescending way of talking to those less experienced than you. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know, I wrote it badly. But you know, its hard to do and I get tired. But it should be said that this is predominantly a male expression that is predominantly said to other males, and that the age thing is important. It is almost always said from an experienced older male to a less experienced younger male. That younger male might be an employee, an apprentice, a nephew, a son, grandson, or in any other way under their care. This kind of term is VERY RARELY used by youngsters talking to adults. Almost never. It is also sometimes used with specific reference to horses, more as a joke than anything. It is in unbelievably widespread use. I can think of a game I used to play called Totologies that used this expression as part of the game (it was a horse racing game). Not sure if the game is notable, but the expression certainly is. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Mindless Tripod Experience

NN band. Fails

WP:MUSIC, no discography yet [23]. 16 Google hits total [24], a good deal of that from Myspace/Audiostreet/personal website. Megamix? 05:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as nonsense, attack, and possible hoax. Ral315 (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Beckermann

A lot of "facts" that are not proven, specifically the ones that attack Jennifer. It's a hoax. Ristau 05:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Anshuman Gaur

Non-notable. Vanity article by User:Anshumangaur. -- RHaworth 05:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom--a Google search including war nuclear shadow India Pakistan returns oodles of his, but nothing for "War Under Nuclear Shadow".
    Billbrock 06:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. --DelftUser 18:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 00:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete nn-bio already userfied.--Pamri • Talk 05:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (that didn't happen so speedily) for being a repost of

chat} 00:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Josh Ballard

I believe that this page should be deleted because there is little content which is Important. The person did die which made it semi-notable, but other than that there doesn't seem to be much more to it than any other page created for bloggers or forum posters. Chooserr 05:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated by one editor, and the subpage created by another, and I added it to the log, and then couldn't figure out why it didn't appear in the list, but we had all missed the {{afd2}} template, it turns out. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is just a fad. He wanted attention now he has gotten it.

  • Comment Am I seriously the only person who remembers that this is a recreation of previously deleted content? --Last Malthusian 18:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain I abstain. --TheEvilBlueberryCouncil 03:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. --

t·c) 17:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Terrapist

Delete. Student newspaper magazine with only one issue out. --Idont Havaname 06:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Terrapist is actually a magazine. Jussenadv 18:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my nomination based on what you said. However, I'm a senior at UMCP and had never heard of this publication until I saw this article about it.
Wikipedia is not a place for advertising. --Idont Havaname 22:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
This vote was actually by User:129.2.225.126. --Idont Havaname 17:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting this person changed his/her sig, yet knew how to make one. Counting this one is very questionable. Jussenadv 01:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The front page of
WP:AfD says how to make a signature. If you look at the edit history of this page, User:129.2.225.126 made two edits. One had the correct ~~~~, and in the other, s/he changed the signature to read "theislandofmoldova". --Idont Havaname 03:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
This is not a vote it is a discussion, so it really doesn't matter. The post in question didn't say anything useful so will likely be ignored anyway. —gorgan_almighty 11:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with University of Maryland. Since this is in fact a magazine, it's reasonable that only one issue has come out. However, that may not be justification for an independent article, in which case I think The Terrapist should be merged. Jussenadv 18:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Flyboy Will 21:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looked at the magazine. Seems like it has the potential to run for awhile. Note, all the articles in that category seem pretty poor, this one actually seems to be the most extensive. Qoforensics 01:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, this magazine has only run one issue with a small circulation, but it will continue on, and it does exist--and if the Harvard Lampoon, Dartmouth Jack O'Lantern, Princeton Tiger, Stanford Chaparral, etc. have pages on Wikipedia, why can't the Terrapist? 68.48.86.63 15:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if it has the potential to run for a while, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball and it's not a place for advertising. Once it becomes noteworthy, that's when we should have an article on it. For now, it's not, and we shouldn't. —
    Cleared as filed. 06:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.

chat} 00:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Exploding animal

Nonsense, original research, whatever you want to call it, it's garbage. -- Jbamb 06:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this article has changed significantly since the date of this nomination.
violet/riga (t) 10:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research. As I was just saying on the talk page, the template and category are funny, but as an article, it reflects a term best known inside Wikipedia itself- see 211 Google hits minus Wikipedia. I've no problem with the subarticles;
    exploding snake may not be tremendously notable, but for the purposes of building upon a weird and wacky project started with exploding whale, a BBC story is notable enough for me. It's just exploding animal, itself, that bothers me. Where's the sources? CanadianCaesar 06:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per above.
    Billbrock 06:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment. Didn't Dave Barry start the whole 'exploding animal' meme? I think there could be a place for a 'list of animals known to have exploded', but this article as written now doesn't make a lot of sense. Perodicticus 09:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We need this for the whole exploding animal series. -- JJay 11:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has a chapter on it in Dave Barry Talks Back. Not sure if the link will work, but you can check out the book at Amazon [26]. -- JJay 14:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But with reservations! Sorry to be a citation nazi, but this article needs to
    cite its sources. If Dave Barry's book can be used as a legitimate reference, please cite it in the article (though not as a blanket reference; if anyone has read the book, he or she should cite specific page numbers). I also think that various related articles (the shorter ones at least) could be merged into this article—that might give it more legitimacy. -,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Special thanks to JJay and Perodicticus. I was able to rewrite it. Verifiable, referenced to a published work. Reccomend not merging it with anything, because the exploding animal category is just so fun. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 20:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I took the liberty of wiki-formatting the reference. It was not quite what I had in mind, but you certainly fulfilled the spirit of my request! Still, the book itself would be a better source, but I won't belabor the point. Also, the article is rather short and probably should be marked as a stub, though of what kind I have no earthly idea—perhaps a new Detonable fauna-stub? (Not serious on that last point.) -,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 21:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      (Of course, all this may be rendered academic if the final consensus is to delete.)
      -,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 21:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a central article for all the topics which will no doubt be expanded into a full summary article. violet/riga (t) 21:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I concede defeat. The first sentence in the next book i read will become a wikipedia article. --Ezeu 21:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is already a template which covers this adequately. Denni ☯ 02:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Delete - is a bit from one humorist really enough to hang an article on? Is the idea actually notable??? Not every gag idea is an article! The cites seem tenuous, not all are related to this topic. Also, perhaps the part about dynamiting whales just belongs in the whale article and the rest under
    WP:BJAODN
    ??
    • Not every gag will deserve an article, but it can be a introduction for our legendary exploding animal series. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Why is there an article on a comment from a book, but not an article on the book itself? Suggest you make the article about the book (Dave Barry Talks Back), then make 'exploding animals' redirect to the book
  • Delete I don't see why this merits a separate article. It could be included in the person's biography. Antidote 03:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikipedia:Exploding animals. It's really more Wikipedia folklore than anything else, not really worthy of an true article entry. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 03:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Summarizes the entire exploding animals theme. You can't find this sort of oddity in Brittanica! – ClockworkSoul 16:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Exploding Animals for fun and profit. helohe (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Barbara Walker

Originally tagged with a speedy for nn-bio, which was removed with no edit summary. The only assertion of notability in the article is that the subject appeared in two low-budget films, the existence of which (and her appearance in them) are not confirmed by Google search or IMDB. Otherwise a non-notable schoolteacher. MCB 06:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"As is this article may meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but I intend to expand it so that it does assert the importance/significance of Barbara Walker. I understand that it is the policy of Wikipedia to accept stub articles for the time being. Within a week I will have a much more expanded article that certainly will meet the criteria. As such I have removed the speedy deletion notice. Thank you for understanding."

If we cannot make her notability plainly evident to your standards, we will merge it with the PDS article. But please do not delete it until we are able to either merge it with the PDS article or make it good enough.

--Mendy Fisch, 18:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Okay, I created a new section in the PDS article called "Biographies of Princeton Day School Faculty" and moved the Barbara Walker entry there. I hope that is kosher according to Wikipedia policy. I guess you can delete the original Barbara Walker entry.

-- Mendy Fisch, 19:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Pall Mall Jetpack

Looks like it fails

WP:MUSIC. Delete --Spring Rubber 06:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Their webpage hasn't loaded throughout the week. The article says nothing about any published recordings of any kind, and with this little presence on the web, there's no reason to think they're even in the ballpark of
WP:MUSIC ×Meegs 05:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Flashtrek

Spam.DeleteTheRingess 06:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as spam. The article might also be a copyvio. B.Wind 17:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 00:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - is it copyvio or isn't it? If not it might be worth salvaging, maybe. It does read like a commercial but could be just an an enthusiastic fan. I'm reverting the page-blanking, if for no other reason than the AFD notice should remain in place. --LesleyW 13:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --

t·c) 17:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Heartburn (cont. by William Daniels)

Obvious merge. It's not clear to me why this was not added to the Heartburn article, but this article should be deleted and not redirected. The title alone is unkeepable. Nominator votes merge and delete. Bikeable 07:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn).

chat} 00:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Macologist

Fails to meet

WP:WEB, here's the Alexa rank. Kusma (討論) 07:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Rebuttal

Argument against deletion Does indeed meet

WP:WEB
, which notes:

  1. Having been the subject of national or international media attention;
  2. A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community; or
  3. Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better.

Although the Alexa rank does not meet this standard, the website qualifies on the other two categories. Also I believe the Alexa toolbar (used for traffic ranking) is a windows-only product, which results in a difficult-to-interpret ranking for sites the cater to a non-windows-specific niche of users.

Explanations below:

1) National Media Attention: Macologist has been mentioned three times in one of the two largest industry (Macintosh computer) print magazines in the US ("MacAddict") three times in two years: Oct 2004, Oct 2005, and Dec 2005. Coverage of Macologist is also frequent in the only other website on this topic of note, macgamefiles.com. The other major magazine is "MacWorld", which uses software developed at Macologist (see below in Impact section).

2) Forum size, verifiable impact: Forum size: The (publicly viewable) forum has > 5000 members. (Currently 8455).

Forum size and media attention as above are extraodinary for such a young site that was only founded in June 2004.

Impact outside forum user community: As for impact beyond its user community, several game publishers refer their users directly to the site for technical support. For example for the popular game Doom 3, at the publisher's site http://www.aspyr.com/games.php/mac/d3/ , click on Support> then Optimization, and there will be a link to Macologist. Also their telephone and email technical support staff will refer users to this Macologist URL. Also note that the website for Feral Interactive also has several direct links to game reviews from Macologist, for example Chessmaster 9000.

References are available from the director of development of Aspyr Media, and the public relations director of Feral Interactive, two of the largest publishers for this platform.

Editors for Macologist have also been recruited into beta testing (Mac Ninjas, console) and other media (Mac Games Radio) http://www.macradio.com/press/igameradio/gamepr051118.php

The largest Macintosh magazine "MacWorld" uses software developed by Macologist for Unreal Tournament 2004 in their benchmarking suite: http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2005/05/speedmarkblog/index.php

Finally, entering the search term "Macologist" in the Apple.com website will return two entries. The software above used by MacWorld magazine for benchmarking is also listed at Apple.—preceding

unsigned comment by Santaduck (talk • contribs
) 22:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Redball

Game created and played only in the social studies office of an unnamed Maryland high school. Not enough context for anyone besides the article's creator to expand the article. External links have no relationship to content of article. Not verifiable. Already on BJAODN. AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 07:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. No reason to think this tradition exists outside of the one school. The three links are definitely not related. ×Meegs 07:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Movementarian 13:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This looks like an tongue in cheek inside joke.—gorgan_almighty 15:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps students in this class should make their own wiki. --MisterHand 15:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should be BALEETED! because it's non-notable. --
    Kuroki Mio 2006 23:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Wrestle.gt-man.net

Delete A small forum no-one has heard about Lapinmies 07:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —

Cleared as filed. 06:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Engineering design

Delete - dicdef which is almost identical to the first sentence of Engineering. Unless this one shows promise of expanding beyond a sentence... GTBacchus(talk) 07:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Noldarien

Non notable character in non notable book. No references given, no author given, either delete or merge elsewhere.TheRingess 07:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --

estianpower háblame 16:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Salvador Minguijon Perez

Does not meet

Google test failed (only 5 independent hits incl. Wikipedia [30]). Being granted a European patent is not enough to claim notability. (More than 50,000 European patents were granted in 2004 [31]). Edcolins 07:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete. Per nom. --Edcolins 07:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Per original author. I put this article in in order to make sure that the original inventor of telematic auto insurance receives at least some credit for his breakthrough. If you Google "pay as you drive", or "telematic auto insurance", you will get an appreciation for the enormous potential impact of this invention. By virtue of my own consulting practice, I've been studying telematic auto insurance for many years. It wasn't until this year that I discovered, quite by accident, that Salvador was the original inventor, and not the putative inventor, Progressive auto insurance.--Nowa 11:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Author admits above that this is motivated by something close to
    WP:BIO. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Having a patent is not grounds for encyclopedia mention. Flyboy Will 21:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that having a patent alone is not grounds for a separate encyclopedia article. I also understand the above point that it should not be my place alone to emphasize the importance of a given inventor's work.--Nowa 23:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Shanel 21:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parodies of the ichthys symbol

Delete. As the progenitor of the article, I originally fought against requested deletion/redirection because I felt the article had merit; this is no longer the case. As I mention on the article's

=/\= 08:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and cleanup - The Darwin and Gefilte parodies are notable phenomena in their own right. Daykart 08:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Daykart. Famous parodies such as the Darwin fish are deserving of an article. This can be made into a good article with some cleaning up. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 08:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, per Daykart. Notable, and merging into the Ichthys article would swamp it. --Squiddy 11:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup - The article definitely serves a purpose, but has lost a lot of its focus due to the name. Perhaps re-titling it as "Darwin Fish" will give it more focus and relevance. The Bearded One 14:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep worth having, but this should be cleaned up and perhaps renamed to something better so people can find it...like "Jesus fish parodies" --MisterHand 15:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: A different name may be a good idea, but the term "Jesus fish" is slang & derogatory & would not be suitable. —gorgan_almighty 15:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Should add the Burning Man symbol of a fish wearing a fedora with the name "Larry." Durova 16:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article should have a small mention of the most notable parodies. If any other parodies are to be listed, they should be shunted to this sub-page. --Fastfission 01:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am not sure this is the best name for the article but the material seems encyclopedic to me. Perhaps it should be merged with some other article (not sure why Ichthys has the name it has, but it is the best choice though... plus it has more redirects to it than any page I've found yet!) It's a widespread phenomenon and has many variants. ++Lar 06:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment... Daykart kindly messaged me with the derivation of "Ichthys", my comment was more wondering whether ichthys is the best name for the main article than wondering what Ichthys meant... sorry for confusion and thank you for that just the same... ++Lar 21:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article is informative and the phenomenon would easily be missed if relegated to the end of the Icthys page. 70.180.108.198 23:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep don't merge: As I have already said the article should be kept. But it should not be merged with the main Ichthys article, because although the parodies of a subject are notable, they are not relevant to an article discussing the main subject its self. For example, Spaceballs is a parody of Star Wars, but it would hardly be relevant on the Star Wars article. —gorgan_almighty 16:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no merge. Allow it to grow. Ifnord 23:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as vanity. Ral315 (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Ramirez (New Jersey)

NN, vanity Qutezuce 08:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as vanity. Ral315 (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Ramierez

NN, vanity Qutezuce 08:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as vanity. Ral315 (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Browne

Vanity page. Sarge Baldy 08:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Cap N1ne

Featured on a "compilation." No albums released, Fails

FCYTravis 08:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --

t·c) 17:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Historical revisionism (Catalunya)

Article is a copy of

Catalan negationism
, already requested for delete since 16 december 2005. The reasons are therefore the same (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Catalan_negationism for the original request, and talk:Catalan negationism for details about the content Wllacer 09:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep -- Don't bite the newbies. I am voting keep because nominator is not following the
    WP:AFD
    policy.
See the first entry in Talk:Catalan_negationism. The author of this article is obviously trying to comply with the suggestion that the article should have been created under this name.
Nominator is conflating their dispute over what they perceive as a biased point of view in the original article with whether the article should exist. Their discussion of POV issues belong on the talk page, they should not lead off an {afd} discussion, according to
WP:AFD. -- Geo Swan 14:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
  • This explanation is going to be messy.
    Historical revisionism (political). In academic circles this is a legitimate pursuit that reexamines events in light of new evidence and new interpretive techniques. Someone who admitted to not understanding that distinction suggested recreating the article under this title and User:Geo Swan endorsed that faulty idea. The change adds inherent POV to the stub's unresolved problems: it still appears to be original research. All of the author's English language references are tangential to the article's central claims. One is even a Wikipedia mirror site - possibly an effort to give the appearance of scholarship by creating a superfluous external link. Neither term has a Google presence. The stub names no historian or journalistic source. User:Geo Swan fails to substantiate the claim that the nominator is reacting to perceived bias. If the original stub can be saved it should be merged with a larger article. Its present content is not worth keeping. This title fails on its merits. Strong delete. Durova 16:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per Durova. Flyboy Will 21:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Durova. --Quasipalm 21:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep -- unsigned comment by User:85.138.0.73 07:34, 2005 December 26
    • I believe the policy is that the only votes that count are by wikipedia contributors who have created a userid. If 85.138.0.73 wants their vote to count, they should come back, after logging in, and sign a vote..-- Geo Swan 13:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —
    FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
    )     17:16, Dec. 31, 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 02:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Dateless

Rambling advert for non-notable website imdateless.com written by Imdateless. -- RHaworth 10:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It isn't rambling so much as setting itself up to be the savior of the world. Melchoir 10:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. starts of as a dictdef and then... well, you can hav spam, spam, spam, eggs, and spam, or spam, spam, chips, spam, spam, and spam, or... Grutness...wha? 11:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Worthless article, as anyone who spends more than 40 hours per week on Wiki... umm.. ignore the previous sentence. D.valued 11:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The page is not well written, not wikilinked, mainly a dictionary definition and probably not valid topic for an encyclopedia. It also may have been originally placed as an ad. Cedars 14:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Ad spam pure and simple, the rest of the content is just to add bulk & make the article acceptable at first glance. Should have been speedy not AfD. —gorgan_almighty 14:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...after reading this article, there's no mystery at all as to why the original author can't get a date. --MisterHand 15:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I do not like it, Sam I Am. I do not like green eggs and spam. Durova 17:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Mephit Black

With no books published and 12 Google hits [32], I'd have to agree with the article itself, which says the books "should NOT be referenced on this site yet." Non notable, vanity. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 11:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Madman 14:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN, unverifiable, no details given, no external links, probably vanity. No need for AfD on this one, should have been speedy. —gorgan_almighty 15:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 00:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as non-notable biography and short article with little or no context. Capitalistroadster 18:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan_Scott

Delete nn possible vanity page about a college student Gimboid13 11:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete --Whouk (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete non-notable bio, nearly contentless (ESkog)(Talk) 15:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --

t·c) 17:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Ankete

From

WP:PNT, been there since December 6th. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie (talk/contribs) 11:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

No idea, some kinda Slavic?
  • Appears to be Croatian. Solver 00:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like Serbian or Croatian, and seems to say something about a student poll. Looks like a school work, or something similar to this. Milena 11:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I second that conclusion. From what I can roughly derive (based on my limited ability to read Croatian): the text describes some student project entitled, "Teaching quality evaluation", which also includes a sample of (a part of) a student questionnaire. "Definition... Why evaluating... Evaluation method... ", based on self-analysis, statistical analysis and student poll targeted both at the teaching process itself and at the teaching staff; suggestions for which criteria to use during the evaluation, etc. I am not sure how this can possibly become an article, because it seems to be some unfinished piece of student-level research or a survey proposal or such, without any verifiable source too. My vote on this is to delete, no transwiki. Perhaps, still a good idea would be not to move this entry for a while longer, so that someone who is actually fluent in Croatian language could take a look at this review and confirm. - Introvert talk 08:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'm a Croatian speaking kinda guy. It's an article on methods commonly used in the "Bologne process" to insure quality. A similar, Slovenian article can be found on http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolonjski_proces.
    • Is it worth translating then? We have a
      Bologna process process here on English Wikipedia... are they comparable? Segv11 (talk/contribs) 08:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Ecaddindia

Not notable. ONly 3 google hits. Basically an Ad. Jgritz 11:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no evidence of third-party interest.
    Kappa 11:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 00:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet criterion at
    WP:CORP--Pamri • Talk 05:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Adam Cozens

Non-notable vanity page. Speedy deletion has been contested. --Whouk (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree - Delete - Tim Fellows 11:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio -- Karada 11:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is it too late to do a speedy delete? AdamJacobMuller 11:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. The "award winning radio show" claim helps it avoid speedy. PJM 13:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now I think about it, I've made an award winning radio show, but I'm pleased to say you won't find it on Wikipedia :-) --Whouk (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the real thing here is that he created an entry about *himself*, If a third party had created the entry it would not be such an issue, if someone takes it upon themself to create an entry about your show, then it probably deserves that page, and for all we know the "award" he recieved was a cardboard cutout of a microphone, one of those "everyone is a winnner" awards AdamJacobMuller 15:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete in its current state. --

estianpower háblame 16:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Holiday spirit

Original research Dan100 (Talk) 11:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Devon geyer

A budding musician. This was tagged for speedy deletion but there is some dispute on the talk page. Does have a little bit of local news coverage e.g. [33] so no vote from me, but see

Kappa 12:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

(I reapplied the AfD tag. Sliggy 18:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Anti-racist feminism

Original research: one of a number of pages by 24.86.192.164 (talk · contribs
) reporting the unsourced statements of a Yashar Keramati, whose entry was VFD'd in May 2005 as unverified/non-notable (see
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Yashar Keramati). Tearlach 12:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete as original research. Movementarian 13:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination with a suggestion to start over with a legitimate article. The historical link between these two subjects goes back much farther than the stub suggests. The first United States feminist movement actually started when female abolitionists found themselves banned from an abolitionist convention because they were women. Meeting among themselves, they decided the slaves were not the only ones who needed liberating. A worthy topic, an unworthy article. Durova 17:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and restart as suggested above. Tearlach 17:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect

estianpower háblame 16:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Feminist veganism

Original research: one of a number of pages by 24.86.192.164 (talk · contribs
) reporting the unsourced statements of a Yashar Keramati, whose entry was VFD'd in May 2005 as unverified/non-notable (see
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Yashar Keramati). Tearlach 12:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Weak delete, without prejudice to re-creation. Somewhere I have a copy of a book called The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory by Carol J. Adams; if unintended humour is your bag, I recommend it. Point is, this is a noteworthy concept, if not actually worthy of note; it's "out there" in the attestation sense as well as the other sense. On the other hand, this is original research and will not be particularly helpful to writers of a better article. Smerdis of Tlön 15:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - agreed. The relationship between feminism and veganism is a perfectly valid topic, but the problem is with an article claiming an entity called "Feminist veganism" (which doesn't verify) drawing entirely on OR. Tearlach 16:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Veganism without merging. The main article already discusses the topic. This stub looks unsalvageable but may have a search-worthy title. Durova 17:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per above. Drn8 17:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Veganism. Tearlach 17:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No one in their right mind would search for "feminist veganism" - womyn like that don't go anywhere near man-invented evil gizmos like the coMputer with intErNet. Flyboy Will 21:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're kidding, right? Durova 21:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have a huge problem with being serious even when I need to be; but seriously, searching for feminist veganism is like searching for "socialist aerodynamics", or "slavery and ancient philosophy". The intersection between the two terms is so marginal I don't believe it should have a separate page. Flyboy Will 22:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's notable enough that it's already a subtopic on the main page. I'd gauge that as redirect-worthy after the subject gets created as a separate article. Durova 22:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Holy mackerel. I stand corrected, even though I personally fail to see any legitimate link between the two; that is, people can justifiably be both, but one because of the other? In any case, definitely Merge. Flyboy Will 22:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the common thread is the ethical stand against exploiting one's fellow creatures. Durova 23:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep: or put another way, the idea that oppression of women and oppression of animals are both consequences of the traditional man-the-hunter ethos. Tearlach 23:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Midnight Strike

NN Flash game. NicM 13:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. --

t·c) 17:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Vagina tightening and toning

Provides no usefull information, and is strongly biased, and seems like an ad for the link in the article. It's simply not encyclopedic.--Vidarlo 13:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Info: A google search for "vagina tightening" +surgery -wikipedia -porn brings up over 400 hits. Zunaid 13:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could actually become a very useful article (although as it stands I'm tempted to say redirect to
    T
    14:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • If redirecting, I'm more for incorporating it into the Vagina article. I agree it could become a usefull article, but as it stands, it is not encyclopedic, and it looks like an ad. It's also strongly biased. -- Vidarlo 14:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup or rewrite. Subject matter has potential, current subheadings make a good article plan, but POV & bias must be removed. —gorgan_almighty 15:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This entry appears to be an add for the website linked.

  • Like I've said numerous times, just get rid of the damn link (which I have done). Illuminus
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Stanley's choice

Seems like well-intentioned band vanity. Fails

WP:NMG on several counts. Have not released an EP. Do not have an entry on allmusic.com. Delete Zunaid 13:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Interfic

Delete. From

T
14:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep (2 deletes vs 5 keeps from long-time users) Renata3 08:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Business Plot

This article appears to be a complete creation using conspiracy theory sources and a doctored photograph of a non-existent event. References in the article to alleged events are sourced to someone's personal (or group) web page. - Ted Wilkes 14:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Madman 14:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: please specify in what way the photo is "doctored". Its source is on a .gov site [34] and I don't see any obvious "doctoring" except for contrast enhancement. The caption is copied from the source site as well.Trapolator 15:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is backed with more than enough references. In the future, before you propose an article for deletion, spend some time on the talk page. All I see you've placed a single dispute notice. --Cigor 16:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ted Wilkes has never contributed a single word to the Business Plot until yesterday, when he posted his comments on the article page itself (not on the talk page)[35], and deleted a reference, calling it "pure crap" with no evidence for his accusations[36]. He also deleted the entire criticism section of DuPont article which mentions this plot.
The accusation that the photo is a fabrication is baseless. If Mr. Wilkes would have bothered spending his time clicking the image, instead of posting his comments on the article page[37] and making accusations, he would have read this: "This image comes from the National Archives and Records Administration..." Click here to see. Mr. Wilkes wants wikipedians to believe he knows something that the National Archives and Records Administration doesn't! Thank you Trapolator for pointing out the US government archives site which has this photo.[38]
In fact all of
McCormack-Dickstein Committee
.
The REAL "non-existent event" is Ted Wilkes accusations. I have no patience for ideological Don Quixotes who use wikipedia policy to push their own POV.
In addition, madman, who voted for deletion above, may be a sock puppet of Ted Wilkes. madman has no contributions on wikipedia[39], except to vote on deleting Business Plot. Travb 20:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article needs lots of work, but its status as a significant subject should not be in doubt. Gazpacho 20:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No apparent grounds for deletion as per above. The Business Plot reference also needs to be restored to the DuPont Corporation page, where Ted Wilkes deleted the entire criticism section. Bwithh 22:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is this Ted Wilkes doing? Join the discussion man, instead of trying to kill it in such an arrogant way - that is, if you have arguments. pomos
  • Keep If need be, mention its disputed state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.204.211.226 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Needs work, but still worth holding onto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.87.40 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Hardly worthy of delection, and I don't know what Ted Wilkes was thinking. May need some cleanup to indicate that the existence of the Plot is disputed, but if we have an article on Majestic 12, we can have an article on this. --Technogeek 07:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This dispute is unwarranted and contrived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.127.62 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Please sign your posts Travb 19:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rather then deleting the page, please provide a second POV. If it happened or if it is a hoax, either way it deserves a page. A 22:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The debate here deserves a hearing. If such discussion is flagged as qwestionable, readers will be able to check these references for themselves. Deleting this page is a kind of censorship that this community should be wary of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atheist (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Please sign your posts Travb 19:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --

t·c) 17:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Island of Time

Fictional place in fictional game. Ack! Madman 14:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite/Redirect Just needs to be wikified and expanded a bit, or folded into Prince of Persia: Warrior Within. As for its fictionality, you couldn't have other fictional locales like Faerun, Middle-Earth or Liberty City deleted without someone noticing  ;) ka1iban 15:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter. It's still important, even if you don't like it, Madman. I guess we should delete the articles about the LoTR locales, then. Whatever. This should just be merged into the main PoP: WW article. Starwind Amada 14:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per ka1iban. -- JJay 19:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand or redirect. From notable game.
    QQ 01:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect The article isn't needed. The Island of Time can just become a small portion of the Warrior Within article.--DethFromAbove 06:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Keep we could create a big location from the POP page.--sturm 17:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is very useful. Please don't delete it. --costan
  • on behalf of all of the POP fans i would like to say that keeping this page would be much appreciated. As said above, all it needs is to be expanded a little and it would be perfect. Personally i found it useful in answering a few of my questions. - sincerely l.p

I withdraw my nomination and have tried to wikify the

Island of Time entry. Madman 23:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --

t·c) 17:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Accelerator Operator

This is apparently just a job description for a position at

TJNAF. NickelShoe 14:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by

e ] 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Boppers Cafe

Seemingly unremarkable establishment. Delete unless proven to be more remarkable. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 15:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete criteria for speedy met.Obina 17:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 11:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golf-gulf merger

Since this merger only affects the word golf, it's no real merger at all and so this should be deleted. Robot32 18:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to the
t·c) 19:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete, as per Angr. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 00:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Don't you have that merger? 64.194.44.220 01:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but given I've been trying to find a source on it since Angr put up the unsourced template and I've not found anything (because it seems no-one's looked, rather than because it doesn't happen), I think that it obviously counts as "original research". If you can find any sources, include them! —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 04:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was article sent to

chat} 23:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Jason Salas

This afd nomination was

(operator) 15:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Wyandotte businesses

A list of small businesses in a city is hardly a useful encyclopedic article. This reads more like a yellow pages. If there were some kind of historicity here, it would be more notable. As it stands, list includes a gas station among other things.

  • This afd nomination was
    (operator) 15:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

chat} 22:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

National Caffeine Awareness Month

This afd nomination was

(operator) 15:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was merge somewhere. I'll leave it up to people who know more about this to decide where is the best target. --

t·c) 18:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Forgotten Realms Atlas

Non-notable role-playing game book that, according to the article itself, suffered from a "lack of interest from the RPG community". Madman 14:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep per general consensus that high school articles are to be kept.

e ] 18:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Walkill Valley Regional High School

Not a notable school Paul Carpenter 18:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect Renata3 08:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Red badge of courage

Redirect/Delete Original research; it was proposed to fold this article into 'The Red Badge of Courage' article, but this text is clearly either plagiarized or original composition/interpretation. Additionally, if this article was meant to define what the "red badge of courage" signifies in the novel (hence the listing in lower-case), it completely fails to accomplish that. The "red badge's" metaphorical significance *is* explained in the book's entry. ka1iban 15:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --

estianpower háblame 16:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Tony Danza Tapdance Extravaganza

NN Band fails

WP:MUSIC no allmusic listing, label is redlink MNewnham 15:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was Speedy Delete G4 by User:Teke. ColourBurst 01:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tony Danza Tapdance Extravaganza

Not sure what's happening here, but this seems to be recreation of previously deleted content! Their label Corrosive Recordings gets some 90 distinct Ghits and they get a few hundred themselves. I don't think it meets

WP:MUSIC
but I'd like peoples views on this one please.

I think we should keep it- because Tony Danza is probably the most influential and important member of American society, and without him we would all be wandering hopelessly in the depths of our own insecurities. Bob Santanos

  • Delete per nom, speedy G4 if it is indeed a similar repost of previously AfDed content. --Kinu t/c 23:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - I can count you know, I don't need a running commentary. --

estianpower háblame 16:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Icebird

Doesn't meet criteria of

talk 22:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Actually, the article 'does' seem just a bit useless. It's probably just some people posting their own group on wikipedia for the purposes of self-promotion...in a rather useless manner. Well, I found the article using good ol' random article. So, yea. User_talk:Volcanictelephone 12:03, 16 December 2005 (EST)

Debate relisted for lacking votes. And AFD IS NOT A VOTE!!!1shift+one1!. Johnleemk | Talk 15:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll simply say that I urge to delete as the act fails
    WP:MUSIC with their 2005 album released on an obscure indy label... and leave the squabbling about the AfD process to the people who are getting worked up about it. B.Wind 17:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Alples

Article reads as a official website. Spam article. Mecanismo | Talk 20:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Debate relisted for lacking input. Johnleemk | Talk 15:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Advertising for NN furniture manufacturer MNewnham 16:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam.
    e ] 00:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was article sent to

e ] 00:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Belong

Debut record not yet released. Enough said.

[T]/[C] AfD? 18:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

One of the members of belong has collaborated with Nine Inch Nails and Telefon Tel Aviv. Doesn't this make belong relevant information for Wikipedia? --Alanflood 10:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not if that's their sole claim to notability, I'd say - it could be mentioned in the other articles. -
    [T]/[C] AfD? 14:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Debate relisted for lacking input. Johnleemk | Talk 15:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. -

Mailer Diablo 02:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Giuseppe Said

This is User:Tancarville's father. Maintain your objectivity... Fplay 01:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for lacking input. Johnleemk | Talk 15:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - article should be rewritten to be more encyclopedic. I was
    bold enough to eliminate the reference to his son (who originally wrote the article), but this article needs to read less like a family biography (for example, the emphasis on a vacation, and "older Uncle" without naming the man) and more like a substantive Wikipedia article. B.Wind 18:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per the consensus cited by Uncle G above. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nobles are of interest to those who believe in the concept of nobility.
    Kappa 23:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Gems from Vedas

This had a chainmail ending ("email this to your friends!") at the end that I already removed, but it still seems silly. Really these are quotes or adages. Fplay 10:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for lacking input. Johnleemk | Talk 15:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

FlexiBlog

This is software written by workman161 . Notable? Fplay 07:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for lacking input. Johnleemk | Talk 16:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete' NN software, sourceforge link is dead MNewnham 16:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as said by MNewham. 9cds 17:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 00:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was article sent to

e ] 00:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Trauma bonding

Copyvio from http://home.mchsi.com/~ftio/mc-trauma-bonding.htm; also very POV with an agenda. Madman 16:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia ought to have an article on Traumatic bonding, which is a well studied psychological phenomenon, but not if it violates copyright. Durova 17:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If this is a copyvio, how come it has not been tagged and listed on the copyvio page? -- JJay 18:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has now.
    e ] 00:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Dark Element Development

This team was founded by Daniel Becker . Notable? Fplay 04:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for lacking input. Johnleemk | Talk 16:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vanity. The article was written and repeatedly edited by the founder of the subject of the article. B.Wind 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only available source for this article is Daniel Becker himself, as far as I can determine. The article is unverifiable and original research. Delete. Uncle G 18:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —
    talk contribs 21:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

chat} 22:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Darimasen

This is software by User:Sudrien. Notable? Fplay 04:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link.
WP:CORP#Criteria_for_products_and_services makes it clear that darimasen is not notable. Ben T/C 14:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted for lacking input. Johnleemk | Talk 16:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete There is a better place for this, and that place is
    Sourceforge MNewnham 16:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was userfy to a subpage of

chat} 22:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

General Election Committee

From

WP:PNT, been there since Nov 20. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie 04:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Bahasa Indonesia. - splot 04:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The information in here could possibly be added to a Politics in Indonesia article, but isn't worth a stand-alone entry. It's too complicated for me to translate and move right now, and I'm not going to have time for another month or so, unfortunately.--Sepa 22:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for lacking input. Johnleemk | Talk 16:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Abulaye

  • Well, other than this article's being absurdly written, it's about a little-known 'fictional saint' invented by two nn artists with little more than 30 mentions on Google (and not many of these mentions are anything but fleeting.) I would say delete. Iinag 16:03 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • La idea me parece buena. El articulo necesita algo de edicion. Parece algo que va ha ir progresando.
    • It needs more than editing, 209.178.213.118. It needs references. For starters, it needs a reference that gives the correct name of the artists. Was the first artist Eduardo Garaico or Carlos Garicoa? Without references, readers cannot even verify that basic fact from the very first sentence of the article. Uncle G 17:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly, Uncle G: but what I ask to you all is... do the artists themselves even merit their own Wikipedia page? If not, then it is rather crazy to give a page to a single character from a work of theirs. I mean, only a few big writers get pages for all of their inventions: so, giving the same liberty to relative unknowns is really frivolous. We can barely justify the artists' notability... can we justify the inclusion of subsections of their work? I think that, unless these guys have some reknown, which doesn't seem so, the answer has to be no, or we're making a strange precedent. Iinag 17:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —
    talk contribs 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 00:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per notation. --Mozillaman 20:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 21:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly the other way round, actually; African slaves were taken to Cuba, which is presumably why the subject has a Yoruba name and the article includes a Yoruba prayer. Humansdorpie 22:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by

e ] 18:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Quillow

dic def

אריאל יהודה 16:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Seems regional, but move and delete.Kareeser|Talk! 16:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Fleeting Meeting

Advertisement - unencyclopedic. I am also listing the related page Craig Swaffield for deletion. CarolGray 16:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. A fleeting appearance on wikipedia MNewnham 16:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - advertisement. -Satori (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 00:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It might look a bit harmless now because I removed some of the NPOV stuff but this has no place in this encyclopedia nonetheless. -- Beltz 05:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Craig Swaffield

Vanity article. I am also listing the related advertisement article Fleeting Meeting for deletion. CarolGray 16:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - I think this could be speedied under nn-bio MNewnham 16:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 00:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Self-advertisement or such. -- Beltz 05:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE.

Harro5 01:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Theafers

non-notable gaming club Zzzzz 16:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per nom Zzzzz 16:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Durova 17:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no longer active and non-notable, non-verfifiable gaming club. --Habap 17:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Message to nom, if this were a speedy, you would not have nominated on Afd. I removed your speedy on this as it is a group. -- JJay 18:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -
      FCYTravis 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Comment restored speedy tag as it is now policy - groups can be speedied.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzzz (talk • contribs)
    • Concur that this one is speedy-able is it makes no assertion of importance or notability, but I worry about such a plicy in the hands of people bent on deleting pages and little else, which is how I would characterize Zzzzz's edit history. --Habap 19:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. This looks like a very bad policy. -- JJay 20:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per
    WP:CSD A7. "The purpose of the Theafers is something not clear to outsiders, and certainly unclear to the Theafers themselves", and "The dwindling forums (The Theafers' Haven) offer only a few new posts per day, and the chat room (while still populated) has been reduced to a idling room, with only a few lines of chat on a bad day. " --Idont Havaname 22:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --

t·c) 18:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Gallery of motorized bicycles

This is yet another

POV fork attempt by CyclePat. Apparently, the CCM light delivery safety bike picture is being taken off of the main motorized bicycle article, so now pat has created this fork, which has absolutely no purpose. The motorized bicycle topic really only needs one article, but we have 2 now with the timeline article (also created as a fork) and now this. Please delete it. Absolutely no reason for it. The problem if we let this in is that then Pat is going to create more forks. He's been threatening to do it for awhile now. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Pat, I believe WHK got the idea from here, where you said "Oh! Now I remember. What about a list of motorized bicycle? That could be subdivided into addition kits, and manufactured" in response to the removal of the CCM from the timeline.
The idea that the CCM was removed by consensus is dotted around the talk pages of the two articles. You have more than once used the analogy of the Toyota Prius. It is a good one: if the CCM were among the first vehicles of its class manufactured by manufacturer whose name is a household word on every continent, the bike would indeed merit inclusion in the articles on the motorized bicycle. But it is neither, as you have acknowledged elsewhere.
Your single-minded determination to raise the profile of this machine shows admirable enthusiasm, but as I thought you understood by now the purpose of these articles is to document the significant, not to elevate that which individual editors admire. -
[T]/[C] AfD? 20:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
comment:No, you see, you're putting words in my mouth again. And you are avoiding the main subject wich is the deletion of this "entire" article. If you have POV issue (which I apparently have when you remove this item) I sugest we move the discussion to the appropriate place. But to argue about the CCM, that talk page does not show any conclusive evidence of concensus. The idea that an item needs to be "Popular" is not a very sound argument for dis-inclusion into an article. I'm sure there are some un-popular and much more contreversial subjects on wikipedia. A question for you. If you where working on the article of telephone, would you not include a picture of a 1932 telephone into the article? If that telephone was a rare one, wouldn't it be even more intriguing to add at "least" a little sentence on it. (for example: what if, I dunno, Avro built a rare telephone and it was suddenly removed from the market. It's popularity might not be extreme, it's alleged significance might not be "comprehensible," however this telephone did exist. (I strongly believe a quick blurb should be included in the article... where is another question, which obviously seems to offuscate you via your literally bolded comments from Talk:Motorized bicycle#1st POV (THE CCM Pixie bicycle motor) that was recently removed stating...
"Pat, HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS? What is at issue is not the existence of this bike but its significance." and your comment on User talk:Woohookitty#CyclePat "But Pat wants that f***ing CCM Light Delivery Safety in this article, and he doesn't seem to care how it's done." and further more you go on to critisize my method of work stating "He also has a habit of rewording stuff in incredibly idiosyncratic English." (idiosyncratic meaning "eccentric" or "out of the norm"?) (I would assume my writing skills are out of the norm when you come from a different culture and 80% of the time I use french) (Wiki is an intercultural encyclopedia, and your denial of the relevance of the CCM bicycle is just as offencive to my canadianism and Ottawa culture as much as if you where to deny the fact the hockey is alleged to have originated from Canada.) user:CyclePat 13:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pat, your English is idiosyncratic. So is mine. But "attested", for example, is not a word used in everyday discussion by most people - I (usually) manage to keep to everyday vocabulary in articles, that's all I'm saying. And your relentless addition of the CCM bike is a matter of record. The bike has no demonstrable significance to the global development of the motorized bicycle. -
[T]/[C] AfD? 13:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Are there galleries of other things that have been left alone? If so, Keep. At the worst Merge with the article about motorised bicycles, if they dont already exist on that page. Jcuk 23:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! That's the whole point - all but one of them does already exist on that page, the sole exception being the bike which
[T]/[C] AfD? 23:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
comment: This Afd can be technical. A precedence is precisely that. It is a previous thing\ occurance that sugests it should be permissible to redo that same or similar thing. We have such a page in regardes to this subject. Meaning yes there are other galleries of other things. See for example gallery of motorcycle trikes. user:CyclePat 12:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Er, Pat? I created the
[T]/[C] AfD? 12:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep: (I guess I should vote hey!) Inherently it may be seen as a creation for a list of photo's of various different motorcycle trikes. Er, Just zi...? Then I created the gallery of motorized bicycle in order to speed the load and to balance up the emphasis of old, older, newer, modern, electric, gas, funny looking, weird looking, rare, common, pedal like, not pedal like (but still), blue, pink, purle, etc... etc... etc... etc.... The gallery says it all because a picture is, I believe, a thousand words. --CylePat 16:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Userify the one image that isn't already on the page if there's a really strong desire to have it around but I'm not sure I see how having a gallery helps if all but one of the images are in the main article already. I could be confused though. ++Lar 01:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It already exists in the article for the manufacturer of the bike, which is a great place for it as it fits just nicely. Although apparently they mainly make hockey equipment... -
    [T]/[C] AfD? 01:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
comment: Image gallery is there to place existing motorized bicycle photo's. There are thousands of "motorized bicycles" that have been manufactured\built. The idea that a page be deleted because of the lack of information that exist within the page is just a stupid as deleting a page because the information in a page is to abundant. Give it some time, I'm sure this page will fill. (I guess we're going to have to do like I did for the timeline for Motorized bicycle history and ask for some external help from some friends from http://www.mopedarmy.com ) Again the idea that a page should be virtually complete before it is even started is a discriminatory opinion on my work method and on the wikipedia process. user:CyclePat 12:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You will noticed that I have added a new picture to the Gallery of motorized bicycle. For those user that started the page motorized bicycle you will notice it is a perfectly good picture that we used for more than 2 months. Image:Motorbike2.jpg (A motorized bicycle (the motor unit is above the back wheel and appears to eb a friction drive unit). This is an aftermarket conversion.). This picture was recently removed from motorized bicycle article. Seeing as it is inpractical to include too many pictures in the main article of "motorized bicycle," it only makes sense to be able to mention this finely researched and perfectly relevant "machinery" elsewhere. What better way then a gallery which is somewhere quite relevant to the main article. The utility of this gallery page that is currently up dor deletion, is important to the development of the article motorized bicycle and is preceded by the example of gallery of motorcycle trikes. user:CyclePat 12:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So that's now two pictures which aren't in the main article. Both of which are, I believe, in other articles as well (unlike the motorcycle trikes). -
[T]/[C] AfD? 13:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Pat, calling for
[T]/[C] AfD? 13:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Call them whatever but I'm sure they will be able to bring some critical comments to the discusion. (You may find the conversation at http://www.mopedarmy.com/forums/discuss/1/237478/237478/) --CylePat 15:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe they'll upload enought pictures making the above vote for delete futile and insignificant. (Again, this vote is base on the idea that an article should be finished before it's even started) --CylePat 15:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing there is no proof that this is a POV fork, there should be no problem ignoring this afformentioned "vote" for delete. --CylePat 15:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As Guy pointed out earlier, your relentless addition of the CCM bike is a matter of record. I really don't care if you think my contribution is valid or not. That decision is down to the user closing this debate, not you. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another ridiculous and disrespectful POV crusade fomented by CyclePat. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 15:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I still haven't seen any proof that this is a POV crusade. "Au contraire" this is merelly a copy of the precendence that exist with the page called Gallery of motorcycle trikes. If you have an issue with the inclusion of CCM I believe you should bring that up with a user-rfc against me or perhaps within the appropriate POV section. The article is legitimitate. --CylePat 16:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Pat, but whatever it is, it is not a "copy of the precedence" as above. The Trike article was 50% taken up by the gallery, which unbalanced it and made it achingly slow to load; it also distorted the balance between motor and pedal trikes. But indeed there are other galleries, in fact there's a
[T]/[C] AfD? 19:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: should the deletion of this article occur, unavoidably, this would be a precendence for deleting the article gallery of motorcycle trikes, and other galleries. --CylePat 17:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:according to the
POV fork... "There is very little that can make a separate article "inherently POV." If the issue is the title, the solution is to rename it to a less improper title. If the issue is the manner in which it was written — be bold in editing it that it may better conform to NPOV. Often a simple renaming and refactoring of a fork article will yield good results, and may satisfy all parties involved. But simplistically calling for its deletion is commonly referred to as "m:deletionism
" — a misapplication of deletion process, often to enforce a POV rather than to enforce NPOV, and often to outright negate the work of new contributors. This is a misapplication of deletion powers."
Pat, you are very fond of accusing others of POV. Have you never stopped to think that perhaps it might be possible that it is you who is pushing a POV rather than everybody else? -
[T]/[C] AfD? 13:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
comment: Yes! what if these pictures are a POV. I'm assuming that they are motorised bicycles.... but have they trully been defined by "someone" that is non partisan. (ie.: National Post says that Bionx is a motorised bicycle... actually they would probably say it's an electric bicycle but anyway.) I hope you realise that if this gallery is POV because of it's content inherently the content on the main page will also be. However if the pictures are not POV then inherently they should be able to be displayed. The idea that this article be up for deletion is against commen sense. As those that vote delete... I assume this is because you see some sort of POV. Can you explain because right now, I really don' see any logical POV. If there is one, maybe the photos (as afformentioned) and in that case the main article would also be POV, making for the removal of these pictures all together. (wich would be totally unproductive and totally "dense"). --CylePat 03:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Missing the point again. What is POV is your promotion of this insignificant machine in this and other articles. The bike (and this picture) already has a place in the CCM article, where it belongs. As has been stated more than once, if you want it in this article or the timeline fork you created and from which it was also removed, all you need to do is show its relevance to the global history and development of the motorised bicycle - something you have consistently failed to do. -
[T]/[C] AfD? 10:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
"Missing the point again." (humm... just that comment seems to lead into your POV that this motorized bicycle is insignificant.) I have neither stated if this CCM bicycle is significant or insignificant. All in all, if what you are saying is true, (that of which you alleged I have POV, I believe you are fighting a useless battle. This is because again I haven't stated the significance or insignificance... it simply is a motorized bicycle, just like
WP:DP#What to do with a problem page/image/category
(in "Article is biased or has lots of POV") this the proper step to take if you believe their is a NPOV issue is to to add {{npov}} or {{POV check}} to the article. Again, this does not require a delete. Having this page nominated for deletion, I believe, is a waste of wiki deletion process. Which I believe is somewhere on wiki guidelines.
Now after reading through, the
WP:DP
(Problems that don't require deletion) I noticed this article could use: {{disputed}}, {{stub}}, arguably (left-wingedly) it could be {{mergeto|article}} and possibly "Annoying user". Under the problems that require deletion I could not find anything.
So let's talk about
WP:NPOV#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete
.
Finally as for the guidelines from
hub motor" and put that information in there for this example... and at the same time I could start an article on the company!! Would that be a POV fork?) --CylePat 15:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was re-tag as Speedy Delete.  J\/\/estbrook       18:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phileas

Wikispam 9cds 17:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agreed  J\/\/estbrook       17:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I changed the tag to speedy delete as this artcile is not supposed to be deleted using this process as it clearly qualifies asa speedy delete candidate.Gator (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -

Mailer Diablo 02:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Tristeza

hard work has been done in several edits since Oct., but is nn Gator (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Band has healthy allmusic listing, music buyable at amazon.com MNewnham 17:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep band is on allmusic and amazon, although no indication of widespread sales; they are, however, stated to tour a lot, which for me clinches the deal.
    [T]/[C] AfD? 17:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep as per MNewnham Jcuk 23:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep band has cult popularity, significance in recent indie-rock history. KASchmidt 16:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

chat} 22:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Payjr

Advertisment for NN software MNewnham 17:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. -

Mailer Diablo 02:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Mysterious Canada- Strange Sights, Extraordinary Events, and Peculiar Places

Non-notable book. Amazon.com sales rank near the bottom of the heap.[42] The stub is nothing more than a poorly spelled book report. Durova 17:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.Gateman1997 18:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep. Notable book (at least here in Canada) by a very notable author. Have you tried the sales ratings for Amazon.ca? It was also published in 1989 so most of its sales pre-dated the Internet. In any event, I'm surprised John Robert Colombo doesn't have an article yet. He's up there with Pierre Berton. And do a Google search -- this book is referenced all over the place. Additional: book is not listed at Amazon.ca suggesting it is out of print. A book being out of print should not have a bearing on whether it deserves an article or not. 23skidoo 22:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate the cleanup. If you add some citaton of cultural relevance I'll withdraw the nomination. Regards, Durova 05:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I leave for 2 weeks vacation in about 10 minutes. Someone else will have to do this. I do not, however, believe that this is necessary. What defines "cultural relevance"? Should one just put a link to the Google search page? This ain't Gone with the Wind we're talking about here. 23skidoo 12:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 23skidoo. Obviously. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 23:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd change that hyphen to a colon, but John Robert Colombo is a notable writer. Consider him stubbed. Oh, and while I wouldn't deem this particular title to be his most notable work, I think Wikipedia is generally of the view that any title by a notable writer can have an article, so keep. Bearcat 18:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's a book, the ISBN is cited. I don't see a problem here...a book doesn't have to sell millions to be relevant.--Hraefen 18:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per above comments. --GrantNeufeld 00:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, published book by notable author.
    Kappa 23:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Diamond Scooters Incorporated

Purely advertising. Wish we could speedy stuff like this. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Twentieth Century Enders

The article describes a social grouping who were intending to have a party on New Year's Eve, 1999-2000. The social grouping broke up in 1996 when it had 140 members, according to the article itself. The group did nothing, nothing resulted, there is no news coverage nor permanent record. Delete as unverifiable and not notable. Sliggy 17:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry to hear it. Better create an article on WP with up-to-the minute news of how she's getting on. -
    [T]/[C] AfD? 20:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Roberth Edberg

I originally marked this with a

WP:CSD A7 speedy delete, as I couldn't see a claim to notability. An objection has been raised, so I have moved this to AfD. The objection was noting that the subject of the article is involved in Twentieth Century Enders, which I have separately nominated for deletion. Aside from this, there is no evidence of notability/significance, just a lot of grandiose claims (for example he is a "modern day prophet"), and links to personal homepages. Delete as vanity. Sliggy 17:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Les Preffer

Recently formed band that haven't released an album yet. Non notable.

Francs2000 17:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to

chat} 22:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Bob Adams

I see no problem with a disambig-page that has a few red links. I do consider, however, an article that has nothing but red links very unlikely to be useful, therefore; here's my suggestion to delete it.

pour) 17:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Langfjord Trio

Delete: The article says it all: local band, only released a demo, recorded in 2001. If the band still exist no-one knows Lars T. 17:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Langfjord

Delete: Duplicate of Langfjord Trio - also see that AfD Lars T. 17:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.
    terJoe 21:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Delete, does not meet

WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 21:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

What Good This Deafness

extrac of a novel? not encyclopedic Melaen 18:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. DJ Clayworth 18:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no context from which to place this (very short) article. --
    אריאל יהודה 21:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 00:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually, it comes from a little-known, non-holiday Trans-Siberian Orchestra piece, as far as I can discern. While the song is decent by my standards, at the same time, it is non-notable. --Thephotoman 01:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --

t·c) 18:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Feature Model

Notability not established. Possibly just vanity. Gaius Cornelius 18:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Light Delete. Unless the article can be expanded to show notability (which it currently gives no trace of). --GrantNeufeld 06:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge all with

t·c) 18:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Bradenton Soccer Academy Spring 1999 Class

Bradenton Soccer Academy Spring 2000 Class

Bradenton Soccer Academy Fall 2001 Class

Bradenton Soccer Academy Spring 2003 Class

Bradenton Soccer Academy Fall 2004 Class

Not notable. Should be replaced with categories, if anything. —Keenan Pepper 18:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. -

Mailer Diablo 02:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Sweet and Innocent

album not listed in the official Diamond Head website, see talk Melaen 18:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Of course it is. Scroll to middle of page [43]. -- JJay 20:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JJay
    terJoe 21:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep --Quarl 12:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to

chat} 22:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Jim Hysell

Does not seem to be a notable person. Deb 18:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Agreed, my mistake. Merged back with Jimboroni. Brian Hysell 18:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note and question. I Wikilinked this to the article in question. Does the discussion end with the redirect, or should we discuss the merits of hanging onto Jimboroni? B.Wind 19:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should nominate "Jimboroni" separately. Deb 20:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by

e ] 00:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Harlan Annsworth Powers

Unencyclopedic Ian Pitchford 18:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Historical revisionism (Japan)

This stub adds nothing meaningful to a subject already discussed in depth as

Historical revisionism (political). Academic historical revision does not necessarily serve a political agenda. For example, Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem is not an attempt at apologetics but a fresh interpretation asserting that some Nazi leaders were banal careerists rather than virulent racists. A title that lumps legitimate scholarly research under the same heading as apologetics is unworkable. The title is inappropriate and the content is redundant. Durova 18:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


There's no content worthy of merging. Every legitimate statement is already expressed in the main articles. The rest is just the author's confusion over the meaning of historical revisionism. Durova 20:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not the place to bring merge requests. Charles Matthews 20:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you mistake a response for the nomination? This is not a merge request. Durova 21:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Durova. --Quasipalm 21:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No content worth keeping that we don't already have, and the title isn't useful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Dancing Turtle

advertising Melaen 18:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.

chat} 22:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Kettering university clubs

not even remotely notable. Delete MisterHand 18:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This can be added on the bottom of the main article and in no way detract from it. That article is not so long that it needs subarticles. The morgawr 01:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've merged this list into the main article in a way that does not disrupt the flow of the text, which is why it was made a sub-article in the first place. The morgawr 03:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory of university clubs. --Last Malthusian 11:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are only a few notable clubs (at best) at any school we don't need a list of every club at a school. --Pboyd04 03:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Jyväskylä prophecy

probable nonsense, otherwise non notable Melaen 18:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Complete Bollocks! Jcuk 23:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as unverifiable. CDThieme 00:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 01:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google says nothing. The single "source" is useless (Google doesn't know about it, either). Delete per CDThieme. --Zetawoof 09:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Quarl 12:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. --

t·c) 18:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The RipOffs

NN UK Band, fails

WP:MUSIC Note that this is not the 90's punk band The Rip-Offs listed at allmusic MNewnham 18:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Qualifies?

Band qualifies under point: "Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network" - Beat 106 is national radio station in the country of Scotland - the band featured heavily as part of the alternative music show, with dedicated time-slots and website reviews. The band have also been featured by BBC Radio (Nan Gaidhal) and Cullin FM - North of Scotland radio. Boorishbehaviour 21:38, 20 December 2005 (GMT)

    • OK you're close to qualification - From
      WP:MUSIC 'Also, please keep in mind that the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true.' I can find no google references associating the band with either the BBC, Beat 106 or Cullin. Point me in the right direction and I'll withdraw the nomination MNewnham 22:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]


No problem. Allow me to find.

http://www.beatscene.co.uk/beatbreakersR.htm << is the homepage of the beatscene - find the RipOffs further down.

Boorishbehaviour 22:22, 20 December 2005 (GMT)

    • I'm not sure that one 10 month old article counts, but in view of my newbie status on wikipedia, I'll go with a very weak keep and defer to others on the list MNewnham 15:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Well there's not much else that can be used to prove for Beat 106 - radio stations don't keep public logs of such. The article proves that the band featured in the Beatbreakers show - which is a week-long feature, with regular airplay - easily confirmed on the main site. As for the BBC etc - if need be, I'll provide the email address of the DJ at BBC Radio who we are in contact with to verify this situation, as well as email from Jim Gellatly of Beat 106. I suggest removing the earmarked for deletion tab till it is brought up by someone else.Boorishbehaviour 17:07, 20 December 2005 (GMT)
  • I'm curious... this article has been earmarked for deletion again, but no comment has been left as to why. Any particular reason?

I re-added the tag because the AfD nomination was never closed off properly in the first place. IMO, the qualification for WP:MUSIC is weak, and since WP:MUSIC is a guideline and not policy, I'd vote delete. I don't feel The RipOffs are notable enough for their own entry yet. If they gain greater success in the future, the article should be re-created, but in the meantime Delete CLW 10:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --

t·c) 18:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Kettering university fraternities

Notable? NO! Delete --MisterHand 18:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved by Flintoid2005 from the main Kettering University to a separate sub-article. The information is useful, but I'm inclinded to say that the main article is where this information should go. Delete. The morgawr 21:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep its no more harmful than a load of articles on Motorways in the United Kingdom, and just as notable! Jcuk 23:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's even worse than your zip codes argument. There are hundreds of zip codes, all completely identical, which you can't say about motorways. And why am I even comparing motorways to zip codes? Unlike either of those, this is of no interest to anyone who isn't at the university of Kettering. --Last Malthusian 11:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I've merged this in with the main article in a way that does not disrupt the flow of the article. The morgawr 03:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory of university fraternities. Ketteringkruft. --Last Malthusian 11:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Fox 21:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Clan Knightmare

non-notable gaming club. a group of boys who play quake. Zzzzz 19:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -

Mailer Diablo 02:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Michael Bauman

Delete per Wikipedia:Autobiography -- Eagleamn 19:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. Major scholar with numerous books at Amazon. [44]. -- JJay 21:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the autobiography policy page: "If you or your achievements are verifiable and notable; and are thus are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will create an article about you sooner or later." The reason for listing the article for deletion is not non-notability, it's the fact that it's an autobiography. - Eagleamn 21:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any problem can be cleaned up. Like you, I am also well aware of the official policy guidelines here. -- JJay 21:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, my comment was intended for next voters. - Eagleamn 21:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Erickson Marketing Studio

Fails

WP:CORP written by User:EricksonStudio MNewnham 19:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. --

t·c) 18:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Rowell Fair Society Band

amateur musicians: NN Melaen 19:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have nothing against local interest particularly when the BBC mentions it. Nice picture too, would be cool if we could get permission for use from the BBC. If you are so opposed to this, why not merge with Rothwell, Northamptonshire? -- JJay 20:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, gets media attention, making it verifiable and showing it has an audience.
    Kappa 23:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mindmatrix 15:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Labchuk

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

The result of the debate was delete, with mass-messaging for votes taken into consideration (well, I got it myself). -

Mailer Diablo 02:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Vote count : 47 delete, 12 keep (approx. 80%) -

Mailer Diablo 02:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Sturmgrenadier

gaming clubs inherently non-notable. Zzzzz 19:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC) furthermore, it is established that the article is a vanity page, written by club members. this non-professional school club has also apparently never won anything, and is organizing a campaign to "save" their page. Zzzzz 18:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a school club. Not made up of schoolchildren. Written about in USA Today. Worldwide organization that is 5 years old, notable within it's gaming communities (
Planetside, World War II Online, Star Wars Galaxies, and Eve Online among others), contains hundreds of members. The folks I have directed to the page are not members of Sturmgrenadier and were not asked to come "save" the page, but to review and comment, even if they thought deletion the most prudent course. Your mischaracterizations, unsigned comments, and apparent vitriol are beginning to frustrate me. --Habap 20:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Oops. Forgot. My apologies for not posting that I am a member right away. I was unaware of the policy and figured all I needed to do was reference the original VfD. --Habap 21:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Average Earthman User talk:DragonflySixtyseven User talk:Ryan Delaney User talk:Yuckfoo User talk:Mel Etitis User:AllyUnion/AFD List User talk:Radiant! User talk:Simoncursitor User talk:SpuriousQ User talk:Dan Granahan

User talk:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)
User talk:Andersoft User talk:FlooK User talk:Kappa User talk:Splash User:Destinova1 User talk:Plutonick User:ELiToX

  • i understand its sad when your precious club is deemed irrelevant by the outside world but please note its nothing personal & there is no objection to hosting your club's website on the user space instead.
    • You are correct, I did contact them. Destinova is the only one who is part of Sturmgrenadier. He, Chronosphere and I are from Sturmgrenadier. The rest are folks who have written gaming articles, voted on VfDs or otherwise shown an interest in this kind of article. I don't think any of them (except Mel, who was the admin handling first VfD) have ever edited this article and I am certain some of them had never read it before this. While I did ask all of them to comment, I did admonish them to think about what was best for Wikipedia. I assume shining a light on this article will either improve it, or send it the way of the dodo (sp?). You are more than welcome to contact others and shine a bigger light on this article.
      • P.S. I think this represents a second set of ad hominem attacks on people commenting on the AfD. --Habap 17:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think its perfectly acceptable to contact others who've one has made acquaintance with while working in this Wiki to take a look at a VfD and render their own opinion. The names Habap stated are the only ones I see on that list being SG, the rest being unassociated editors of Wikipedia. ChronoSphere 18:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • For the record, I have no affiliation with User:Habap, and am not certain why he left me a message about this particular AfD - perhaps because I (like many others on that list) am an administrator. I am explicitly not going to vote on this AfD, not just because of the possibility of appearance of collusion, but also because I simply don't have time today to give the article-and-deletion-debate the attention they deserve. DS 18:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Don't be absurd, I'm not a member and haven't even heard of this club. Assume good faith on other people's votes. Most of those people you mention are longstanding Wikipedians frequently active on AFD. Radiant_>|< 22:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not a member of that club, and I believe that I was only contacted as I had voted on a games-related subject before (which I was able to find verifiable evidence of notability for). Don't leap to conclusions. Average Earthman 12:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nor am I a SG member. I have my own gaming, mafia family-House Of Painful Enlightenment, thank you. But I have played Day Of Defeat with SG on their servers many moons ago. I found them to be a very together crew who ran a good, fun shop. I'm not easily impressed by online gaming groups in general, but they made a good impression on me. Habap merely asked me to come take a look and give my opinion. So I did. He did not ask me, nor any of us, to vote to keep. This article has already passed through the VFD gauntlet, putting it though again is a waste of time, space and bandwidth! --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Zzzz has taken me up on the suggestion to invite more users to comment, though his note his note implied I was hiding my membership in the group (evidenced in this discussion long before he sent the note, in the extensive discussions on the articles Talk page, in the prior VfD and on my own user page) --Habap 21:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
USA Today article, though since it was written in 2003, they charge to access it and it would probably violate their rights if I posted a digital image or the exact text. --Habap 22:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed re rights. How about the section of the article that mentions Sturmgrenadier? Is it a mention or a paragraph or something more? It may sound trivial, but it can help establish notability. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the article (someone sent it to me). It mentions Sturmgrenadier in passing. Not nearly as impressive as I thought.
Four years ago, Taylor and two friends started Sturmgrenadier (www.sghq.com), a group that plays cooperatively within online worlds. Now up to 800 members, the group has gotten together for mini-conventions in Las Vegas and Orlando. Some, Taylor included, are helping test Star Wars Galaxies. "We treat online games as our everyday hobby. You get entertainment, a sense of accomplishment and pride."
I still think it's a notable group, but wouldn't bank on that mention in the article so much.... --Habap 22:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Self-described? Huh? Zzzz says it's a vanity page, not us. --Habap 22:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your failure to recognize inanity makes this article no less meaningless. Soltak | Talk 00:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable.— Dunc|☺ 22:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Firstly, I will note that I don't think it's a good idea to do AfD campaigning from either side of the argument; it really does affect your ability to think in an unbiased fashion. This is a borderline case; it is relatively large and well-established, and it claims to be verifiable. However, I'm not convinced either that clans are suitable topics in an encyclopedia. enochlau (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously a feel-good page for enthusiasts. They already have a Web site; if they want to promote, they can do it there. J M Rice 22:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Have they done anything but game? Have they engaged in any charities like Child's Play? Have they won any tournaments- or anything at all? --
    (talk) Contribs 23:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. i'm part of a national lottery syndicate with thousands of members. its been going since the 1990s and we've never won a major (100GBP+) prize. do we get a wikipedia entry? Niz 23:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Someone's been overdosing on the Christmas crackers; we're into Holiday Folly season. To be serious, though, for a minute: there are several reasons why this article does not belong in Wikipedia. Some are on stylistic grounds. Some are on promotional grounds. Some are on significance grounds. I'll try to go through all of them without breaking into my usual sine. First of all, the claim that they had this big article in USA to-day seemed dubious to me, so I checked it out. A case of googlum ad nauseum, the only references of its having been mentioned are in the same claim, repeated so many times with slight variants: 'do you want to be a part of a group that was recognised in USA To-day?'
By reading above, I found that the 'article' was a mere stub, if you will. It's given as an example. That does not reflect on the site's quality. Nor on the site's cultural impact. It just means that they used Sturmgrenadier as an example of a gaming syndicate. Like they might use Mr. Boer as an example of a farmer, or The Blue Café on Elwright Street as an example of a business. It does not classify Sturmgrenadier as remarkable. A proper article might.
Secondly, this Wikipedia article is highly one-sided and self-promotional. There is no counter-view. It is written with bright rose-coloured glasses, as you would expect. It is not encyclopædic to rhapsody about people coming to-gether on the internet. Promoting games syndicates should not be encylopædia activity. Wikipedia should be here to inform about the general consciousness, and about contributions to thought; a bunch of gamers on a site is not exactly general consciousness, nor is it a contribution to thought. Information on 'clans' on Wikipedia has been wiped out before. Although Wikipedia does not operate on a binding precedent basis, there is clear foreagreement that Wikipedia is not a promotions hall for sites such as these. The only reason that this has survived, compared to the other articles, is the slyer way in which this was written, and the fact that a whole support group, enlisted by one of the key writers of this article, props it up. I have to say that such campaigns debase the whole system of Wikipedia as a consensual zone. Anyhow, to return: there is not much original invention at all. It's all about playing games that they never even made in the first place. It provides no new knowledge; riding on the coat-tails of someone else's work is no original contribution to the world as we know it. I have nothing against people meeting up, and talking about games. That's cool by me. But you're having a vitsln if you think it merits a page. iinag 23:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well-written note, though I might make petty quibbles with some points. Something like this is far more useful than a simple Delete with no comment, as it explains why and helps form the basis of future policy.
Dead-on in regards to the USA Today article. I'd never seen it and assumed that it was an article about the group instead of (as shown above) just a mention of it (like Mr Boer the farmer). --Habap 14:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm part of SG but also an active wikipedia member. This has been attacked and VFD'd before and the vote closed. I agree there should be some sort of rule against fascetious, repeated, petty VFD's. Destinova1 00:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: With all due respect, out of the few edits to Wikipedia that you have made, there's only one-- an anti-monarchist merge request about the Queen-- that has not been about Sturmgrenadier. To say that your vote is that objective is pushing it, since you would hardly vote against something that you helped to create. Also, although I'd say that this cliquery to get past the system and save your self-promotion is rather petty, I can't see why a bunch of Wikipedians from a wide strand of backgrounds coming here to oppose nn self-promotion is 'fascetious [sic]'. If anything, it is business. iinag 00:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedians, with a 'wide strand of backgrounds' were also involved in the previous VfD which ended in a non-consensus. The original VfD was started by a disgruntled former member with a vendetta. Yes, very petty. I agree with another wikipedian above that nobody cares about Gaming Clan Drama (tm), so that should be looked past. The fact remains that these are ad hominem attacks, driven by facetious motives and jealousy. The neutrality of these votes should be considered as much as my own, as a member. Destinova1 21:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nom. Swamp Ig 00:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, let me respond to Destinova1 and others: the prior VFD (the mere fact that it was a VFD and not AFD lets you know it was at least a few months ago) was closed as a "no consensus", which means it didn't have a conclusion, let alone a forever binding one. And even if the consensus had been to keep, that would not be an eternal "get out of jail free" card against future deletion nominations any more than a deletion closure would forbid people from ever recreating the article (in a form that was not substantially identical). As such, the prior VFD's outcome doesn't mean diddly squat - or at least, you shouldn't let it. Anyway, as for the article/topic itself, props to iinag for the eloquence. Also, let me point out that in addition to a meaningless reference-in-passing in a USA Today article, it has currently "no ranking" at Alexa for sghq.com, and in the prior VFD, both Alexa rankings cited were lower than the ranking at which Alexa itself tells you the rankings are based on so few hits that actually trying to compare rankings is just guesswork. Finally, 800 may be large for an online gaming "clan", but 800 is hardly a large number as far as the total online gaming population... especially if it's spread among "several countries all over the globe". The Literate Engineer 00:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The USA Today entry didn't support the case for notability, unfortunately. I'm not thrilled with the possibility of a bad faith AfD, but in the absence of evidence I have to assume good faith. Leaving that and the campaigning aside, I see a run of the mill gaming site/group that doesn't have anything to distinguish itself from other such groups. It's not a reflection on the site or the people in it, but I think a site has to at or near the top of its genre to merit a Wikipedia article. | Klaw ¡digame! 00:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable --Jaranda wat's sup 00:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that I need even to vote is utterly disappointing. Whether it's a club you belong to or not, this sort of vanity garbage doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I certainly wouldn't be voting to keep my Grandma's bridge club, and I'm certainly not voting to keep this. Soltak | Talk 00:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Delete The article in my view needs more information to show readers why this particular gaming clan is notable. The article says "These events were reported in an article in
    civil will convince some people on the fence (rightly or wrongly) to come down on one side or another, I suspect. ++Lar 01:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Not notable Thesquire 02:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claim to notability. Regards,
    Ben Aveling 02:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Clubs generally aren't notable. One article in USA Today, especially without an external link, doesn't make this club any exception, and neither does all of the incivility that has been going on in this AfD. --Idont Havaname 03:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frag. This doesn't meet
    WP:WEB with ~800 members, and even very large clans are generally non-notable, unless they are particularly newsworthy or influential outside of the rarefied air of the games in which they exist. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete This article is non-notable and unencyclopedic. There is nothing remarkable to separate this gaming clan from any other, USAToday mention notwithstanding. Zunaid 07:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gaming clans need to be several orders of magnitude greater to qualify. JFW | T@lk 08:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1. not notable, 2. there is no german word "Sturmgrenadier", its just a made stupid word with no sense in it. There ist a de:Grenadier, but there is no "Sturmgrenadier". We watched too much de:Guido Knopp, didn´t we?!? Dickbauch 10:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all of the deletion arguments foregoing. Gaming clans are inherently non-notable, and need something else to raise them to notability. A three-line mention in an article about gaming in general does not notability make. Wake me up when USA Today writes an article focusing exclusively on this gaming clan, and then maybe we'll have a decent argument for notability. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 10:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, all gaming clans please. AN 11:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; in fact, speedy delete under CSD A7 as an article about a club that does not assert its significance or importance. A mention in a newspaper article is far from enough. Postdlf 14:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My summary Comment: On the one hand, I'm disappointed that the article is considered unworthy. On the other hand, it's good to see that normal users who know nothing about it (the original VfD was due to "Gaming Club Drama" TM as noted early on in this process) sat down, read the article, checked Google, looked for information and considered whether it was worthy. That (removing my sometimes emotional nonsense) gives me faith in Wikipedia. I think the balance is that notability is not established. If at some time down the road, verifiable notability can be established, someone will probably write a new article. I'm just glad that I decided against posting any responses last night and slept on it. --Habap 14:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per idonthaveaname, though I don't like how I was made aware of this. There's a lot of passionate discussion here that should be taking place in the talk space for this article and not cluttering up the project page with all of this juvenile infighting. Zzzzz was in error by campaigning for votes on this article, but the end result is that many people took a hard look at this entry and found that it wasn't as notable as some thought. Ahimè.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 19:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Gaming clans are not notable. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please maybe not all clubs are notable but this is Yuckfoo 21:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clan-cruft. -
    FrancisTyers 21:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. Slac
    speak up! 21:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong delete.
    Harro5 00:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep It I completely understand what the game is all about, and it seems to be well-written. Just leave it and move on. Perhaps some of you should join an online game rather than spending your free time trying to have articles deleted from Wikipedia. It would certainly do you alot more good. Mahalia56 04:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Scott eiπ 07:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gamer guild vanity. —
    FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK
    )     11:19, Dec. 23, 2005
  • Delete - There is no need for the existence of caming clans in the wikipedia. --Herrick 13:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a personal web page. Endomion 13:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom
    --NaconKantari 23:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete --Quarl 11:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. --Kilo-Lima 14:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hehe, where's Mel Ettis now? Delete, I've strongly campaigned for the deletion of this article for months now, but I backed off because Ettis was defending this article with a strong bias. Nice to see it got revived. All I can say is just because it's in USA Today does not mean it's notable. Also, due to the fact you have to pay to be in this group, this can be considered a Commercial Advertisement. --Tykell 21:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Primal instinct

NN Antwerp band with one self-published album fails

WP:MUSIC. Note that this is not the same Primal Instinct as the one on allmusic MNewnham 19:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. -

Mailer Diablo 02:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Four Kings

non-notable gaming clan Zzzzz 19:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 19:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —
    talk contribs 21:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 01:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and note that this is also the name of an upcoming tv show --Ajdz 03:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --

estianpower háblame 16:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Team Cloud Nine

non-notable gaming clan Zzzzz 19:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy redirected. -

Mailer Diablo 02:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Chris Milburn
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Alcatel modems

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. What little information is here should exist in the

You can call me Al 19:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

God's Eye

nn Melaen 19:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Maza Online Gaming Community

non-notable gaming club Zzzzz 19:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Poe's Law

Neologism. 48 hits on Google, half of which are unrelated (related to Edgar Allen, for example). Klaw ¡digame! 19:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing wrong with neologisms. Without them we'd still be conversing in Greek. Latin or Aramaic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.31.8 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 20 December 2005
  • No, of course there's nothing unright about quasilexical logomancy, particularly in our cybertrophic, auxilexic transomnitopia. Moreover, "Yakka foob mog. Grub pubblewunk zing watoom gazork. Chumble spuzz." DIS-CREATIFY! Anville 20:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not suitable for an encyclopedia entry. Edgar181
  • Delete. I still sometimes converse in Greek with my wife. Flyboy Will 22:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Quarl 11:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Hardstyle basics

A tutorial like this is simply not encyclopedic, and is unverifiable opinion. I suggest it is deleted. Barneyboo (Talk) 19:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


- Im against that. Im an electronic music producer and I found article like this very helpful. 21:39, 20 December 2005 —the preceding

unsigned comment is by 80.188.34.43 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

- In response to all who concider this not suitable for the encyclopedia. Here is the basic reasons for it to remain:

  • Historical value:

This may not seam relevant now today, but who's gonna write about it in 50 years time? The veteran producers who's reminding the old gold days as youths when they produced hardstyle music:

"If I can remember correctly we used some sort of artificial synthesizers, what's the letter combination again? Oh VST it was, to produce all sorts of synthetic noises..."

Who will write about it in 100 years time? The people who posess the historical knowledge, but who have no experience in producing the music itself.

  • For technological reasons:

We are living in a world where technology is new tomorrow at breakfast and will be obsolete tomorrow by midnight. The technology that is used to produce music of today truly deserves a place in the encyclopedia.

  • For future preservation:

So the historics of tomorrow have some sort of reference to lean back upon when they describe the music of the 21st century.

If there is anytime this should be written it is right here, right now. Today as the music is produced for the reasons stated above. It will be too late in 10 years time, let along in 50 years time. Most of the older producers will be dead by then. But if we preserve the knowledge today the elements that build up this style can be reused and reviewed by everybody in the future music to come.

--Jobro 22:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while yes, I could understand the value in preserving all sorts of information in some form, Wikipedia is not a collection of every piece of information in existence, and this article arguably does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Barneyboo (Talk) 23:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Comment: It doesn't belong here. However, the creator might look into Wikibooks and see if there is somewhere there where this information could be presented. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Quarl 11:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Fox 22:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Rough Riders Aq2 Clan

non-notable gaming club Zzzzz 19:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -

Mailer Diablo 02:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Flint Fury

nn Melaen 19:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. This is a semi-pro team. Why isn't that notable? Please give reasons when nominating-- JJay 20:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough to me. --MisterHand 20:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, semi-pro team.
    Kappa 23:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

White Trash Debutantes

nn, unreadable Melaen 19:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Have you checked this for copyvio? -- JJay 20:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Ach, mein augen Sceptre (Talk) 21:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 01:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for making my eyes hurt. Kareeser|Talk! 02:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for incredibly bad format. If someone cares to attempt a cleanup, I’ll reconsider. •DanMS 02:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Quarl 11:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Rhoticism and rhotacism

It would be more appropriate as a mention on one of the pages it mentions, or as a note in teh linguistics article Esprit15d 19:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree entirely. It's a bit frivolous to dedicate a whole article to a pair of mistaken words. iinag 20:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —
    talk contribs 21:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • keep. They are commonly confused. 64.194.44.220 21:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not only because it's
    t·c) 21:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • If there's no word rhoticism, then why do we have a redirect for it. 64.194.44.220 21:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We often have prophylactic redirects for things that people erroneously think are the correct spellings of article titles, and would create duplicate articles for if the redirects were not there. We have this redirect because the article was created at a bad title. Uncle G 03:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, Angr, you're wrong. There is a word rhoticism. Check googol http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rhoticism&btnG=Google+Search 64.194.44.220 21:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are all sorts of words findable by Google searches that don't exist (to be more specific, that aren't established terms with agreed-upon meanings, which is what I meant by "there is no word rhoticism" above). I can find no evidence of an established term rhoticism in any dictionaries or linguistics books. It's either a misspelling of rhotacism or a misunderstanding of either rhotacization or rhoticity. --
        t·c) 21:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • You aren't really helping your case by asking
        Angr to "Check googol". Uncle G 03:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Delete --Macrakis 21:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (it's a non-scientific shibboleth) --Pasquale 23:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An article devoted to two words commonly confused is a waste unless there is something notable about the confusion. There is nothing notable here. To make matters worse, one of these is not a word at all but merely a misspelling. Are we about to have articles for every common misspelling? Jimp 00:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. But Wiktionary will happily address both usage conflations and mis-spellings that have become so widespread that they satisfy the criteria for being attested words. Uncle G 03:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no such subject for an encyclopaedia article, because there's no such word, and thus no such conflation, in the first place. Even if there were such a conflation, it would have to be the subject of significant discussion for it to warrant more than a section on usage in the appropriate Wiktionary article(s). Delete. Uncle G 03:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Barry Tallent

Nomination - non-notable. Subject of article does not meet criteria for listing under

WP:BIO - and only claim to fame appears to be that he keeps an illustrated journal during his vacation. The subject of the article is described as an emerging photographer : a Middle School Social Studies teacher from Michigan who sometimes goes on vacation and makes new friends. Google lists 16 hits for "barry tallent" - none obviously art/photography related. Humansdorpie 19:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Stag

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by

e ] 01:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Shawn Lesky

  • Delete Vanity article, no useful value. Metallikop 20:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You have tagged this as a speedy, which looks correct. Therefore, no need to list here. -- JJay 20:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete and redirect to

chat} 07:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Mermaid in a Manhole

Not notable. If they are notable, and I'm just uninformed, this should still be deleted as it is virtually empty. ParkerHiggins ( talk contribs ) 20:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Citigroup International Case Competition 2005 Directory

Wikipeida is

not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is a (very incomplete) directory of teams/people who participated in an academic competition. W.marsh 20:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Mo0[talk] 11:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Historical Bridge Spanning the Interval of the Old Testament and the New Testament

Delete.

talk contribs 20:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Mauled in motion

NN Gaming Clan MNewnham 20:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Vaxamine

The article reads like an advertisement and has just one contributor. When User:Kbh3rd requested sources, the original contributor blanked the page. Edgar181 20:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Gadzala

Delete. Non-notable candidate in election. --GrantNeufeld 21:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The current consensus on unelected candidates permits a merged page for "X Party's candidates in Y election". This does create its own set of problems, but unless you're prepared to take on the job of proposing an alternate policy, established consensus stands as the final word whether you like it or not. Merge to
    Green Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. Bearcat 23:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Where is this consensus defined. I've read the ongoing debate but my take from reading it, was that consensus had not been reached. It looked to me like the debate died before consensus was reached, and a vote is still pending. Is there another discussion that I've missed? Nfitz 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Consensus doesn't require a vote; if the discussion dies prematurely, then in the lack of a clearly defined policy statement the results that have actually been applied here in practice stand as the consensus. And that consensus has consistently favoured the merged listpage solution — nobody, to date, has challenged that. Bearcat 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • But consensus has consistently not been met anytime that a major party candidate, and even some non-major party candidates, comes up for deletion. I'd say consensus was keep them ... and that's what I thought reading that article. Nfitz 00:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's just as valid as Grant Neufeld and Matthew McLauchlin. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Er, since you put both those on Afd well prior to this vote, I'm not sure I follow... -- JLaTondre 03:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per bearcat.--
    nixie 06:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE as previously deleted content. Mo0[talk] 11:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krify.com

Commercial vanity page Kingsleyj 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Frappis

Non-notable and, I suspect, a vanity article (only one editor to date, who may very well be the mentioned Josh Sandler). Delete unless someone can think of an article to merge with. --Scott Wilson 21:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy merge/redirect. AfD is not the place for suggesting merges, moves, or redirects; this is strictly for proposing that an article should be deleted from the encyclopedia altogether. Other mechanisms cover the remaining functions.

T
21:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Umbros

Merged with Umbro article Paughsw 21:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it has been merged: Redirect to Umbro. Punkmorten 21:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

ClanXS

Article about a counterstrike clan. Seems to be editted mostly/only by members of the group, e.g User:XSSammy. Fails WP:VAIN as far as I can tell. W.marsh 21:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sceptre (Talk) 21:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Going to eat your dog

Wikipedia is not a slang guide. Scott5114 21:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was keep. -

Mailer Diablo 03:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Book of Daniel (TV)

Nasty Hoax MNewnham 21:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep Article was vandalized to make it look like a hoax- it isn't. See IMDb entry. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Series does not appear even to have been aired yet - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. POV language infers that this article is cut-and-pasted from a round-robin e-mail. Humansdorpie 22:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep the article needs to be cleaned up considerably, but this is a real show. I've seen promos for it. --MisterHand 22:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and clean-up. Legitimate show, debuting in only a few months. Officially announced so crystal ball does not apply. 23skidoo 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Verifiable information exists about this program. Capitalistroadster 00:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 00:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's obviously and extremely POV. Let's delete this junk and if someone wants to write a new NPOV piece we can keep that. I don't understand why we should keep sub-sub(sub)standard articles like this just because the subject is a proper encyclopedia subject. We all have better things to do than try to tease an acceptable article out of badly-written polemics. Madman 04:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup significantly as above. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete stolen from http://www.afa.net/petitions/issuedetail.asp?id=175 --67.149.77.77 21:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to

estianpower háblame 16:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Indian-held Kashmir

Delete. I originally tagged that this article needed to be copyedited (it sounds as if a non-native English speaker wrote it), but then I realized there are already well-developed articles of the same topic at

Birdhombre 21:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Re-direct unless it wouldn't ever be searched that way... Kareeser|Talk! 22:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete per Kappa! Seriously though, it's unverifiable per Uncle G.

chat} 07:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Grace Catholic Church

Delete. Non-notable, micro-denomination. What links one can work out from an attempt at verifiability through Google mostly seem to be Wikipedia mirrors. If this church has made a splash, it doesn't seem anyone's talking about it. —

talk contribs 22:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete all articles. -

Mailer Diablo 03:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Timothean Rite

Delete, along with

talk contribs 22:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Demarzo

Most likely a hoax, not even one result on google, britannica, etc. despite allegedly being "a notable figure in the Italian Renaissance". bogdan 22:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second this, I stumbled onto the article with a mis-spelling, and after a good amount of research can not find anything
—the preceding
unsigned comment is by CuBiXcRaYfIsH (talk • contribs) 22:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT due to this article being a duplicate of Binalot. Mo0[talk] 11:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Binalot Express

Article has name of an very obscure company but astrays from the subject. Badly written and void of any encyclopedic value Mecanismo | Talk 22:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep possibly rename and/or expand. Interesting discussion of the use and derivation of binalot in the Philippines. -- JJay 22:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please cast your vote after you investigate the subject and after you are in a position to base your oppinion on facts. Please read the AFD comment,
    Binalot Express and Binalot and then rethink your argument --Mecanismo | Talk 23:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: this is a duplicate of
    Kappa 23:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The nom checked that and the nom was aware of that. The nom isn't responsible for JJay casting votes without even reading the AFD or the AFD comment. Please start voting objectively and please stop your petty trollish persecutions on the AFD list. It is starting to be ridiculous --Mecanismo | Talk 12:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --

estianpower háblame 16:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Binary Equipment Corporation

Article on obscure film trivia detail which author speculates is inspired in a real world event. Void of any encyclopedic value Mecanismo | Talk 22:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I would say merge to Takedown, but couldn't find a page on the film. This is interesting to have as a means of avoiding confusion with Digital Equipment Corporation. -- JJay 22:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can an article on a film trivia blurb serves as a means to avoid the confusion that doesn't exist? It doesn't make much sense, does it? --Mecanismo | Talk 23:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not worthy of any article.Gateman1997 00:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - film doesn't get a page, no page for fictional company in said film Josh Parris#: 01:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Shanel 21:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wynona Riders

Does not meet the standards of notability set forward in

WP:MUSIC ParkerHiggins ( talk contribs ) 22:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete both. -

Mailer Diablo 03:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Tornado creations, Tornado Creations

Promotional, doesn't seem to be notable (a private project of Andrew Swallow). Delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Team Brown

Neologism, unverifiable MNewnham 22:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NOMINATION WITHDRAWN. Mo0[talk] 11:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical makeup of the human body

Seems superfluous, I am convinced thaty this article addresses things already present in Wikipedia and there is no reason to keep it. The title does nothing for me. If you all decide to keep it, it needs to be cleaned up and merged to an article relating to human anatomy. Thanks.

αίδεια* 22:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

My idea is now that the article can be kept, or should be redirected or merged, somethings need to be added. Don't delete on second thought. This is on the border.

αίδεια* 22:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

I withdraw this nomination.
αίδεια* 22:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was 0mG delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

DBDF

Spam, vanity. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Painful on eyes that. -- JJay 23:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 01:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as quickly as possible Glowimperial 02:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Forum vanity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • These guys are just jealous of our supreme 1337ness. (unsigned comment by User:24.62.47.234)
  • DBDF>Wikipedia (unsigned comment by User:24.62.43.25)
  • STFU idiots, why can't a fucking forum have a mention on a fucking wiki? Pull the cock out of your ass and relax, for fucks sake. ~~DILDO (unsigned comment by User:Black Grass)
  • Delete ASAP --Quarl 11:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete SandBoxer 23:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep due to withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 00:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Halstead

Appears to be a hoax, albeit a well-done one. The webpage is real, but all the links go to a generic "under construction page". --MisterHand 22:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep -- I spoke too soon. Turns out this is a real guy. Sorry! --MisterHand 23:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry MisterHand as it explains on the AlphaOne article it is a new website and is still under construction. Apology aceepted.

  • Keep and expand. A Quick Google search shows articles from The Times, The Telegraph and the BBC see [47]. Capitalistroadster 00:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --

estianpower háblame 16:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Timothy Clontz and Common Edition New Testament

Tagged for speedy as nn-bio, but authoring the

Kappa 22:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

chat} 07:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Berko and Benson

Fails WP:MUSIC. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 23:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to wikipedia (not reading it of course, but everything else). Anyways, thank you for trying to get that Berko and Benson page deleted. I am actually the Benson part of that "group", but we are nothing more than a couple buddies making noise. Not an actual legit band, and we have no business being in Wikipedia. Someone that I dont know put that up, and me not realizing what to do, tried deleting it but apparently I was doing it wrong and "vandalizing" the page. So thanks. And sorry for screwing it up. - Zach Benson Zlbenson 18:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hope this guy sticks around. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 20:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. EVERYTHING film-related is on IMDB.

chat} 07:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Omicron Conspiracy

Nothing on Google, nothing on IMDB. -- Curps 23:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that since the film is still to be made, no details of it would be released to the general public, particularly due to the controversy surrounding it -- James Sack 00:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's your choice what you keep and what you don't. I have carefully avoided the issue of Notability in Wikipedia Fiction. Personally, I wouldn't rate this article as "Fancruft", and have carefully stayed away from that. I would also argue that due to issures raised recently about public spending in Britain, this is an article that contains importance and notability. Anyway, Fancruft is not a reason to simply to delete an article, unless it is "poorly written" or "POV" and I believe my article is balanced and written in understandable prose Earl Flinn 09:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the existence of this thing isn't even
    verified. The referenced website gives me a 404, and a Google search on that site for 'omicron' comes up with nothing. --Last Malthusian 11:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Please check the website again - it works fine, and in the section on actors lists Adrian Bell, and mentions his work on "The Omicron Conspircy". 172.188.83.253 12:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Angles Theatre Website will be online shortly. Please visit us again soon." Even if it does come back up, I don't have high hopes that this will get past
    crystal ball status. --Last Malthusian 13:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Doesn't crystal ball status refer to future predictions? Whereas, this article isn't really about future predictions, but about the problems surrounding the creation of this film - I mean, the article is about the actual process or creatin the film as much as the film itself, I'd be inclined to argue Earl Flinn 15:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

chat} 07:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Lloyd Robinson

Reads like an autobiography or a biography written by a close family fried, and although the guy has a neat hobby, most of the information in the article cannot be verified, and I think he fails to meet the biography criteria, delete--

nixie 23:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was userfy to a subpage of

chat} 07:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

10th General Medical Dispensary, Frankfurt, FRG

Article isn't nothing more than a declaration of intention to write an article on the subject, which notoriety is questionable to begin with. Mecanismo | Talk 23:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy to give editor time to write on subject. Isn't that what he is asking for? -- JJay 00:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOT a web host. Josh Parris#: 01:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia. I don't believe an encylopedia should double as a todo list. --Mecanismo | Talk 14:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy for the time, but I don't see how a particular dispensoary within a particular hospital could be notable. Did they invent
    penicilin, or just hand it out? Josh Parris#: 01:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus.

chat} 07:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Evangelical Catholic Church

Delete. Non-notable, start-up, micro-denomination. Unique Google links are extremely few. —

talk contribs 23:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete.

chat} 07:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Raine Vivian

As far as I can tell this band have released a few MP3s, do not meet WP:MUSIC requirements, delete.--

nixie 23:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Koded

Reads like spam. Google search seems to indicate that this company is not notable. --Spring Rubber 23:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe...did you check out the external link? I'm not either supporting it or condemning it, but just a thought.--
ViolinGirl♪ 23:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
I've looked at it, but it's hard to tell whether or not they actually have influence in what they do. Are they more than a small web-services business? Are they as influencial as the article claims them to be? I'm rather skeptical about that claim. --Spring Rubber 23:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah...well, like I said, I'm not supporting or condemning them. I agree with you,
ViolinGirl♪ 01:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Koded are pioneers and do have influence in the industry. You can see by visiting the following link that Koded is listed amongst the best companies in the United Kingdom.

http://www.e-consultancy.com/publications/search-engine-marketing-buyers-guide/

User:RTI 00:11, 21 December 2005

  • Delete per
    verified except that this company exists. I'm unconvinced by the inclusion of this company in a list of profiles of "search engine marketing service providers", none of which I've ever heard of and none of which we have articles on (except this one). Since this article was created by its subject, it doesn't look likely that this one out of that list is particularly notable. --Last Malthusian 11:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete...I don't have time to read through
    ViolinGirl♪ 22:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Droprename

NN webdesigner whose site is also NN and unknown to Alexa. Kusma (討論) 23:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Fathema Shahab Ruma

Vanity page, riddled with typos. The subject apparently works for a Bangladeshi TV network -- perhaps the network might be worth an article? Anirvan 23:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_20&oldid=1081091877"