Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 27

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< December 26 December 28 >

Purge server cache

December 27

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

List of blogging terms. Rob Church Talk 19:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Blog carnival

One liner advertising a list of blogs? Copied the actual definition to

List of blogging terms, now this can be Speedy Deleted. Timecop 00:17, 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 Speedy deleted as vanity and nonsense. - Lucky 6.9 01:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zlatos

not notable, vanity -

FrancisTyers 00:30, 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The result of the debate was Speedy Keep (nomination withdrawn, no votes to delete). (ESkog)(Talk) 10:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Anderson (darts player)

Probably a Vanity Page Pboyd04 00:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment He does appear to be known as a darts player. Are there criteria for notability in sports/games? Tom Harrison (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - The article only indicates that he is a darts player. Heck, I play darts. Endomion 00:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC) Changed to Keep. Endomion 02:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • erm...probably not this well. Former world champion, as a quick glance at google: "Bob Anderson"+darts will show. I've cleaned it up a bit. Keep. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Revisions to the article do show significant notability within the darts world.Evil Eye 01:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Current revision shows notability. --BenjaminTsai 01:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree current version is much much better --Pboyd04 01:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- notable enough for me. Reyk 01:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep now that it has some substantial information. Pepsidrinka 01:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is much improved over the original.--Dakota ? e 02:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'm withdrawing the nomination and removing the Afd. As per the discussion. --Pboyd04 02:51, 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 speedy delete (author request).

chat} 18:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Chance Michaels

Probably a vanity on my part - I'm new to Wikipedia and feel that I may have stepped over the line. I'm happy to have it deleted - let somebody else start the page if they think it's worth it. Chancemichaels 19:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 23:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

June 3, 2004

Info is probaly on

June 2004 anyways so I see no use for it. It's just a unremarkable indivial date out of many. Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 00:57, 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 speedy delete as a

Cryptic (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Assassins (winners)

A list of students at Davidson College who won some game, instead of concentrating on their studies and making their parents proud MNewnham 01:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Assassin (game). Most of the entry in the article is already contained in the Assassin (game) article. Merge the rest and redirected Assassins (winners) to Assassin (game). Evil Eye 01:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The winners at one particular college isn't worth its own wikipedia article. And the relevant game info from the page is already present in the game article. --Pboyd04 01:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If doing well in college is not notable, not doing well in college is even more not notable. Endomion 03:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. FreplySpang (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The winners article was originally in the assassins(game) article, but it was recommended it to be redirected under Davidson College page. Furthermore, the article is meant to be added to with information on winners from other participating colleges and universities. Emjose 04:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You wouldn't BELIEVE how many colleges play Assassin every year. The winners are no more noteable than those of the local frathouse drinking contests. --InShaneee 06:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quickly per nominator. Non-notable vanity. --Quarl 07:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons echoed above. Palaeologus 07:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Note that the page has since been moved to Assassins Winners. (ESkog)(Talk) 10:08, 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 23:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

USS Homestar Runner

Non-notable fan forum for notable website StoatBringer 01:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • BALEETED per nom. Reyk 01:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delteated per above - Bobet 01:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Forums are notable or encyclopedic.--Dakota ? e 02:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baleet per nom. --Thephotoman 03:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Forums are inherently non-notable. Endomion 03:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delteat per nom. Nifboy 04:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baleet I'm a big fan but this does'nt cut it. -Dr Haggis - Talk
  • Baleet --Quarl 07:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELORTED! --FOo 09:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's make our votes in correct English - people who are not fluent or unfamiliar with Homestar Runner will have no idea what you mean.--Aleron235 21:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails
    web notability. -- ReyBrujo 21:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • All these. Nn forum. the wub "?!" 23:28, 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 speedy deleted by... someone (since when can non-admins not view deletedpage history?) (ESkog)(Talk) 10:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Justas

Claims notability so it's here. No amg entry and 5 google hits say it's an exaggerated vanity page. - Bobet 01:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. - Longhair 09:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    --NaconKantari 04:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete.NeoJustin 04:44, December 27, 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete per nom.--Quarl 07:11, 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 wasSpeedy delete due to copyvio from Yahoo Groups. Zach (Smack Back) 02:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fan-modules mailing list

Orphaned article about a mailing list for discussing made-up additions to the LotR universe (fan fiction, RPGing, and so on). Recently one or more users has been trying to add poorly-written descriptions of these additions to Wikipedia: see here (currently ongoing) and here, and refusing to allow them to be deleted (see Bellakar's deletion history). Wikipedia is not a free webhost, an indiscriminate collection of random information, nor a playground. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a discussion forum for an online group. Ajwebb 01:58, 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 23:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Zulma Aguiar

Vanity. Person was a wikipedia contributor (

Antonio Stop the Juarez Killings Martin
03:04, 27 December, 2005 (UTC)

That's not a nomination, that's a vote. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be hard on fuddlemark. I actually, mistakenly placed my vote here.
Antonio Sex Toy Martin
 09:52, 27 December, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as NN. My Google search didn't turn up anything about Zulma, just some postings by Zulma. --Thunk 16:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems as a vanity page written by a NN. self-promotional. Tony the Marine 04:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No entry on IMDb (either hers or the film's); no other claim to notability. User:Ejrrjs says What? 08:22, 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 23:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Crystal2Mobile

Non-notable product. 2 google results outside of their own websites and wikipedia, both of them ads. - Bobet 02:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't see any reason that this in notable. --Pboyd04 02:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 02:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "...supposed to be the superior..." LOL. Endomion 03:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.NeoJustin 04:43, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom 63.228.49.231 06:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Quarl 07:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not even the company has an article, from what I searched. -- ReyBrujo 21:12, 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. --JoanneB 15:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore gay businesses

FrancisTyers 02:17, 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 karmafist 11:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Georgiev Lilov

I can't find any proof that he exists. The author's only other creations seem to be attack pages which he later voluntarily blanked. (All of which are currently pending speedy deletion).

Bachrach44 02:56, 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 00:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

CorpKnowPedia

Non-notable wiki. No Alexa rank at all; 33 registered users. Google can only find three different sites linking to it; by far the most prolific is professorbikeybike.com. By an amazing coincidence, it was

Cryptic (talk) 03:01, 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 00:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Consumerium

Another non-notable wiki. Alexa rank 2,358,767; the only incoming links Google can find are from us, our mirrors, and a user page on DoWire Wiki. 101 registered users. —

Cryptic (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 03:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I hate these websites that grap WP content, I've been fooled twice following up google hits to decide notability only to be stuck in a self-referential loop. Endomion 03:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Other wikis need to be pretty notable to qualify for a Wikipedia page. JFW | T@lk 10:32, 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 00:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Kyle J. Kaczmarczyk

The creator of "

Scottmso 03:06, 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. --JoanneB 15:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Misadventures of Silent Boy

Article is not written very well, and only 25 Google results. The page for the creator of this comic was written in a similar way. Delete.

Scottmso 03:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep I like this article. Endomion 03:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability seems extremely dubious as per Google and Groups. A scan of the Google results suggests that, even in a mere 81 Google results, people aren't discussing it, merely acknowledging that it exists. Scanning the Google Groups results is much easier, because there aren't any. Lord Bob 04:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Madman
  • Delete per nomination - non-notable and likely vanity. Blackcats 07:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Blackcats. Ifnord 15:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no notability defined. feydey 19:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lord Bob. -- ReyBrujo 21:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Lulu published doesn't quite count the same as listed on Amazon ++Lar 02:17, 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 speedy delete. —

Cryptic (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Runescape Drop Party

Delete.

Wikipedia is not a game guide. I don't really know but I also suspect that the concept of drop parties are not really unique to RuneScape. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:17, 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 Speedy JFW | T@lk 10:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rubert

Hopelessly unencyclopedic --

Bachrach44 03:20, 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 00:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Mirror (mortal kombat character)

nonsensical, unvarifyable article (Notorious4life 03:30, 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. Mindmatrix 18:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fayerwayer

Non-notable Chilean blog. Alexa rank is 206,673 [1]. 4K daily users isn't very many either. Klaw ¡digame! 03:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep.

chat} 18:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Rhino Times

Non-notable newspaper. --Thephotoman 03:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moon conspiracy and religion

Nonsense. Gamaliel 03:53, 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 00:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Artistic entrepreneurship

Advertisement for a class with no content on the subject itself. JLaTondre 03:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as being spam-tastic.Bjones 04:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.NeoJustin 04:41, December 27, 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete either original research or advert Paul 19:14, 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 delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The Sonic Stadium

Advertisement for a non-notable website. Google gets about 900 hits, which it collapses to 20 for relevance.--InShaneee 04:28, 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.

chat} 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Sci.psychology.psychotherapy

This article is about a not very notable newsgroup, and most information in this article is completely irrelevant to the newsgroup. It's very strange. Talrias (t | e | c) 04:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep in original version. Click on the links to the Google Groups featured in the section titled Sci.Psychology.Psychotherapy in Usenet Environment of Gangs. You will quickly discover that this article in its original form is as factual as any written in Wikipedia. And if the article appears odd, it is only because the article is an accurate reflection of an oddity. The following statement, by contrast, is not a fact but merely an educated opinion: the haste with which "editors" are converging on this article to delete its original form in its entirety, without qualification, discussion, or verification suggests the work of Usenet gangbangers based in none other than (drum roll please) ... sci.psychology.psychotherapy. I am screen capturing all this work, including the date-time stamps, for inclusion in a report to be reviewed by more civilized and educated communities outside Wikipedia.

    Also, the acceptable practice is to keep an original article intact pending the outcome of a review such as that prompted by a recommendation for deletion. But James James, and other fly-by-night aliases posing as editors, are engaging in the practice of treating a replacement "stub" as the main page and any effort to restore the original page as "vandalism." This is turning reality on its head. Restore the original page, conduct your research, weigh in on the discussion, and then make any changes (which may include wholesale deletion) based on the outcome of the review. Even the author of the much-maligned John Seigenthaler article was entitled to 132 days of infamy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.149.8.228 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-27 04:56:33 UTC

  • Keep it but return it to the more factual previous version.
    James James 04:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete if the vandalism doesn't stop. --Agamemnon2 06:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep original. You can't get more accurate than that. The true farce would be hosting an article that misrepresents this news group as a bona fide news group and makes it inviting for people. The persons to whom Agamemnon is referring when he uses the word "vandal" are just restoring the first draft. There would be no article if it were not for the article's creator. The creator of the article should not be labeled a "vandal." It is those who created the "stub" and who kept restoring the "stub" who are the vandals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyatt Ehrenfels (talk • contribs) 2005-12-27 13:22:18 UTC
  • Comment Is this related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking? Tom Harrison (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does it matter? A scaled-down adaptation titled "Gang Stalking & Usenet" was created as a subsection for the article on Stalking, and it was deleted (labeled spam) by one of the same "administrators" (Karada) who deleted the original version of this article wholesale without due process and without a discussion page. Some Usenet lover posing as a Wiki admin is running around protecting an unimpeachable image for a culture (i.e. Usenet) whose effects should be noted. Fortunately, I am here to document the behavior of this "open source." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-27 15:51:01 UTC
    • Also note the names of the images, indicating that this is also related to Special:Undelete/Brad Jesness in addition to alt.usenet.kooks. Uncle G 16:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Newsgroups deserve their own pages. Give this one a chance to grow up and be something better. If you delete a page just because it's been vandalized then the vandals win!! --Cyde Weys votetalk 16:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point Cyde, only you are forgetting something. The creator of the original article is not the vandal. There would be no article if it were not for the author. I suggest you treat this article similar to Alt.usenet.kooks. Have a discussion page and a page on which people can permanently challenge the neutrality, but otherwise leave the article intact. Hell -- you can even add qualifying sections to the main page. There are many options besides deletion redirection (AKA deletion by proxy).

      A true editor would defer to policy here. Leave original article. Let this mechanism run its course and let's see where the chips fall. I think you are concerned that by the time the dust settles, enough people will have voiced support for the original version to prevent deletion or redirection. Still, I suspect Wiki editors will violate their own policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-27 16:49:31 UTC

    • No, Usenet newsgroups do not deserve articles purely on that basis alone. Wikipedia is not a directory of Usenet newsgroups any more than it is a directory of people, companies, or web sites. Uncle G 16:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The choice is between original research and an unexpandable directory entry. The article content as it stands is 100% original research, and is, moreover, the spillover from a long-standing conflict on Usenet. The rewritten stub article is a simple "N is a Usenet newsgroup" directory entry. Wikipedia is not a directory, be it of people, companies, web sites, or Usenet newsgroups. For this article to be worthwhile, there needs to be scope for expansion of the article to be more than a simple directory entry. There needs to be secondary source material available that is more substantial than simple directory listings and excerpts from "active" files. Usenet newsgroups that have had non-trivial works published about them (such as FAQs on faqs.org. for example) qualify for articles on this basis. This newsgroup has no FAQ on faqs.org, and I cannot find any other secondary source material apart from material which is from the same single author (Wyatt Ehrenfels (talk · contribs), see above) as this article is. Delete. Uncle G 16:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but then originality should not be penalized if the facts derive from an observation or arithmetic so simple as to be almost assured of a .90 inter-rater reliability coefficient. There's not much interpretation or construction here.

      A good encyclopedia does not merely mime or mirror other pre-packaged encyclopedias (e.g. the FAQ list), but transcends it. However, I agree that if one had to choose between a stub-based article and no article at all, I'd choose no article at all. There's nothing good anyone can say about this news group except that it boasts some of the highest traffic and is often listed (lazily I might add) as a "resource" on department of psychology web sites. It is also "captured" (i.e. indexed to the Web) by a number of news readers (more news readers than alt.usenet.kooks). Of course, it's only after I ask news reader admins and psych dept web site admins to examine this news group do they realize they made a mistake listing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 27 December 2005

      • A good encyclopedia contains verifiable content. This doesn't have any. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Har har. I see Cyde Weys sent me a message in which he threatened to ban me if I persisted in restoring the article to its original draft, which is perfectly acceptable before the due process runs its course. So what's the rush Cyde? Why the hammer? We have a good jump on the process. The system is working according to policy. And the original article is NPOV. So let's wait and see. What are you afraid of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Sorry, but is it just me or has this gone too far? I'm abstaining because this has stirred too much up.
    terJoe 20:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Incidentally, the anon contributor's
    flame war seems to have spilled over into Wikipedia. In fact, sci.psychology.psychotherapy is no more notable than any other sci.* newsgroup except, perhaps, as a venue for this long-running war. Since the war resulted in the creation of SPP.moderated a few years ago, it might deserve to be mentioned in an article about the history of, and justification for, moderated Usenet groups, but probably not otherwise. (no vote). Peter J Ross 23:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete original research. WP is not a web directory, and contrary to some misunderstandings, newsgroups are part of the web. Gazpacho 23:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. -- Karada 00:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Usenet newsgroup with a considerable following. Jtmichcock 00:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even the "stub" seems not notable and has irrelevant content. The non stub... holy smokes! if those are facts, which have verifiable cites, the editor that put them in perhaps could find other articles where they might be welcome but they seem to have little or nothing to do with this particular newsgroups itself. An actual article about the newsgroup would need to demonstrate why the newsgroup is notable, not all newsgroups should get articles. IMHO anyway. ++Lar 02:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless I'm missing something obvious here, this does not meet
    WP:WEB. --Alf melmac 09:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Original research. -Will Beback 19:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Facts are facts regardless of whether they were illuminated by one person or twenty, and facts strengthen an encyclopedia (especially if they can be verified by simple observation). The news group exists. We all know that. A simple examination of each aspect of this extraordinary article will demonstrate realities of equal facticity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.140.119.191 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 5 January 2006 -- user's 2nd edit
  • Delete or Redirect to Sci.* hierarchy. Wildly original (to be charitable) research or dicdef seem to be the two choices here. Seems to be related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking, since I note that the commenter above's two edits are here and to Cyberstalking. --Calton | Talk 06:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Ty Jennings

Non-notable entertainment industry personage with possibly inflated resume. Google shows 55 unique hits for "Ty Jennings", some of which are for a Colorado real estate agent. Nearly all that deal with this Ty Jennings are for his "ShutterMIX" Podcast work. OR minor TV/Film work. Also photographer. (Same person??) Madman 04:53, 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 00:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Bestsiteever.xoaonline.com

This was nominated about a month ago, and no consensus was reached. However, now that we have

guidelines for website inclusion, I think this needs to be revisited. First and foremost, its Alexa ranking is a whopping 1,607,664, which certainly suggest it's not nearly as well traveled as the article suggests. Secondly, considering how little information it contains, almost none of it is sourced, or even verifiable. Delete as non-notable advertising. --InShaneee 05:03, 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 - Izehar 23:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Banana

A fictional nightclub only referred to once and never seen in the fiction in question. Not very notable. Daniel Case 05:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As per nom. No Guru 05:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We could just have it redirect to the movieArgentiumOutlaw 06:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How many people are really going to search for it as a separate article? A single sentence in the movie article is more than enough. Daniel Case 06:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Article contains one sentence. --Quarl 07:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.
    --NaconKantari 07:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. --Apostrophe 07:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Malcolm Morley 08:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not bound to be the very next phase. Grutness...wha? 10:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 16:34, 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 - Izehar 23:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hanaka Peurnskel

Seemly, a player's character in a game, vanity. ReyBrujo 05:12, 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 - Izehar 23:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hansuke Mishima

Seemly, a player's character in an online game. Vanity. ReyBrujo 05:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity. --InShaneee 07:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Thunk 16:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - You can't verify this, it doesn't appear in the game maker's documentation. Endomion 16:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 16:44, 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 - Izehar 23:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gisatku Hirata

Seemly, a player's character in an online game. Vanity. ReyBrujo 05:17, 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 - Izehar 23:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6 GM Superpowers

Seemly, a fictional organization in an online game. Vanity. ReyBrujo 05:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Online game's clan with six members. Contains links to several vanity pages also up for deletion. --InShaneee 06:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not at all seemly. Very unseemly, in fact. Grutness...wha? 10:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for being blogesque. Endomion 16:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Thunk 16:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 16:45, 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 - Izehar 23:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Testimonial Midgard

PhantomStrider: Yes I can see that its disliked. I didn't, however write it up on an ego matter. I wrote it up to give the game some officialness for the users so they could read it in select articles. Delete it if you want. You can delete everything under my name as the author since its all based on this article. I don't need the work humiliated. I just expected it to be filed away so that the users who do look at it could. As a matter of fact, I'll delete it now.

A city clon of a Ragnarok Online city. The city itself is non notable (5 hits at Google), and I guess it may be vanity as well as it was created by the same author of the articles about the player's characters. ReyBrujo 05:28, 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 - Izehar 23:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roll music systems

If there was something truly notable about this company that could lead to making a genuine article out of this ad, they'd have put it here instead of wasting space with this image. Daniel Case 05:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Pure ad probably lifted straight from the yellow pages. Endomion 05:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - NeoJustin 05:59, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. — TheKMantalk 09:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. —Brim 10:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advert
    terJoe 12:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayden Scheim

Very non-notable, with less than 200 non-Wikipedia Google hits. LGBT activist in Toronto who's done a few workshops at some conferenes and had a bio-piece done on some tv show. Judging from the edit history, the article seems to be some hybrid of an attack-page and a vanity-page made by his friends and aquantences there. Don't think this would be of interest to anyone other than perhaps a few dozen people in the LGBT Toronto scene, so hard to see how this could merit a Wikipedia article. Delete. Blackcats 05:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Story was documented on television news. Endomion 05:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was simply one of several people that was interviewed for a one-time show. That doesn't exactly qualify as extensive media coverage. His name gets even less Google hits than mine. I don't see how he meets notablility requirements. Blackcats 06:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases, one story qualifies as extensive media coverage when the media is generally reticent to cover this sort of thing. Endomion 16:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You mean "reticent to cover" someone who's not very notable?... Blackcats 08:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I mean "reticent to cover" sexual minorities. Endomion 12:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - I hadn't noticed such a reticence. I find the media loves sensational stuff about gays and lesbians (i.e. all the hooplah about the marriages last year in the states and in the uk now with elton john and all). And transexuality can be even more sensational for the media - particuarly female->male, which is less common. If media coverage of such things was really so unusual, then wouldn't LGBT websites around the world be talking about Ayden Scheim and how extraordinary it was that he got such media coverage? And wouldn't this result in hudreds if not thousands of google hits?... Blackcats 01:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Endomion. Note. This is my view. There is no more to it that this. Requests to expand on it will be ignored, as there is nothing to expand upon. Jcuk 10:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Unique local activist. Seems to get lots of media attention- there could be more to his story -- JJay 11:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If he gets "lots of media attention," then why so few Google hits? Blackcats 08:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't explain why google is such a poor tool. However, if you are interested, I could update the article to show the many newspaper articles that have featured Scheim along with his TV and radio appearances. -- JJay 20:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a "unique local activist" too, and I've been interviewed by local print and broadcast media on a number of occasions over the past ten years or so - even had a personality profile done in a local paper. And I know a number of local activists here and in other towns who can say the same. But I don't think all that adds up to notability on the Wikipedia level. In a wiki about my town I probably would be deserving of at least brief mention (as would some of my friends), as would Ayden in a Toronto wiki. But neither of us are notable enough to have a Wikipedia bio. Blackcats 01:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Programs which air across the whole of Canada on a public broadcasting network are not "local media". And both programs have been aired outside of Canada as well. Bearcat 06:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have you been featured in two documentaries shown on national TV? If so, please submit an article on yourself- we need the info. -- JJay 01:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The one TV show that I see she was featured on is Rough Cuts - a reletively minor CBC weekly program which doesn't yet have a Wikipedia article, and which gets a little over 10,000 Google hits. [3] Now the show is certainly certainly notable enough that it would deserve a Wikipedia article, but it's certainly a much less well known show than say Dateline NBC, which gets almost two million Google hits. [4] My point is that the show is not notable to the point where someone appearing on that show one week (in Scheim's case with two others) automatically becomes notable. I'm not even sure that someone who was featured one week on Dateline NBC as an example of some phenomenon they were discussion would automatically become notable, but they'd have a stronger case. Also, I don't see any good reason why the Google-test shouldn't apply here, as this person is not historic and is not from outside the Western World. It's really hard to see how a young Canadian activist would have less than 200 non-Wikipedia Google hits if he were notable. Another test I would apply is would anyone who had not met Ayden Scheim in person and did not live in his area be likely to be motivated to start a Wikipedia article on him? And I have yet to see any evidence that they would. And judging from the edit summaries at the article, it's pretty clear to me that it was written by people who know Ayden. Blackcats 04:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know Ayden, and I've been involved in editing it. Bearcat 05:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look I'm not going to endlessly debate this. The guy was featured in two documentaries. Check the article- I added the references. "Class Queers" was shown in the States as well as on Canadian TV. I also don't care who wrote the article. -- JJay 04:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn bio. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting for more input. Blackcats 09:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete media are anythign but reticent to cover sexual minorities. Bloody
    [T]/[C] AfD? 13:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I know that I am not important enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry, so one of my benchmarks for inclusion is someoen who's had more media exposure than I have, it's as simple as that. You can't verify my media appearances for the same reason I can't easily verify the media appearances of the subject: they are transient. Andy Warhol said that everyone is famous for 15 minutes - does that mean everybody should be in WP? The problem here is continuing verifiability, notability is just shorthand for describing someone who is likely to remain in the media spotlight for long enough to ensure that something other than a single current event is verifiable (like candidates for political office, most of whom lose, and many of those are never heard of again). Once the media lose interest (assuming they haven't already) then everything subsequent becomes completely unverifiable instead of only unverifiable by anyone not in the area. As far as I'm concerned we should wait at least a year before adding an article related to any single current event, to see what the perspective of history might be. -
    [T]/[C] AfD? 12:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment: I reiterate: Have you been featured in two nationally televised documentaries? If not, I expect you will stop distorting Mr. Scheim's record and withdraw your comments above. I would also appreciate it if you stopped talking about your supposed media appearances. Your claims about google hits are not relevant unless you provide a link. If the hits relate to some blog you maintain then they will be discounted. Mr. Scheim is not a current event, he is an activist. There are newspaper references on him dating back four years. Futhermore, I do not judge any bio by the media's interest or lack thereof. If I did, we could immediately trash most of our bios on historical subjects as well as numerous academics etc. -- JJay 19:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Graham Norton hosting a celebrity gabfest is not the same thing as a news or documentary program actually reporting on the real day-to-day lives and issues of LGBT youth. His presence on the tube doesn't even remotely constitute "the media covering sexual minorities". Bearcat 05:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no actual evidence of notability.--
    nixie 14:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. - NeoJustin 02:51, Devember 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Appeared in a CBC newsmagazine" doesn't cut it as a claim of notability, as far as I'm concerned. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Appeared in a CBC newsmagazine" might perhaps not cut it as a claim of notability, but as far as I'm concerned, the fact that it was one of the most controversial pieces to air on the show in at least the past few years does cut it. As does the fact that Meryn Cadell (a legitimately notable figure even independently of his transgender activism) was moved to publicly speak out against the fifth estate (which is even more astonishing when you keep in mind how prominent a role the CBC has had in Cadell's career.) And the fact that Becoming Ayden and Class Queers have both been shown internationally. For what it's worth, the Canadian magazine The ACTivist seems to think so, as well; this link clearly considers Scheim notable enough to be one of just three activists specifically named as past speakers at an annual social justice conference, alongside Jaggi Singh and a former chair of the Canadian Federation of Students. I'm willing to concede that this is a borderline case, but it falls on the keep side of my borderline. Granted that I live in Toronto, but I've never met Ayden personally, so there's most certainly not a personal bias seeping in here. Bearcat 05:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable as the subject of several film and television stories, and also for winning a local award for community activism which I've just added to the article. David | Talk 17:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. CBC is a national station and it was an important biography. I'd say weak keep if it was only a simple appearance on the news, but it spurred on discussion. User:Ianmilligan1 20:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -
    French Tourist 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, I'd say non-notable. —BorgHunter (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't understand why it is a problem keeping articles like these. I take "non-notable" to mean "not notable AT ALL". Certainly this person is notable. I think people should be saying "Not notable enough". Otherwise, it can sound like the things of note that a person does are not important. I will assume good faith here and assume that this is not the intent of the people saying "non-notable". Personally, I think Wikipedia should have many thousand small articles about the mildly notable people of the world. Some of these people will become more notable, in which case we can say it was in Wikipedia first. Others will drift off into obscurity. In future decades a small handful of people digging for information about obscure mildly notable people will find a paragraph or two about them here on Wikipedia. Won't they think highly of us. --
    Samuel Wantman 01:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Static Dungeon

Seemly, a fictional dungeon in a clon of the Ragnarok Online game. I don't believe it would be a good redirection to a Ragnarok article because it seems not to be in the official game. ReyBrujo 05:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Unverifiable by people who don't go into online dungeons. Endomion 16:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 16:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 10:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Frederick

I can't find anything on Google on this guy as a filmmaker; probably has a lot to do with him being 17. Daniel Case 06:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • UPDATE: Speedied. Daniel Case 06:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another update: recreated... Speedy again and padlock. B.Wind 07:50, 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 00:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Practical conservatism

Possible original research. The term "practical conservatism" gets 713 Google hits, and they all seem to use the term in different ways. (A search for "practical conservatism" "frank zappa" gets 152 hits.) Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 06:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did Frank Zappa call himself a "conservative"?
FYI: The term "Conservative" is NOT a right-leaning label. (
Ibaranoff24 03:42, 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 keep

chat} 19:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Summoner Geeks aka "The Dungeons And Dragons Sketch" and Take Down The Grand Master

The first is an exceptionally ugly article about an exceptionally non-notable song sketch of some sort, google pulls 313 unique for "Summoner Geeks", 8 for "The Dungeons and Dragons Sketch", 1 for the whole shebang; 99 for "Take Down The Grand Master". There are no actual claims of notability in either articles, and near as I can tell, WP:MUSIC burst into flames when I tried to ask it... I'd like to speedy them, but there is no criteria for this stuff. --

Shazaam! - <*> 06:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

    • It being with Summoner needs to be verified. If so, I will change my vote. --Apostrophe 21:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's confirmed on most fan and industry sites linked to the game + on Volition's website. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel wrote a long article on the sketch and the deal with Volition- Dead Alewives' sketch morphs into digital film. The video can be seen at Ifilm. -- JJay 01:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heard of it. Heard the sketch. Heard unending allusions to the sketch from pen-and-paper gamers. Never played Summoner. Anonymous Keep vote of little merit. 24.71.91.173 09:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify - keep the Summoner Geeks page, though possibly under a different name. Delete Take Down The Grand Master. 24.71.91.173 09:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I first heard the sketch years ago...and it was likely a meaningful internet meme if people are still talking about it, and it was distributed with a PS2 game. Keep or merge appropriately. Postdlf 09:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I fear Wikipedia is turning into a posting forum for every gamer and rock band wannabe in the world. Madman 16:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JJay. Endomion 16:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JJay. I created the album's page when I found the entry about the D&D sketch/video (which contained exactly the info I was looking for) and saw a redlink to the album title. The album page is an almost line-by-line recreation of one of the many many MANY other album listings which are also included in Wikipedia, containing approximately as much information as many others (and more than some) which are not being challenged, so please don't blame me for ugliness. I was just going by what appeared to be an acceptable template. I would however have no problem with seeing this/these develop into a fuller article on the Dead Alewives themselves. They certainly deserve one. -- Arvedui 18:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are certainly a lot of album "info and track listing" articles, and the Dungeons and Dragons skit is popular in the older pen-and-paper RPG crowd. Heck, just mention the word "Cheetos" with older RPG gamers is good for a chuckle. Problem is, it's a "niche" article ... but Wikipedia has plenty of those, and this particular skit has at least some mainstream (non-RPG) following. --Justin Eiler 20:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete as hoax. - Szvest 02:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;[reply]

CT-923667

Non-notable fancruft. No Google hits beyond wikipages -Dr Haggis - Talk 06:33, 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 merge and redirect to

chat} 19:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

TOOTBS

Delete. This is just a dictionary definition, and I think not suitable for Wiktionary. Srleffler 06:40, 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 no consensus. Note that administrator

chat} 19:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Silly dance moves in Lindy

It's nice that people find silliness in things. I just don't think it's encyclopedia material. At first glance, not being familiar with dance jargon, one might think "silly" could be a term of art in dance, and that the article's author didn't define that well, but after reading the talk page, I do not think this is the case. Here's my test for encyclopedic here: can the article stand on it's own if you remove all opinion and leave just facts: answer = NO, entire article is subjective opining; D E L E T E--Fuhghettaboutit 07:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - Delete. Blackcats 07:42, 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 speedy delete as not notable. Szvest 02:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;[reply]

TTOH Characters (Alphabetical) and TTOH Characters (Chronological)

List of redlinks for characters on an online fanfiction site. The few that have been created so far have all been copyvios from the site in question. The second page even has a mass of links back to the fanfic site. Delete as fancruft and vanity. --InShaneee 06:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Delete. Delete. Never, never let Wikipedia turn into a resource for DC Comics/Star Trek/Star Wars/Harry Potter (Do you honestly expect this mess to turn out any good?) fanfiction. Delete James Thomas George, as well.--Apostrophe 07:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've speedied James Thomas George. --
    Shazaam! - <*> 08:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Roots Come Alive

NN album stubstub. Doesn't even name the band. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 07:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The band is The Roots. I don't know what guidelines we are following in terms of notability of albums, but this article looks like a delete as it currently stands. --Metropolitan90 07:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (if re-written soon). Notable band, and it gets over 18,000 Google hits [5]. If nobody expands this in time then delete without prejudice so that it can be recreated whenever someone puts in the effort to write at least a decent stub. Blackcats 07:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. —Brim 10:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep have tried to do a bit of work on it but dont know the band so will leave anything more to someone with more expertise than I Jcuk 10:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and standardize the layout. Endomion 16:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep feydey 20:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag {{cleanup-date}}, minimun information is there. From what I understand, if the band is notable, so are its singles, albums and compilations. -- ReyBrujo 21:30, 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, especially considering

chat} 19:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

DOTSOFT

Business vanity article. (The English version of the website is here). -- Longhair 08:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Longhair 07:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. 165,000 Google hits - fairly notable. Blackcats 07:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - 320 unique hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - 320 is not as relevant to dotsoft.gr as 165.000 is, and 165.000 isn't 'the number' per se. In the 320 case the search takes into account only the number of times the term 'dotsoft.gr' comes up and not the term 'dotsoft' which is the main descriptive name of the company. A further justification of why 320 is not characteristic is that in under no circumstances dotsoft.gr could top the google search for the term dotsoft(as it currently does) with only 320 unique hits for the term dotsoft.gr, while the total hits for the term dotsoft is 165.000. In the second case(165.000) the search takes into account the term 'dotsoft' which does not belong only to 'dotsoft.gr'. A more balanced search should be taking into account the number of results returned by google with the term 'dotsoft' and filter the results for pages written only in Greek, a fairly big number that reaches 65,100, a number big enough which still does not take into account the number of foreign text pages mentioning the company. Finally, by looking for all pages hosted in Greece(written in english or greek or anything else) and mention the term 'dotsoft' the number reaches 136,000. Google URL is http://www.google.com.gr/search?hl=el&q=dotsoft&btnG=%CE%91%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B6%CE%AE%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B7&meta=cr%3DcountryGRDotsoft 06:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Why is this article considered for deletion?. There is a series of other minor companies in the listing for
    List of companies in Greece article and not a 'Business vanity article'. Dotsoft 07:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment: If DOTSOFT is notable, the article does not let the reader know how. What sets DOTSOFT apart from other hosting companies? -- Longhair 08:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC):[reply]
Reply to Comment: I think it all comes to the meaning and purpose of the articles
List of companies which concerns companies worldwide. If the entries in these listings are notable(which to a large degree are not), what sets them apart from the other potentialy more notable companies apart from the fact that the other companies have not edited the wiki page in order to be listed? Is a fishing company in Djibuti notable? No, but this does not stop it from being listed under it's country's catalogue. Moreover as an official registrar of the gr domain dotsoft has been included in press releases on top gr sites such as http://www.in.gr/news/article.asp?lngEntityID=526981&lngDtrID=252 and http://www.marketing-net.gr/online/article.asp?returnPage=GROUP&group=6&articleid=1458 (both in gr only). Dotsoft 08:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: No, it comes down to _whether or not your company is notable_. Justify the page's existence for a rewrite as a non-advertising encyclopaedia entry or sit. down. 24.71.91.173 08:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please review
Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) -- Longhair 08:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: Apologies Longhair. I went through the section and i will remove the article now.Dotsoft 08:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Articles under debate here shouldn't be edited or blanked until the discussion is closed. Another administrator will come along eventually and review the discussion. They'll then act according to consensus on what to do with the article. -- Longhair 09:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ok, i'll reedit the article in question then, in order to at least make it more relevant.62.1.132.57 10:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Was that directed at me or at Dotsoft? For myself, I can't see much indication on google that Dotsoft-the-hosting-company is notable (though Dotsoft-the-AutoCAD-plugin-company might be notable). I don't see any mentions in greek news sites, not even press releases. Dotsoft's services don't strike me as notable (though admittedly I don't read Greek so there may be material in the text that's not apparent in their services grid. In short, DOTSOFT appears to be little more than Yet Another Hosting Provider.
It's possible this article belongs in the Greek wikipedia. I don't see any particular need for it here. 24.71.91.173 08:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah the good ol' "if it aint American it dont belong here, boy" argument..... Jcuk 10:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before using the sarcasm, you might have checked the IP address location. If you had, you would have seen it's from Calgary... -- JLaTondre 22:29, 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, then recreate as a redirect to

chat} 19:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Digital culture

Looks like a ad to me. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 07:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The choice appears to be a binary one. 0 -
Digital Revolution. Endomion 16:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
digital culture is still a valid term, worth defining — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssmithjanis (talk • contribs)
there is a book titled "Digital Culture" by Charles Gere

- I posted the original (top part) of this definition. 'Digital Culture' does need defining as an independant conjunctive signifier. As for redirection, re.information age etc.? - I think references & links might be more helpful.

- Also, there are several "digital culture" programs at established universities. Perhaps is would be better to edit it rather than delete it.

Please leave it in

There are plenty of people who are starting to debate the coining of this term in contrast of meaning of that of "information age" and "digital revolution".

"Everyone uses the term digital culture, but no one defines it. It is one of those key terms that in its simplest usage merely designates a society saturated by telecommunications and information networks, electronic products, and computational systems based on binary data using electronic or electromagnetic signals. ... Whatever the intention of its meaning, the ubiquitous usage of the term digital culture has two important underlying assumptions: (1) community revolves around distributed communication; and (2) efforts to increase community take the form of new devices, systems, and technologies for abetting telecommunications." (Memory Bytes: History, Technology and Digital Culture. Edited by Lauren Rabinovitz and Abraham Geil. Durham and London, Duke University Press, 2004, p4-5.) Ibm66 21:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Maurice Kowan

A doctor who was ALLEGED to be a "mail drop" for Soviet spies, but who was never charged or even arrested, or even really positively identified. Every single person allegedly mentioned in a 50-year-old government decrypting operation is not notable.

FCYTravis 07:43, 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 00:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Blasius Hardevust

Was tagged for speedy, but claims importance, so not a speedy candidate. The given reason was: "This bio is either a hoax or very nn. (no results on Google)." No vote.

chat} 07:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 22:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Devyatkin

"Allegedly assisted an Soviet Military Intelligence officer in the United States in the late 1920s." Is that really notable?

FCYTravis 07:50, 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 article sent to

chat} 00:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Jake Laboon

Was tagged for speedy delete under CSD A7, but article claims significance, so I brought it to AfD to respect the wishes of the speedy tagger. Personally, this looks like a keep to me pending verification.

chat} 07:58, 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. --03:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Robert Minor

One-source subsubstub on a minor functionary "alleged" to have "worked for Soviet intelligence."

FCYTravis 08:08, 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. --

♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 03:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Herman R. Jacobson

Another one-source subsubsubstub on some schlub who was alleged to "maintain a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence." Does Wikipedia really need an article on *everyone* ever mentioned as MAYBE being a spy in the

FCYTravis 08:10, 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 00:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Caroline Morant

Sub-stub about actress. It gives 22 unrelated Googles. No IMDB entry.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 and protected from re-creation. (ESkog)(Talk) 10:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimongering

Wikimedia is not a dictionary and this is a neologism anyway Malcolm Morley 08:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I dislike bureaucracy, should conversations in IRC be allowed to trump the normal process? 24.71.91.173 09:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Normal process is that attack pages (and those not claiming any sort of notability) can be speedied. My fault for not leaving a reason when I deleted it. The terms get zero (yes, that's right, zero as in zip, zilch, none, nil, etc.) Google hits. A word that doesn't get a single Google hit isn't even a neologism. It's
FCYTravis 10:02, 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 00:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The Trials Of Humanity

Shockingly non-notable fan fiction project that I stumbled upon entirely by accident and seperate from the related AfDs: Googling "The Trials Of Humanity" with Star Wars pulls 15 hits, only some of which are relevant, the first hit coming back to this article. See also

Shazaam! - <*> 08:05, 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 00:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

AtNet Communications S.A.

Listed at

List of Greek companies under a section titled Minor companies. Very little information. Possibly business vanity. See also DOTSOFT. -- Longhair 09:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was keep the disambiguation page version.

chat} 19:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Searching

  • Delete. Already in wiktionary. Maybe turn into a disambiguation page. --
    Anthony Ivanoff 09:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • cery hard to see how this could ever be more than a dictdef. There is a song of this title (by Clan of Xymox, IIRC, or maybe Pieter Nooten solo), but it certainly wouldn't be notable enough for an article either. Delete. Grutness...wha?
  • Delete - Not enough here to get traction for its own encyclopedia article. Endomion 16:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Again, already in Wiktionary, endlessly moved from stub category to stub category. At best a disambiguation page alone should remain. Emersoni 18:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Physical searching using eyes, using touch; searching reference materials; searching the web; etc. --Quarl 22:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it should be possible to write a general article on searching. If not turn this into a disambig. - SimonP 22:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As others have said, it doesn't seem like it can be much more than a simple definition. Possibly create a disambiguation page at "Search." Imaginaryoctopus 21:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, already more encyclopedic than wiktionary would accept. Can be expanded to discuss search techniques in air-sea rescue etc.
    Kappa 07:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep as a disambig. GeeJo (t) (c) 16:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a disambig. (Search should be the disambig though, with searching redirecting to it, per general style guidelines maybe?) --Fangz 18:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That depends. Turning this article into a disambiguation is listed under both "keep" and "delete" . I think doing so is the best solution and my vote goes to whichever option it turns out to be. I'm guessing it is "delete" since that option came first but we will see.

Martin-C 23:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.

chat} 19:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Per nom

This phrase appears to entirely internal to wikipedia, and is of no interest to the outside world (

Kappa 09:19, 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 00:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Jack Hoppus

Don't see why a child of a rock star needs a wiki page. Could easily by summarised on rock-star's own page. Palaeologus 09:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Mark Hoppus. — TheKMantalk 09:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Subject is not notable enough for its own article, and all information is already in the article on Mark Hoppus. — TheKMantalk 09:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above -- SGBailey 10:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above or redirect to Mark Hoppus. Punkmorten 10:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't mind some notable relatives for truly very famous people having articles: I remember voting to keep Madonna's kid and Martin Luther King's mom. But this is an area into which we must tread cautiously, lest we start ending up with articles for bloggers' great-uncles and webcomic-creators' step-cousins. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no way for this to be expanded, except with baby pictures. Endomion 16:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as is, fails
    music notability. -- ReyBrujo 21:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete --Quarl 21:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TheKMan. --Metropolitan90 03:56, 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 MERGE. Jinian 15:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modernising Medical Careers

Article has no meaningful content. Unverifiable. —Brim 09:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Longhair 10:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this program affects the whole population of UK junior doctors at senior house officer level. It is most certainly verifiable by Google. A merge with senior house officer would be suboptimal. JFW | T@lk 10:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article only says there is a program, not exactly what it is. Endomion 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Jfdwolff. --King of All the Franks 16:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - As per Jfdwolff, this is about an important topic in British medicine, and the link in the article (provided by Jfdwolff) certainly provides a source for content for this article. However, the article as it stands is not up to stub levels, and it may be the case that the topic is better handled within another article, rather than having an article named by an NHS buzzword. --- Charles Stewart 18:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge --Quarl 21:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Prashanthns 15:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Jfdwolff. Pepsidrinka 22:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7).

chat} 07:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Midnight Rain (band)

Band vanity. -- Longhair 09:36, 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 00:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Macey Baggett Wuesthoff

Seems to be a

vanity page or advert. Robin Johnson 09:51, 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 00:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Bentley Cook

Not notable (not found on Google) & maybe personal CV -- SGBailey 10:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- SGBailey 10:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 10:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I am actually from the Chattanooga area and know this guy. I do not think he has ever had any media coverage and therefore not able to be found on Google. He is just a local artist that everyone seems to like. That is all I really know though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.197.73 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Only connection I can find between Chat. and Bentley Cook is this bizarre rant at the bottom of this blog (scroll to bottom) MNewnham 15:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no citation given of his published works. Endomion 16:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable per nomination, vanity. --Quarl 21:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Victor Samuel

Does not meet criteria for

WP:BIO. —Brim 10:06, 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. --

♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 03:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Cracking a smile

Dictionary definition. Not encyclopedic. Delete and Move to Wiktionary. —Brim 10:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete dictdef, and not even a good one Segv11 (talk/contribs) 10:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge with Internet Slang. It's clearly NOT a dicdef (unless things like ROTFLMNAO are getting into websters nowadays?) Jcuk 10:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rolling on the floor laughing my nigga ass off? I vote for Redirect Sceptre (Talk) 11:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, "ROFLM Nude AO!" I'm a naturist, it's a well known derivative in the naturist web world. Jcuk 14:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - You can't just make up internet slang. Endomion 15:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Endomion, don't merge or redirect or move to wiktionary. All Google hits for 'cas "cracking a smile"' are webpages with "cas" as a typo for "case" --Quarl 21:48, 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. Resistance is futile! -

Mailer Diablo 00:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Alan Harvey

(original nominator's text below)  — TheKMantalk 11:04, 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 00:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Chitty Family of Sri Lanka

Wikipedia is not a genealogical record. Non notability as well. I don't see really anything on google about this family. Plus I am pretty sure this is a book extract, so probably a copyvio too. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this generally Chitty article. Endomion 15:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination --Quarl 21:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 04:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ganeshk 00:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy redirected. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asbab An-Nuzul

  • This page was created due to a spelling mistake, the original artical is in lower case.
  • Just redirect it, then. u p p l a n d 12:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close this AfD - I already set up the redirection. Endomion 15:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

MOHG

Not encyclopedic. Low google, zero news. Delete unless evidenced of notability provided.

brenneman(t)(c) 12:33, 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 Speedily deleted by

T | @ | C 23:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

David Magann

It is not clear to me why this person is notable enough for inclusion. The article had a "db" tag; this tag was removed by User:Davidmagann, original author of the article. -- Aleph4 12:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The article doesn't list which contributions he is notable for, so we can check. Endomion 15:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nn-bio; marked as such --Quarl 21:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. Article did not even allege notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:26, 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 no consensus.

chat} 19:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Manuel Schenkhuizen

this games club member's club ("four kings") was deleted as non-notable... so should he be deleted as well? Zzzzz 12:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 12:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't like games but that is quite a list of trophies. Endomion 15:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, even less notable than "four kings" themselves. --Oscarthecat 16:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - maybe notable (not sure what counts as notable here); but cleanup --Quarl 21:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-bio Niz 15:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As the top player of his game, Grubby is of interest to gamers as a whole, not just Warcraft players. He should have a page for the same reason that
    Fatal1ty, and vo0 have pages. --Cesare
  • Delete. I dont think these kind of people should be in wikipedia. Catherine breillat 11:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --80.186.137.5 16:00, 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 delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Greg_Tingle

Delete this self promotion crap, written by the person it's about, calls himself a player in the media industry when his jobs are 'truck driver' and 'telemarketer', who on earth would ever need information on this man? Not that there isn't enough at his bizarre, border-line psychopathic Media Man. Titrator 12:44, 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 00:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

N4 (notation)

Delete this article, because it's marked as not verified since

Sep 10, 2005. I can't find any info about N4 notation on the Web. — Anrie Nord 13:08, 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 00:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

JOCA

  • Advertisement. Delete. May deserve a brief mention on Wikipedia or a related page. - Mike Rosoft 13:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Arvindn 13:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is what Yahoo yellow pages is for. Endomion 14:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisement --Quarl 21:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 02:13, 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 merge and redirect to

chat} 19:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Fatwas by Suyuti

Not notable to merit its own article. Should be merged with

Suyuti. Pepsidrinka 13:25, 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 Connect Delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Connect Left

As far as I can tell, it's just another blog with no claim to notability. - Bobet 14:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Wikipedia needs to shrug off its reputation as being the top cheerleader for the evil, lying, Jew-run, gay-supporting, Santa-hating, Jesus-bashing, birkenstock-wearing, According to Jim-watching liberal media. Just kidding. Delete. --D-Day 14:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I take umbrage at that Santa-bashing bit. Endomion 14:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable weblog Tom Harrison (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, although it is true, Santa sucks the big one. --Cyde Weys votetalk 16:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website per nomination. --Quarl 21:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 02:12, 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 00:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Constable Norrington

I choose "non-verifiable" for this one, 0 google hits. - Bobet 14:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - If this feature is only available to administrators of such-and-such, it will not avail the general WP reading public to know about it. Endomion 15:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. "Users may post NSFW (not safe for work) content such as text or images racially motivated images such as the B.B.C."? -- Vary | Talk 16:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and unverifiable. --Quarl 21:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Endomion. Stifle 02:11, 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 all articles. -

Mailer Diablo 00:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Gigobyte, Gogiga Gagagigo

All of these pages should be deleted; they are unencyclopædic wastes of space. The cards described in these articles are non-notable, and if we have articles on these cards, what stops us from having articles on EVERY card? In addition, there is bound to be copyright violation somewhere along the line. (NOTE: some of the cards in Category:Yu-Gi-Oh! cards are notable, such as Obelisk the Tormentor.) Setokaiba✌≝ 11:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Fancruft. These cards can all have thier own pages on Yu-Gi-Oh Wikicities] (which could use the content), but we don't need all of that here. -- Vary | Talk 16:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cardcruft. I've said it before and I'll say it again - get rid of cardcruft. Even the Power Nine from MTG don't get their own individual articles. --Cyde Weys votetalk 16:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, except Gigobite, which could be made a redirect to Gigabyte, as I could see someone with bad spelling searching for that word. Youngamerican 18:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all fancruft. feydey 19:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and ask the author to contribute to Yu-Gi-Oh wikicities. --Quarl 21:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Note precedent by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh! card lists. --Apostrophe 22:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, including Obelisk, per Power Nine precedent. -- Grev 00:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gyroid and replace it with... I dunno, maybe the OLD article about GYROIDS?
  • Keep Swordstalker has been updated. --Jingofetts 15:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this is about a damn card and nothing of any significant importance. Why are we debating this?

  • "Keep" How come there are articles about every single Pokemon but you don't want any articles about a few Yu-Gi-Oh cards? You're all a bunch of Pokemon fanboys and fangirls.
    • Haha, for the record, if any Pokemon card came up for deletion I'd be for deleting that too. --Cyde Weys votetalk 00:16, 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 00:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The Engineering Center

Promotional. Looks like a commercial spam/copyvio, but I was unable to locate the exact source. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 14:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This isn't promotional, we are trying to make sure people can find us because of the range of activities we offer for engineers and for kids to learn about engineering. --AbbieGoodman 15:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't promotional, but we use the article to promote ourselves? Yes, right. - Mike Rosoft 15:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advert. Tom Harrison (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advert -
    FrancisTyers 17:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete as advertising, obvious. --Quarl 21:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 02:11, 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. Sorry, but the article does not satisfy the requirements listed at

chat} 20:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Duffy's law

Non notable (google) and probably an attempt at a promotional article for a controvertial / non mainstream belief system Tagishsimon (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nomination --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --King of All the Franks 15:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. The eponymous Mr Duffy is a proponent of Applied kinesiology, I can see why he thinks most people are wrong most of the time. --Quarl 21:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I created this article because it's a useful aphorism, and despite Duffy's probable belief that he's right about AK, it humbles one to apply this to oneself. To my knowledge, Duffy did not self-promote any of his stuff to wikipedia, and as far as I'm concerned, deletion based on whether Duffy is working in a discredited field is a better argument for keeping it than for deleting it in this particular case, if only to show Duffy in his own words that he could be wrong, too. As a point of process, there was no discussion of problems with the article on its talk page before its nomination on AfD. Those problems may be fixable, if someone would say what they are? -- Vansig 05:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, you're right that AK is not that relevant here. But it remains that the phrase is a non-notable recent neologism. Google search shows 71 unique hits. First hit is his own website, which has no alexa data (in terms of
    WP:WEB that reaks of non-notability). The first hit not from that website or its guestbook is some user comment on IMDb about an unrelated fictional character named Duffy, the rest are equally unrelated or Wikipedia mirrors. It is not a problem with the article, it is a problem with the subject of the article (i.e. notability) -- which can't be fixed in the article. If it were this easy to create a "law" and then have an article on Wikipedia describing it, everyone would be creating "Quarl's Law" just to get free advertisement. As for process, most articles that are non-notable don't get Talk discussion before being brought here. I still vote Delete. --Quarl 08:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, can't see what makes this unencyclopedic or unsuitable. It is referenced, and it isn't
    complete bollocks. Stifle 02:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • please keep. Alexa/Google stats are really tricky measures for neologisms. Think for yourself: this may well be the only noteworthy produce from the Applied kinesiology crowd until they get their claims and experiments right. -- 70.29.131.204 19:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a noteworthy adage, not proven to be true, and it is the product of a very alternative chiropractor/conspiracist whose other theories are also not proven to be true. There's nothing inherently encyclopedic about a clever turn of phrase. -Will Beback 07:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: I'm in favour of creating some kind of technology-based filtering instead of deletion for non-notability-- Marvin147 10:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Not proved false. -- Waveguy 15:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see the argument that "Duffy is a proponent for a controversial theory" as an example of
    guilt by association: a law coined by a proponent of this theory cannot possibly be true or notable. The law itself is not related to that obscure theory, and I'm content with it being here as long as links to "applied kinesiology" are removed from this article. Delete if removing the links is not possible. - Sikon 17:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Copied from Talk:Duffy's law:

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 Dec 2005. As of 3 Jan 2006 there is no clear consensus; while the question of notability is problematic for biographies, comix, music and eponymous laws, this article is exemplary of the problems with blindly applying Google/Alexa stats to the AfD process.
Suspiciously, the first three votes for deletion occured within minutes of this page's listing on AfD, all making no additional argument beyond the allegations of non-notability and self promotion. Have deletionists been running a xmas holiday deletion campaign?
User:Quarl astutely pointed out that unless notability is a question here, anyone could make up an eponymous law and promote it. I would agree, usually. But looking deeper into the implications of going ahead with deletion, it could spur increasing conflict between deletionists and inclusionists.
It could turn out to be staggeringly pivotal: inclusionists could do very well to allow the vote to sway against them for this article, and then both: offer the deletion as proof of Duffy's law itself, and at the same time make the claim that deletionists are purging the wikipedia of important but obscure knowledge.
So clearly, this article is not WP:VAIN, not WP:BIO and is NPOV; the article is of interest to multiple people, so it is totally noteworthy, just not very popular because most people don't like to apply it to themselves. -- 70.29.131.204 05:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily kept/withdrawn. Morwen - Talk 16:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lincolnshire flag

This appears to be a "soapbox" or advertising article. There is no neutral POV or facts given. Total removal seems in order. Trxi 15:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you (collectively) wouldn't mind, I'll re-write very soon. I used to live in Lincolnshire, so am familiar with some of its history. JanesDaddy 17:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Weak keep but might be more inclined to vote keep after a clean up. Jcuk 17:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First draft is at Talk:Lincolnshire flag. Please read before voting. JanesDaddy 18:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the draft I'd vote keep. Jcuk 22:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if the revised version on the talk page is going to be moved to the article page. Evil Eye 22:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now at least) It appears that the article may become an issue of more notability in the future. As such it would be helpful to have a certain amount of background knowledge on the subject should the need arise to extend the article. --Chazz88 00:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but tidy. Real flag (was noted on Flags of the World website a few months back), based on the arms of the city of Lincoln. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely keep now that it's been nicely revised. Trxi 09:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Someone with more experience than me will have to redirect from
    The_Lincolnshire_Flag (which was created and not edited since November 22) (or preferably delete The_Lincolnshire_Flag altogether - definite article, bad capitalization). This article credits Charlie Partridge of Radio Lincolnshire, rather than Fred and Pat Rickett, who originally wrote to the County News newspaper. It was because of the Ricketts' letter that Partridge got involved. JanesDaddy 18:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Jonathan Mitchell

Obvious fake, unverifiable. [9] JonathanMitchell should be deleted as well. Ze miguel 15:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No self-respecting French father would name his boy "Jonathan" Endomion 19:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax, unverifiable. --Quarl 21:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, unverifiable. Stifle 02:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 22:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Krum

Moved to afd from csd (nn-bio). I'm leaning towards Keep, myself.-- Syrthiss 15:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Bastards

This afd nomination was

(operator) 15:47, 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.

chat} 20:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Corey Haim filmography

I created the page because the list was too long to be on the actors main article. However, I saw that only afew actors have this type of article, notably Bogart and Stewart whom have far more films and are far more notable. I don't want to create something where we see a filmography for every actor and actress! I replaced the main article link with an external link to an IMDB page, with basically thet same content. What are your views? Smerk 15:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most articles have not a complete filmography, but a "selected filmography" section, where important films/whatever are shown. If an actor's filmography gets too long, consider trimming unimportant appearances instead — there are few actors who have too many important appearances for them all to appear on his bio. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Corey Haim article is currently in peer review, a user went through and cleaned up the filmography and made it select, then I created its sub-page, not thinking at the time if it were a good idea.. Smerk 15:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to

chat} 20:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Goo (Gumby character)

I say Redirect to Gumby, but not sure, so I figured to make a VFD... --FlareNUKE 01:22, 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 merge and redirect to

chat} 20:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

North Hibbing

The town of

North Hibbing article is too NN to have an article. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 04:56, 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 00:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Five Dock Crips

No google hits for "Five Dock Crips." Even if they are one of the Syndey gangs (I believe the city does have something of a gang problem,) the article sounds seriously exaggerated. Membership in the thousands? -- Vary | Talk 15:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 16:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious hoax. "'Tommo' and Bossi are known to have 'macked' 100's of armed DB members alone." Endomion 19:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax --Quarl 20:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sydney doesn't have a "gang problem", but yeh I can confirm (100%) that this is a hoax 202.172.120.102 01:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.
    --NaconKantari 01:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete non notable. — Kbh3rdtalk 01:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete!! This gang is real, they're from my suburb, i see them around all the time causing trouble and stuff. the part about their battle with DB, the other gang in my suburb is completely true, everyone always talks about it around here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.17.164 (talk • contribs)
  • Don't delete. Although parts of this article are clearly exaggerated, 'FDC' does indeed exist. They are well-known in Sydney's inner west. That said, the '1000's of memberships' and 'macking' bits, and probably the weapons import bit are obvious urban legend and/or self-aggrandisement rather than fact. I would suggest modification of these sections.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.41.67 (talk • contribs)
  • I have personally been a victim of FDC's various crimes. i have had death threats from their various members which probably stemmed from my affiliation with a rival gang. i cannot walk down the streets of Drummoyne now without constantly looking over my shoulder, and by deleting this article, i belive wikipedia would be ignoring an important social dynamic of sydney that invariably affects many of it's youths and adults alike.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.148.77 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment To the above anons; could any of you provide a source or citation for this gang? I can find references to the 'rival' gang referred to in the article, but nothing at all for this group. -- Vary | Talk 15:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The gang is not in the thousands, hundreds definately but not the thousands. I also cannot find them on the internet though there in various blogs. Im a 36 year old male from the five dock region and i know they exist and this article is fairly accurate as i was forced to pay protection money to them two years ago. I own a restuarant on Great North Rd, Five Dock. "Tommo" and "Catenaccio" are quite famous characters throughout the inner-west of sydney, known as "gentlemanly gangsters".
  • The article now says it is an admitted hoax. Obvious delete, possibly even a speedy for vandalism. Stifle 02:05, 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 and create a redirect to

Pioneer Anomaly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Pioneers Anomaly

Fringec 16:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to
Pioneer Anomaly. Original research. -- Vary | Talk 16:46, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Matter Society

Seemingly non-notable band. Their 4 releases seem to be songs rather than albums/LPs. Madman 16:13, 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. I'm not sure the article Dave's ESL Cafe should be created just so this article could be merged to it. If it's created later it can be expanded with information about David Sperling. — JIP | Talk 22:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Sperling

I don't feel especially strong about this, but I'm a bit surprised that there's an article on David Sperling, who is pretty much a non-entity on the board he has created. He collects ad money and adds a notice to the top of the board once or twice a year, so I don't find him to be particularly notable. Assuming Wikipedia doesn't consider web site owners and English teachers to be notable I don't see much of a reason for the article. Mithridates 16:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Webmaster. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create Dave's ESL Cafe and smerge to it. eslcafe.com has Alexa rank of 9,201. --Quarl 20:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 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 00:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Turner Rentz

I had originally marked this as speedy, but I suppose there is a borderline assertion here. At any rate, badly written, unsourced, unverifiable, ergo non-notable. Xoloz 16:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Speedy. Just says "known for accomplishments" in his field without specifying what those might be. That makes him still a speedy candidate, although I suppose a slow delete is just as well too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not speedy, it also asserts he is the head of this or that company. Endomion 19:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slow delete - article vaguely asserts notability but we need something more to be able to keep it. - Haukur 19:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Possible speedy as no context or nn-bio, but I'm happy with a regular delete. Stifle 02:03, 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 loading page...to delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

LOADING

Delete vanity/advertisement about webcomic, posted by its artist. The comic just started in November; "loading" + "crow winters" (the artist's name) gets 0 google hits outside of the webcomic site itself.[10] Obviously no significance to anyone but Mr. Winters. Postdlf 16:30, 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.

chat} 20:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Jazzy Phatt

very non-notable, an event occasionally happening at a local restaurant Oscarthecat 16:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep.

chat} 20:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Zeynep Ergun

The article does not make any claim to notability, other than her being a university professor, at the "Institute of Social Sciences English Language and Literature Department". Is that enough? Do we have a recommended or official policy on including all or some university professors? Aleph4 16:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A partial answer to my question was given in
Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies/Academics. --Aleph4 10:49, 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 keep.

chat} 20:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

H-back

I don't think there is such thing as an H-back, as I've never heard of anything like this and it's verifiable that this is not a term commonly used, I don't think by anyone in football, except to refer to a half-back, which is nothing like that described in the article.--Intrepidus 16:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It should be mentioned in (and linked to, if kept) both
Tight End. PJM 01:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

chat} 20:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Eric Bittner

The article does not make any claim to notability, other than the fact that he is a university professor. Is that enough? Do we have a recommended or official policy on including all or some university professors? Aleph4 17:09, 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 00:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Bill of Rights (ship)

Seems nn. A google search for "Bill of Rights" +ship just revealed one nn blog entry about it. Could even be seen as an advertisement to sell the boat. Pboyd04 17:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom -
    FrancisTyers 17:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete for sale ad. Endomion 18:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisement, per nomination --Quarl 20:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - aren't all schools notable by definition? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment yes but I don't see how this is a school? --Pboyd04 22:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • During the latter half of the 1990s she was aquired by the Los Angeles Maritime institute (LAMI) and severed as a training ship for their at risk youth. User:Zoe|(talk)
        • That makes it more of classroom than a school. The school would have been the Los Angeles Maritime Institute not the boat. --Pboyd04 22:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am being sarcastic.  ;) However,
            Irving Johnson (Tall ship). If the Irving Johnson gets an article ... User:Zoe|(talk) 23:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
            ]
  • Delete per Endomion. Stifle 02:02, 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 00:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Brian and Maria Green Inc.

Delete

FrancisTyers 17:28, 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 00:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Phomepage

Non-notable term that has 210 unique google hits (including many non-related hits). Not verifiable. Hurricane111 17:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Introduces a neologism. Endomion 18:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable unverifiable neoneologism. We need a speedy delete category for this kind of article. --Quarl 20:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Quarl. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:15, 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 00:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Eddie Khang

32 Google results, looks like the origional author is Eddie.

have you seen this?) 18:02, 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 00:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

ChaosGFX

Plug for a website, seems to fail

WP:WEB proposal. Alexa rank 533,966 [13], forum has 52 members. W.marsh 18:13, 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 speedy delete (A7).

chat} 07:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Rickshaw_to_Bangkok

delete - Non-notable. No singles, no albums, no google hits. Oscarthecat 18:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy delete, no assertion of noteability
    Tedernst | talk 18:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy delete, nn-band. PJM 19:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A:7, nn. feydey 19:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. No tours mentioned, either. B.Wind 20:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as non-notable band per nomination. Marked as nn-band now. --Quarl 20:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD:A7. -- ReyBrujo 22:01, 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 SPEEDY, as a blatant recreation of deleted material. -Splashtalk 22:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snoop Dogg minor albums, bootlegs and mixtapes

This is the stack of Snoop Dogg mixtapes under discussion here collected in one place. The consensus that has emerged in the still-ongoing deletion discussion is that as a rule, mixes and bootlegs are too numerous and ephemeral to warrant a place in an encyclopedia and should be included only if they had a bearing on the artist's career and are well-known in fandom. The tapes listed here are neither.

Someone made the point that one encyclopedic article on Snoop Dogg bootlegs might be a good idea, this cut-and-paste of tracklistings isn't it, though. Pilatus 18:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete this as a recreation of soon-to-be deleted material. If the creator wants to have an article on Snoop's underground releases, have him do such in prose, using scholarly references, and not simply doing a cut and paste merge to prove a (very poorly grounded) point. --FuriousFreddy 18:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. You cannot simultaneously admit that the information has not been deleted and that the material in this article is a recreation of that material. It is obviously a merge of that material, which may be (or may not be) be deleted, onto a new merge target, which is entirely compatible with the deletion policy and is, in fact, specifically mentioned as the preferable to deletion in the deletion policy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per previous comments. Stop abusing speedy tags. Also, criticizing someone's writing abilities is out of order. Use the cleanup tag. -- JJay 18:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously, to preserve verifiable information about a major rap phenomenon. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per Tony Sidaway. The article shouldn't be a list of discographies though; it should be an article describing the phenomenon of mix tapes; if this phenomenon applies to all rap artists, it should document mix tapes of rap artists in general, not Snoop Dogg in particular. --Quarl 20:24, 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 00:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Eve's Rib Clothing

non-noteable and no assertion of noteability

Tedernst | talk 18:28, 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 deleted previously. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge Street Café

probably un-notable also {{cleanup-importance}} was removed Melaen 18:33, 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 00:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Crumblewall

web site un-notability Melaen 18:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. I've never seen meatpuppets all clamoring to delete before (not that that's the reason I'm closing this as a keep, mind you;

chat} 20:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Endless Online

Website doesn't meet

WP:WEB with an Alexa rank: 188,649 (5 sites that link in) and previous "not-so-clear" deletion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Endless_Online/VazzVersion. No idea how many members. -- feydey 19:27, 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 speedy merge/redirect to Yahwism, the correct spelling, per article creator. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yahwhism

Non-notable neologism with very few Google results. --

pour) 19:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Merge with Yahwism (correct spelling). — TheKMantalk 19:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I apologize for spawning an article from a misspelling. --Steve Caruso 20:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge quickly. The Thadman, you can go ahead and do it yourself. --Quarl 20:13, 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.

chat} 20:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Jan mosand

I originally tagged this for speedy delete as a vanity bio (author is subject) but there seems to be at least a claim of notability. Therefore sent here. Non-notable and vanity. Ifnord 19:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Appears to have been the chief of UN tsunami crisis help in Thailand [15] Dlyons493 Talk 19:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - weakly notable per Dlyons. 3 google results. --Quarl 20:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow one week for cleanup and Wikification in light of Dlyons' assertion. If this article is upgraded, then we should evaluate notability of the subject in light of the tsunami and the United Nations. B.Wind 20:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete. Option to restore if proof of notability is obtained. Stifle 01:58, 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 00:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Koloseum stunt awards

vanity, unnotability, the link provided is a forum with no contacts. consider deleting the blue links to this page from

Zeljko Bozic Melaen 19:41, 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 speedy delete (patent nonsense).

chat} 06:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Killer Hearts

complete nosense 5 year old and two 8 year old defeat a band , see also Hearts%22 Southern Ontario&btnG=Cerca&meta= Melaen 19:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. Patent nonsense. ("two 8-year-olds beat an entire army of gang members" indeed...) — TheKMantalk 20:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense, or delete quickly, per nomination. --Quarl 20:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. PJM 20:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nonsense. B.Wind 20:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Sounds like a fictional story, at the least, it is nonsense. Kareeser|Talk! 21:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, CSD:G1. -- ReyBrujo 22:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. --NeoJustin 05:39, December 28, 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 00:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Prof. Axmed Warfaa

No real claim of notability (outspoken, defiant). Seems to be/was a Somali professor [16] but I can find nothing in English to support his notability. No publications that I can see.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 19:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • He might be notable and verifiable, just not to English speakers. --Quarl 20:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Language is not really a barrier here. With the worldwide scope (and readership) of Wikipedia, I'm sure that someone who reads Italian (another official language of Somalia) would have no problem finding articles in that language for this individual if such articles on the Web exist. The fact remains that to assert notability, there needs to be references to indicate it, regardless of language. B.Wind 20:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google found 3 unique hits, that may or may not be the professor. Publications are not listed. Article fails to assert
    notability of this person. — TheKMantalk 20:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Vanity, unreferenced. BACbKA 20:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BACbKA. Stifle 01:57, 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 speedy deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Los Perros

no meaningful content : some dogs are nice , others not, so what? Melaen 19:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. It's not even clear what the book is - unverifiable. Dlyons493 Talk 20:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. No obvious results on Amazon. --Quarl 20:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A1, short article with little or no context. — TheKMantalk 20:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, per above. PJM 20:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like Patent Nonsense to me Segv11 (talk/contribs) 20:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, per above. BACbKA 20:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7).

chat} 00:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Nanowar

band that has issued only demo CDs and Self produced albums Melaen 20:06, 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 00:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Clasifis

Well, it is what it is - "Clasifis is the first Spanish based classified via the internet in the United States. Started in May 5, 2005 it provides a centralized portal for posting spanish based classifieds advertisements."

Non-notable website
.

  • Delete - as noted --Bookandcoffee 20:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, somewhere between an advert and a confused mess. Stifle 01:56, 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 00:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Edward TJ Brown

  • Delete This is either a vanity or non-notable article -- MicahMN | μ 20:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable. EdwinHJ | Talk 20:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails to establish compliance with
    WP:BIO. Stifle 01:56, 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 speedy delete (A7, non-notable group). This kind of article was what I had in mind when I originally proposed the expansion of A7.

chat} 00:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Team 3

NN, vanity -

FrancisTyers 20:29, 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 00:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Gene Bellotti

NN CEO of NN organization, fails

WP:CORP, wikipedia article written by President of customertype.com MNewnham 20:31, 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 speedy deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simple dave

Delete Random nonsense Palaeologus 20:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please delete. Me thinks English is NOT that author's first language. --D-Day 20:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. I've added the speedy template at the page for this reason. BACbKA 20:47, 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. Mindmatrix 18:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PC ServiceCall

Delete A stub quality article about a subsidiary of a corporation that has a

separate article. That article should suffice IMHO. The subsidiary is a self-promo by an employee. No refs except for a link to their own website, advert-like. No assertion of notability out of the context of the parent corp. BACbKA 20:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge what? There's a one-line mention in the parent corp article, and I didn't find more material in the subsidiary article to merge over there. BACbKA 22:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the line "PC ServiceCall provides IT technical support for customers of the DSG International plc group of companies" to
DSG International plc#PC ServiceCall. --Muchness 23:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Did that. How about changing your vote to Delete now? BACbKA 11:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, delete or redirect. --Muchness 12:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even worse, they seem to exist solely for the purpose of servicing customers of the parent company. MNewnham 21:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing to merge. Stifle 01:55, 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 00:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Girl On the Moon

Unreleased album from non-existent band, links to band and members are redlinks MNewnham 20:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non existant album from group of questionble notoriety. No Guru 21:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (speedy?) - take your pick: ad, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nn band without a Wikipedia article... B.Wind 21:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. --Muchness 21:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Speedy Delete, if the band qualifies as CSD:A7, its unreleased album right now qualifies as well. Next year, if they smash all rankings, I will ask for pardon in their Talk page. -- ReyBrujo 22:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. --NeoJustin 05:37, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 01:37, 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 00:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Dropps

Blatant advertising MNewnham 20:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - copyvio of ad. B.Wind 21:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, ad. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.
    Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Agh! The user has also put the advertisment in detergent. I don't think this can be speedied, though. -- ReyBrujo 22:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. --NeoJustin 05:36, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertisement. Garion96 (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it is a copyvio, it is now too late to speedy delete it. Stifle 01:37, 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 keep (nomination withdrawn).

chat} 00:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Cecilia (band)

Visible, but not quite notable enough band MNewnham 21:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MNewnham 17:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour over notable musical venues in at least one large or medium-sized country[2], reported in notable and verifiable sources." The band's web site has in the past shown national tour dates (verifiable via archive.org's wayback machine) and a Google search for "cecilia veltz" will show countless articles from publications nationwide on the story of this band. The band plays regularly in both DC and NYC, showing that they are more than a local presence.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020808090551/www.ceciliatheband.com/schedule.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20021014133146/ceciliatheband.com/schedule.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20030226165053/www.ceciliatheband.com/schedule/index.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20010407130008/ceciliatheband.com/tourdates.html

The URLs above show that the band regularly plays shows in 4 non-contiguous states including the historic Knitting Factory and (now gone) Wetlands Preserve in New York. One of the band's albums was recorded at the famous Manhattan Theatre Source. This is all information that will eventually make it into the article if it is allowed to live.

The band's video page includes their home movies shot while on their national tour that reached LA in 2003. dsemaya 21:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good, lets get this on the page and make them notable. Nomination WithdrawnMNewnham 01:28, 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 00:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Hans Ove Skau

Non-notable. Google gives appr. six hits that relate to him. Haakon 21:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like vanity to me. He aparently has a PhD and has published a few articles as well, but that doesn't make him notable. Shanes 23:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Demiurge 13:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a famous American author. Something strange here. Necessary to delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innaa (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. No real claim to notability - being related to famous people doesn't count. David | Talk 23:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dbiv. Stifle 01:36, 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.

Here we have the problem: Shall an author be notified or not ? What is an adnotable author. Who shall decide ? On Wikipedia we find definitions of elementary words like sports, professor etc. The answer is perhaps: What is the author writing about and who read the books ? We know, you do not have to be a scientific author to be famous. Only ordinary stories can be a ground to become famous.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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} 21:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Kenneth Reese Cole, Jr.

Delete Appears to be an unimportant functionary, who only distinction is that he worked in the Nixon White House without being involved in Watergate. Based on what's here (which isn't even well sourced) I can't see any reason for an article on this guy. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep A long serving White House official who was, notably, honest MNewnham 21:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He was an aide to Nixon and presidential aides are worthy of our notice. I would note he got a NY Times obit, so that shows he was notable. PedanticallySpeaking 16:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per Caerwine. Stifle 01:36, 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 00:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Ehed

neologism Melaen 21:29, 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 00:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

David Collins (physics professor)

Non-notable professor. dbenbenn | talk 21:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete reads like a resume, missing those all-important published books. MNewnham 21:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I am all for more bios of academics on Wikipedia, but Collins is not really a professor yet. According to his CV, he is currently a "Visiting Assistant Professor" and teaches undergraduate courses at Bucknell University, which, as far as I can tell, is not even a university, but rather a college with a few master's level programmes.[17] u p p l a n d 22:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uppland's excellent research. Stifle 01:18, 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 keep.

chat} 21:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Hawk-i

poor article , previously listed on Afd Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hawk-i no improvement since august 2005 Melaen 21:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - might not be salvageable at all. Written in all caps, serious POV problem ("IT'S THE RIGHT CHOICE") that could be considered advertising, written in second person (and Wikipedia articles are never written in second person!). The current article reads like a radio public service announcement. If this is a notable State program in Iowa that meets the Wikipedia standards for inclusion, it might be better to scrape this clean and start anew. B.Wind 22:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. The all caps makes me think it might be a copyvio of some radio ad copy, but I can't find evidence of it online. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak keep rewrite per JLa. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I've edited the article so it's at least coherent. Given the debate within the US over health insurance, I think this is notable enough. However, instead of an article per state, I would prefer to be able to redirect this to a more general article about states' suplements to Medicaid and then list the states' programs there. I didn't find a suitable redirect though. -- JLaTondre 15:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per ESkog. Stifle 01:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep: I see no reason to delete the article as it stands. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Opinion was divided as to precisely where the content should be merged. Editors should work this out among themselves and then perform the merge per consensus. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 20:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic scholars

This page is completely devoid of any actual info. It only serves as a list of other pages. freestylefrappe 21:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also fail to see why
Ulema does not already cover this. freestylefrappe 21:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
If I'm reading
Ulema correctly that is a specific role that all scholars probably don't qualify for. -- JLaTondre 15:50, 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.
Merge and redirect--behmod talk 01:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Personality compass

Original research. Second edit summary on the page claims "everything on this page was written and designed by the author." (ESkog)(Talk) 21:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Image:Personality compass.jpg should probably also be deleted with this, but I don't really know how image deletion is handled. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment why should the image be deleted if i created it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostfayth (talk • contribs) 22:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it is part of the original research - the same reason the article should be deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. To quote the article: "...I will attempt to prove my theory." - Gimboid13 21:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Muchness 22:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. To the author: please see
    WP:NOR for some information on why this is taking place. Stifle 01:09, 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 Keep Cobra 07:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mut'ah

Virtually no content, only rough estimate of when it took place. freestylefrappe 22:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep, since it is properly templated and categorized, maybe an expert will see it and put in useful content. -Drdisque 23:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and expand. I've added a little content from online sources but it really does need an expert to look over it. It seems to be notable as possibly the first battle where Muslim forces were contained. Dlyons493 Talk 23:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, Watch, and Keep please - this appears to me one of the significant battles of Islam. I am adding an external link to the page. --Bhadani 14:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bhadani. Stifle 01:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that content has been added. freestylefrappe 03:26, 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. Anyone who wants to create an article about the song or the album, go for it.

chat} 21:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Mississippi goddamn

nn cocktail, seems like advertising. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Zoe. Daykart 22:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - almost all occurrences of the phrase refer to the title of a famous song by Nina Simone. It's mentioned in her article and a few others on WP. Her article is well-done and has 150 edits, so I'm not suggesting the song deserves its own article, but a redirect is worth considering. One curiosity: A search for the phrase as an artist on All Music redirects to an older blues musician, Mississippi John Hurt. I can't figure-out why this is though - Google finds no significant coincidences of "John Hurt" and "Mississippi goddamn" that don't mention "Nina Simone", nor does his All Music or WP page mention the phrase. ×Meegs 04:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to mention a notable band, The Hidden Cameras, titled one of their albums in a similar fashion to this song. Keep and expand, or redirect to the proper musician. --badlydrawnjeff 14:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks, then delete. Stifle 01:07, 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 keep. --

♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 03:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Inibsa

The article does not assert the significance of the company. King of Hearts | (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Expand The nom is not wrong, however it is a major Spanish pharmacutical company. They make Oralex, a major european dentistry line. it deserves an entry, IMHO. --CastAStone 22:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' advert. Stifle 01:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be a notable Spanish drug manufacturer --rogerd 15:27, 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 redirect to

Autosexuality. Mindmatrix 18:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Solosexuality

Neologism. Not a real term (60 hits on Google, no hits for define:Solosexuality on Google).

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 18:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schmoove

Nominated partially as

WP:MFD by User:64.220.117.66, who believes it to be a commercial. I am merely correctly completing the listing. Hiding talk 22:12, 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 00:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Ced Dorian

NN bio, just 3 results on Google. Also, User:Doriang is the only contributor; do the two names have anything in common? King of Hearts | (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doriang stands for Dorian Gray, i'm just a fan of the band since 2005. Please do not delete this page. Doriang 22:28, 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 00:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Palanivilas Ghee Stores

Not notable. Basically an ad with address information. - Ganeshk 22:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Tintin 22:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom.Obina 00:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --NeoJustin 05:31, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Stifle 01:05, 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 00:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Theory of Infoquants

Original research Ben Finn 22:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. "Infoquants" does not appear in google. --Hansnesse 22:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete violation of
    WP:NOR. Also next to incomprehensible to anyone not very well acquainted with the subject. Stifle 01:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete OR --rogerd 15:29, 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 delete. -

Mailer Diablo 00:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The Red Knob

The cause is admirable, but Wikipedia doesn't allow advertising hype for a little-known website.Art LaPella 22:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. At the very least, it needs to be cleaned up. Deleting would be easier. --Liface 22:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --NeoJustin 05:33, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert. Stifle 01:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert --rogerd 15:35, 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 Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Detva District

Page has absolutely no content. (nomination by User:Liface )

  • If this is a real place, then, if somebody can write a stub about it, keep. If nobody does anything n five days, delete. Previous content was an ad, which was blanked. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:35, 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 speedy deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Berkenkotter

A google search seems to indicate that this guy is a college student, so nn. Also not encylopedic at all. Pboyd04 22:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Tell this guy to get a user page. --Liface 22:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied, nn-bio, vanity, nonsense User:Zoe|(talk) 23:34, 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 - Izehar 21:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merna tap

A stub about a bar and grill in Merna, Illinois. Appears to be utterly unencyclopedic. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:52, 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 speedy deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William Regan

nn high school football coach. Delete CLW 22:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Continuous non-notable articles shall be the death of Wikipedia. --D-Day 22:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied, nn-bio. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:32, 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.

chat} 21:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Fan-modules

Vanity of an online group. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please put more effort into your nominations. Here, you do not make the case for deletion in any way. Writing a decent nomination is a good habit (adding a vote at the end is not). It is especially important in cases like this, where the article's authors (or sometimes, subjects) are confused by the deletion process, and want to know precisely why we think their article does not belong in an encyclopaedia. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete or delete quickly; marked as nn-club (does that apply?). Mailing list with <1000 members, no claimed notability. --Quarl 01:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to the AfD notice the article's creator left this comment on the article talk page, which is essentially a keep vote from someone still fairly confused about process. --CBD ☎ ✉ 15:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the original article was speedied as a copyright violation (see here); crufty as this is, I think it's encouraging that the user(s) concerned are writing stuff themselves this time 'round. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to give the guy a break after the beating he took on the other articles. This one is marginal on notability, but really no moreso than everything else in Category:Middle-earth mailing lists. There's a thought... the category should be merged to a single list including all of these. --CBD ☎ ✉ 17:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per the new A7 if applicable, otherwise just a regular delete because there is no apparent notability. Stifle 01:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --rogerd 15:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge This article is here for information use, this could be merged or added if needed in the merp or Decipher wikipedia pages, by referencing some Middle Earth important game sites or mailing lists. Else, a deletion process should start on the other Middle Earth mailing list. The number of members is not a viable argument for deletion.Alcantar (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted per CSD-A7 non-notable group.

FCYTravis 00:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

F-krew

delete, non notable online group, I wanted to VFD this though for some possible debate if someone thinks they are notable Drdisque 23:00, 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 redirect to

♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 03:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

St. georges

vanity, preppy school, unknow geographic location , nicknamed St. Gorgeous. Melaen 23:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's believed that school has an article already at
St. George's School, Newport. The dispute is now over the page's name, as it applies to many other institutions too. ×Meegs 09:01, 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 delete - Izehar 21:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When does it come out

Wiki with 1 registered user, nn. Pboyd04 23:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ...and one page so far...Obina 00:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it hasn't been updated in a month, i think whoever created it forgot about it. --CastAStone 00:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination --Quarl 01:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --NeoJustin 05:30, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Stifle 00:58, 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 Speedy deleted A7. -

ask? 01:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Spacemen

non notable bandMelaen 23:04, 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 speedy deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 10:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basofe

Appears to be a slang dicdef in Portuguese(?). Already nominated and deleted once, but apparently with different content. Current content may be a joke. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as per nom. -Drdisque 01:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 21:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Dorofaeff

Vanity. [18] also

FrancisTyers 23:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

chat} 21:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Chris_McKinstry

Appears to be non-notable vanity. Google search just turns up his own page, a single article about him, and a few pages concerning various flamewars he's been in. If he has notability, it's as the author of Mindpixel, which appears to be a now-defunt AI project. I'm doing a PhD in AI, and I've never heard of the guy. Misterwindupbird 23:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment He may be notable for something - he got as far as BBC News [19] and also a website claiming he's a master hoaxter [20]. Caveat emptor. Dlyons493 Talk 23:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The latter seems to just be a response to some usenet flame war, and as near as I could determine, the BBC interview is the only evidence of notoriety on the web. If having an article on a well-regarded news website qualifies as notability, then pretty much every scientist working in a "hot" field is notable. --Misterwindupbird 23:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination --Quarl 01:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good amount of news coverage [21], [22] on this project. Newsbank shows articles on him in Australian papers + Newsday. -- JJay 03:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per JJay Jcuk 08:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As per the discussion, I'll withdraw the nomination and remove the AfD from the page. He may not have a footprint in mainstream AI research, but he does seem to be notable for something other than flamewars. --Misterwindupbird 16:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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


The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 00:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Wehatetech

nn podcast (I know, that's pretty much redundant). A grand total of seven Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • no no no, theres nothing wrong with it, leave it be, go deal with more important things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anticitizen 1 (talk • contribs) (only contributed to Wehatetech and AFD)
  • ""NON DELETE"" Who is to say what is a "notable" cast and "non-notable" cast? NOT YOU. Don't like it, listen to TWIT or something else. - Kmac1036 (talk · contribs)
  • Strong delete - Original research, non-referenced. - Szvest 00:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;[reply]
  • Delete quickly as non-notable per above --Quarl 01:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, but if /. and iTunes claims can be verified make that Keep. That's contingent on someone less lazy than I doing their homework though. Haikupoet 04:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete random podcruft. Influenced by a large proportion of apparent sockpuppets, unsigned votes, etc. Stifle 00:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE wehatetech.com has been spamming digg.com to get better google ranking.
  • wehatetech has a Google PageRank of 5 (Digg has a 6). 3000 listeners, actually shows up on alexia. Listed on Itunes as perferred technology podcast, most popular anti-technology podcast. It is quite notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerves (talk • contribs)
  • You delete this, then you delete ALL the podcast Wiki articles. There are far more inappropiate pages on here than this one. Gee, so much for free speech. - Kmac1036 (talk · contribs)
    • Metacomment: User's first edit. --Quarl 04:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC) comment deleted by KMac1036, restored by Dvyost[reply]
    • Agree with you, we'll delete all the non-notable podcast articles. --Quarl 04:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Other podcasts like This Week in Tech are allowed a Wikipedia article because they are notable due to the fact the hosts are well known. --Peter McGinley 12:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.wehatetech.com/whtnutshell.htm. Includes some pictures/links to backup some statements. More will be coming soon. If the site doesn't meet requirements to stay on the wikipedia based on that then well at least we know. Xerves 23:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. "We Hate Tech" has as much right to a wiki as "This Week In Tech". If "We Hate Tech is deleted ALL podcasts, not only the "non notable" podcasts MUST be deleted.Anticitizen_1 00:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.163.50 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Undelete Evidence presented on the Wehatetech "wiki" shows a parody site with emphasis on narration and commentary. The websight in question involves more than simple "hate" but, for simplicity sakes "hate" was used to offer a generalization of the stories. The site also contains technical support hints, parody audio (public domain) and various other elements that make this a necessary entry into wikipedia. Please reconsider deleting this or if it's already deleleted please restore Wehatetech. Wiki is in imporant fixture in the internest and Wehatetech would offer value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.101.86 (talk • contribs)
  • Just give us a chance to straighten things up a bit... At least listen to one of the podcasts before you decide to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.212.158 (talk • contribs)
  • WeHateTech is more legitmet that TWIT anyday. We are the real tech workers and censoring us and keeping TWIT shows Wikipedia has no backbone and does not appreciate the common man's views. Prepackged, witless shows like TWIT are spreading like fungus and are threatening to turn the web into the pile of programming garbage that is Cable and Network TV. The web thrives because it is where you can go for true dissenting opinions, it is the common mans printing press and as such should not be subject to ANY censorship. Wikipedia have some cajones! You know deleting this post is wrong and you will do th right thing because you have not sold out to TWITS and such, have you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.124.18 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete not notable. The sockpuppet spam just seals the deal for me. -- MisterHand
  • Delete. NeoJustin 18:14, December 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Way too much trashtalk & too many references to their homepage:a Flamer & Spammer. Go away. --Motorbikematt 19:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sockpuppet scam? If that statement along doesn't warrant this article staying around I don't know what will.
  • Delete as per nom (note I voted to delete this previously but my voted was deleted by an anonymous edit, maybe because I didn't sign) TheRingess 03:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and amazingly bad behavior by site proponents. --Dvyost 04:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - My talk page experienced some moments of Wehatethech from Anticitizen 1 (I asked him to change his username/refused violently (taken care of by an admin) and Kmac1036 (talk · contribs) (taken care of by another admin) . Cheers -- Wiki me up&#153;
  • You pitiful beings. You just don't get it. This is not about free speech, democracy or making a statement. This is about amassing encyclopedic information. If you do not qualify for encyclopedic importance, no amount of sniveling, threats or irate outbursts will change that. --Agamemnon2 15:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact remains, no matter how much people hate us or what horrible things we did (there are plenty of articles in wikipedia of people who did horrible things) this is all that matters: http://www.wehatetech.com/whtnutshell.htm. Are there guidelines for podcasts yet, I have yet to see one? Anything there can be backed up upon request. Anything else you have to say can be taken to the article about the podcast. Just because I might be a Bush hater doesn't give me the right to delete him off the face of the planet. Xerves 22:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard to reach consensus when most posters are literally blowing this article away:

Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda. However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing.

We all have agendas, just play this one by the numbers Xerves 23:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As per nom. --Daveb 15:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.
    rodii 21:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to relist. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations Dr Zak 02:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Avoda

This article is basically an advertisement for a non-notable summer camp in Massachusets. It has no qualifying information apart from advertising copy. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 21:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete
    WP:RS seems like an ad for a business. To qualify, it would have to appear to be written as a neutral description by an unbiased observer, with citations in news media etc. as to why it is notable. Crum375 23:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 02:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. Crazynas 02:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Its a US summer camp. Unless the article can explain, through the use of
    reliable third-party sources
    , how this summer camp is significantly different from the standard, run of the mill summer camp, there is nothing we can do that the camp's own site cannot do better. In addition - death to adspeak!
  • Delete, nn camp. --
    e Ong 04:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Well the average run of the mill summer camp often has its own article on wikipedia as well.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree the article needs to be rewritten so as to not read as a brochure, but this is a boys' camp that's existed for 80 years. --Leifern 12:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Campaign to delete all articles linked to one religion rubs me the wrong way. Why has the nom not indicated that this article previously survived AfD?. Camps should be covered here. -- JJay 13:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm concerned about this campaign to delete Jewish camps. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MPerel. Pecher Talk 20:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment article sounds like an ad. Rewrite it and I'll vote to keep. Homey 22:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Leifern and MPerel. Unfortunately, this article is part of a large group of articles that were recently nominated for deletion and about which there is at present much friction see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nomination by PZFUN, and Speedy keep of several articles by Slimvirgin, so it would be advisable for this nomination to be withdrawn entirely ASAP. IZAK 22:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As noted by others above, this delete request is part of a rampage to delete Jewish-related articles. If it is a stub, then expand it. Perhaps there could also be a merge with other pages on Jewish summer camps into a general article on Jewish summer camps and how they are different from "run-of-the-mill" US summer camps (i.e., their role in ethnic identify of Jews, history re: Jews being not welcome and/or proselytized by Christians in other summer camps, use of Hebrew and Yiddish languages at these camps, etc.) But simply deleting all Jewish summer camps as "not notable" smacks of a hidden agenda against Jews. Rooster613 23:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Rooster613Rooster613 23:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll vote keep due to the camp's venerability but I disagree with the suggestions that the nominator was on some sort of anti-Semitic rampage. A) he's part Jewish b) it seems he was starting out cleaning out stubs and happened to be doing so in one of the Jewish subcats. He may have overreacted to IZAK's taking him to task and nominated some articles that do not merit deletion but this is quite different from being anti-Semitic.Homey 23:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever the nom's motivations, I would advise him to read
    Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point- because that's how it looks when this many noms on the same subject come in at the same time. -- JJay 00:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    To accuse someone of disruption to make a point, you will first have show the disruption and then you will have to show the point. Go ahead? Kim Bruning 00:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point completely escapes me. The distruption has been fairly obvious. -- JJay 00:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, you cannot show that the nescesary conditions for a
WP:POINT violation have been met. While we could discuss the merits of an accusation of disruption, that's now moot. Kim Bruning 01:41, 22 May 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 - Izehar 21:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cat head biscuits

Was tagged for speedy deletion, but it doesn't meet any speedy criteria. Could be deleted as a dicdef, though. No vote.

chat} 23:40, 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 - Izehar 20:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ivann E. Greene

The article does not assert why this public servant is notable abakharev 23:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: "Assistant Deputy Secretary of the CA Department of Veterans Affairs" is not notable -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable, "wife and kids in high school" vanity. --Quarl 01:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --NeoJustin 05:26, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn-bio, tho would support userfying to the article creator's userpage. --Syrthiss 13:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per Syrthiss. Stifle 00:54, 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 speedy delete (A7).

chat} 06:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Holding the Current

nn band. unsigned, couldn't find any records, and no allmusic entry Pboyd04 23:22, 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 - Izehar 20:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crippled crack babies

Tagged as speedy, but this isn't speedyable as the article includes an assertion of notability ("underground smash") so I've brought this here. CLW 23:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as I originally tagged it for that, nn music group with 0 google hits that have anything to do with them when searching for "Crippled crack babies" or "CCB crew" and no amg entry. I don't think an underground smash hit can exist, since a smash hit wouldn't stay underground for very long. No sightings on the supposed smash hit "Simone 2001" on google either. - Bobet 00:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possible A7 candidate as well. --CastAStone 00:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable band. 7 Google hits including Wikipedia pages. BTW,
    underground rap has a specific meaning. (I nominated another band page due to it also being described as an "underground rap group", but later withdrew nomination) --Quarl 01:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. --NeoJustin 05:25, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, don't know if it's speediable but it's unverifiable and failing
    WP:MUSIC at a bare minimum. Stifle 00:54, 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 - Izehar 20:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Compilations and Other Albums

Was tagged for speedy delete with the reason "These are all dupes of things linked to from

chat} 23:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_27&oldid=1081091935"